The RIAA actually is hurting (some) from filesharing. Most people are as happy with a burned MP3 as they are the original quality song, whereas nobody would seriously miss a good theathre movie just because they had a really crappy camcorder copy they can watch on their TV.
Yes, but what if the quality of camcorder recordings increases, because, I don't know, camcorders improve all the time? What if that follow-up to last year's multimillion dollar blockbuster somehow gets transfered from reel to harddisk by a disgruntled theater employee, who subsequently releases his near-perfect copy onto the Internet for everyone to share? In other words: what if the quality, or ease of distribution, of 'pirated' movies reaches a level that most people are happy to put up with?
Personally, I think the MPAA faces the same problem as the RIAA, or it will pretty soon. I fear that certain aspects of this problem pose an even bigger threat to the MPAA than the RIAA, and may even adversely affect us, the end consumers. When you go to a live concert (still the primary source of income for a lot of music artists, from what I've been told), that experience is almost impossible to duplicate. It involves a shared experience with hundreds or even thousands of other fans, reacting to - and, to a degree, interacting with - the artists and their music. For movies, it's slightly different. A lot of them can be equally appreciated in a movie theater or from a home entertainment system. It depends on the type of movie; I've found that some emotional or thought-provoking films are better viewed at home, while other mindless blockbuster FX movies require as large a screen as possible.
My fear is that if movie piracy becomes too easy and too commonplace, Hollywood will limit itself to producing mostly mindless FX blockbusters, because those are still best viewed in theaters. You can watch a grainy VCD rip of The Blair Witch Project on your PC monitor in the dark at night and find that it actually adds to the experience, but you can't do the same with Terminator 3 or Matrix Reloaded without losing some of the atmosphere.
I guess I don't really have a point, or an answer to any of this. I just don't think it's as clear-cut as a lot of the posters here present it, and I do have some concerns about the long-term effects on movie quality in general.
Being a parttime Linux user myself I thought the article made some valid points, so I'm a bit disappointed about the reactions here one Slashdot. It's strange how most of the pro-Linux comments in this thread fall into one of three categories:
1) They point to the overall vagueness of the article as a sign that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, suggesting that he is unqualified and his experiences shouldn't be taken too seriously. You might as well apply this to any user you don't agree with, or can't be bothered to listen to.
2) They point out that Windows isn't without flaws either. Well, of course it isn't. Why do you think the author chose to look at the viability of Linux as an alternative in the first place? People are constantly looking for improvements over the status quo. The point is that the Linux distro tested in the article doesn't offer this improvement (yet), either.
3) They believe that Linux shouldn't try to emulate Windows, or compete for end user desktops with Windows, because the two systems are fundamentally different and are intended for different use(r)s. This, to me, seems the most valid argument.
However, it may also reveal a rift within the Linux community itself. One part of the community acknowledges that each operating system has a different purpose, choosing to focus on better achieving that particular purpose, while the other (sometimes obsessively) focuses on the inferiority of Windows and its users, essentially claiming that Linux is the only operating system a computer needs.
Well, you can't have it both ways. If Linux, its developers and distributors want to gain a foothold in the mainstream business/desktop market, they'll have to play along and emulate Windows to some degree - because a lot of end users have come to expect Windows-like functionality from their operating system. In the absence of this functionality, Windows is still the best choice of system for many users, and some of the pro-Linux/anti-Windows fanatics in here would do well to acknowledge that.
Lots of good tips in here. College is behind me now, but I had almost the exact same problem. In the end, I resorted to working exclusively at night; that way I wouldn't be interrupted by anyone and there wouldn't be any point in going out (except on weekends).
But please don't follow my example; it was hell on my social life (I'd be too tired to hang out with friends during the day) and it completely messed up my day/night rhythm. In fact, I'm still suffering from an unstable sleeping pattern to this day. It's gotten to the point where I can't pull an all-nighter or have a quick daytime nap without lapsing.
Just because some kids might use it to cheat does not give anyone the right to say "you have no right to even attempt to do something clever with this hardware.
Agreed. If you wish to turn it into a cheap PC, or an audio system, or a really expensive paperweight, obviously that's your business.
The problem is that an online service like Xbox Live, and pretty much networking in general, can turn it into my business as well. Therefore, I believe your right to tinker becomes less obvious when it begins to affect me. It doesn't have to be through cheating; someone might figure out a way to modify their Xbox so that it could infect other Xboxes and turn them into DDoS zombies, for example. Unlikely I admit, but it hardly seems less annoying than cheating in games.
I don't necessarily blame the hackers, or the programmers who were confident in Xbox's existing security measures. But I do blame the cheaters, if they indeed take advantage of recent developments.
However, I don't buy the argument that companies alone should take the blame for compromised security. Surely the hackers who worked tirelessly to defeat the (rather beefy, judging by some reports) security measures have to accept some responsibility for their own actions? It's different when they're merely pointing out security flaws rather than exploiting them, but that's not what happened here.
In the case of Microsoft, they provided a pretty nice product, and for the longest time it didn't seem like anyone was able to hack it (other than with modchips, which are detectable to Xbox Live), so I voted with my money by buying an Xbox. I'm still glad I did because I'm getting a lot of enjoyment out of it, but I wonder how much longer Xbox Live will be safe.
Maybe you've never experienced how frustrating it is to play online games against cheaters. Maybe you just don't care about games that much, and you think they're for kids, and therefore you tell me to grow up.
But I'm passionate about games, and I've invested in an Xbox, a sound system, an Xbox Live subscription, and a number of online titles to celebrate that fact. The possibility that my investment will be wasted because some hackers wanted a cheap PC and inadvertently left the door open for cheaters - well, it scares me.
The EFF's Fred von Lohmann made an interesting point in the article:
"Others will say that this is about piracy and all that, but they forget that the principle of tinkering with the stuff that you own was the principle on which the entire personal computer industry was founded," he added. "This is basic business and basic science in the technology world and we think that this right to tinker, this freedom to tinker, remains legally protected."
While I certainly believe in the right to tinker with an Xbox you paid for and use by yourself, I see a shady area when it comes to interaction with other (unmodified) Xboxes - like on Xbox Live. I'm talking about cheating here, but I think the same can be applied to use of compromised software in an online environment.
Online PC games have been plagued by cheating players since day one, because of the ease with which their client software can be modified. Xbox Live does not have this problem yet (so far cheaters have been exploiting existing flaws in Xbox games), but I fear this will not last for much longer if easy, modchip-less Xbox hacks become commonplace.
Which brings me to my point: just how far should your right to tinker extend? What if it interferes with my enjoyment of the product? Especially since I paid for the product too, and I'm using it for its intended purposes while you're not?
This is one of the main concerns of many Xbox Live users like myself, and I haven't seen this issue addressed properly by either the media or the Xbox hackers. Can anyone enlighten me? How do Xbox hackers feel about this matter? Are they taking it into consideration?
No, no, what Sabalon meant was that sleeve designs for certain cheap DVDs seem to deliberately mimic the style of their big-budget equivalents, thus potentially causing confusion among customers. For instance, parents doing some last-minute Christmas shopping might accidentally buy the wrong Pocahontas movie for their kids because they're too rushed or uninformed to distinguish it from the "real" thing.
I can see how this problem might increase somewhat if the copyrights on, say, older Disney characters and movies expires. Every two-bit company praying on the gullibility of customers can put a crappy derivative work out there with a sleeve design strongly resembling that of the original. It would leave a lot of confused parents and a lot of disappointed kids on Christmas, I'll tell you.
However, clear, upfront company branding ("Look for the official Disney logo!") can straighten this sort of thing out quickly. Anyone who's ever shopped for toys knows that there are plenty of me-too knockoffs out there - but they never bear any official marks or logos outside the telltale "(c) made in china". In other words, if the market is flooded by seemingly identical products, established brand names and company logos can serve as a seal of quality. And increased brand awareness among customers is never a bad thing for companies.
I suspect the real danger comes from something else Sabalon mentions: companies abusing their own brand popularity to sell related, but inferior (or simply different) products. For instance, in my country the Spider-Man cartoon DVD was released simultaneously with the Spider-Man movie DVD. Of course it's nice that true Spider-Man fans are able to own both, but at the time this had a lot of potential for confusion, and the sleeve design of the cartoon DVD didn't help matters.
Copying files to an Xbox memory card is possible with cheat systems like Action Replay. The CodeJunkies.com website already hosts a number of Xbox save files for use with the Xbox version of Action Replay, so my guess is it's not impossible to use their device for non-save data as well.
I used to do that too. The music wasn't bad, but the sound was just so much more atmospheric when you turned off the songs. My character would be hiding from one of those crazed protocol droids, behind a storage unit, listening for their mindless banter, or the mechanical whirr of a security camera... Listening...
"AH! THERE YOU ARE, SIR!"
And then I would jump back from my desk because I had forgotten that once in a while those damn droids fall silent and sneak up on you. By the time I finished playing, even the somewhat disappointing endgame couldn't diminish my admiration for System Shock 2.
Oh, and when I found out what had become of the nurses... Not even the personal logs could prepare me.
I believe true classics are usually the games that leave you with great anecdotes once you've finished playing them. Things that you enthusiastically tell to your friends, even though they probably have no idea what you're talking about.
Having said that, one of the most intense moments I ever experienced wasn't with an 'officially' sanctioned classic - it was the PC version of Aliens Versus Predator. I remember it like it was yesterday...
[cue harp music/wavy video effect]
I'd gotten really far in that level where you encounter the Predator in the hangar bay. The savegame patch hadn't come out yet and I was down to my last 40 bullets, plus two grenades. It had taken me five tries to get this far, so needless to say I was a little on edge. As I rounded the corner into another half-lit corridor, I spotted two xenomorphs clinging to the ceiling. I was about to dispatch them with my autorifle when suddenly, an enormous Praetorian appeared at the end of the corridor, racing towards me. Almost simultaneously my motion detector went haywire, and I heard a cacophony of screeching, snarling noises coming from behind me. I was trapped! Desperation crept over me as I dashed towards the oncoming Praetorian, emptying the remaining rounds into its head while firing a grenade at the xenomorphs on the ceiling. The explosion splattered their acidic remains all over me as I ran past the dazed Praetorian, but I couldn't afford to slow down - the pursuing xenomorphs were almost on top of me! I raced towards the end of the corridor and into the hangar bay, frantically hitting the door switch to the right in the hope that it might contain the xenomorphs. Through the combined miracles of technology and reinforced steel, it did. I was safe--
But that's when I saw it.
Just above the door switch, and moving towards my head, was something that made my skin crawl: a triangle of little red dots. Laser guidance dots. There was a bright flash as I jumped away from the switch, and in that instant I could see the hangar bay very clearly: test rockets everywhere, the ghostly silhouette of a predator moving among them, and in the back... two deactivated sentry guns. My only chance! I fired my last grenade into the rocket closest to the predator, causing a huge explosion that short-circuited his optic camouflage. At the same time, I ran for the sentry guns at the other side of the hangar, hoping the predator would be too disoriented to respond. As it turned out, he had other things on his mind - like the seemingly endless flood of xenomorphs pouring through the ceiling hatches and bay doors. I could hear the clicking, scratching sound of their nails on the metal floors, I heard the Predator scream with rage, I reached the first sentrygun, hit the activation switch, ran towards the other--
And then it was all over.
As the first sentry gun roared to life, it started firing indiscriminately into the writhing mass of xenomorphs on top of the predator. Bullets struck the remaining rockets, causing a chain of explosions that seemed to last an eternity. The surviving xenomorphs lunged at my hiding place behind the sentry gun, but they were caught in mid-air by a hail of bulletfire so intense it almost seemed to keep them suspended as it ripped them apart. Then everything fell silent.
I looked around, looked at my motion detector. Nothing. Shrapnel and alien remains were all that was left of the hangar bay. My heart was racing and my ears were ringing, but I had survived. With three percent health and no ammo left, I prepared for the second half of the mission...
[cue harp music/wavy video effect again]
See what I mean? My memory may have colored in some details here and there, but even so, you still have no idea what I'm talking about!
(Side note: one might argue that GTA is not based on actual recent events, and therefore not as morally repugnant. Even so, for many people outside the gaming hobby, this distinction will seem trivial.)
What I'm trying to say is that - although free market economics might deem an Operation Iraqi Freedom game viable - the developers should still consider whether it is in good taste. My personal belief is that it isn't, but like you said, I won't buy something that offends me. However, the publishers should at least consider the impact of the content they are releasing. If they choose to release the game anyway is up to them, but at least they've given it serious thought.
To me, many publishers (including Rockstar Games of GTA fame) are giving off a bit of a "if it sells we'll release it" vibe, and this lack of self-control - or self-censorship, if you must - in the gaming industry has me worried. I believe the question about the boundaries of entertainment should be asked and asked again, if only to keep our conscience in check.
I think a video game company, like all other media, has the ability (and some might argue, responsibility) to provide people with diversions from their own lives and focus on more universal concerns (even things like aliens invading, or killing demons). In this case, I would think it's almost unethical NOT to make a game based on the war. People seem to enjoy something about the war, whether protesting against it, advocating for it, or just watching it all unfold.
But aren't you afraid that this war will be regarded as nothing more than a 'diversion from their own lives' by people if a game based on it is released so soon? This war is REAL, and the consequences are still being suffered by people as we type. I do NOT enjoy this war, or protesting against it, in fact the idea of an entire nation disagreeing with my view of reality keeps me up at night.
But that's beside the point. I think game companies don't have a responsibility to make us focus on more universal concerns. Quite the opposite, in fact: their primary goal is simply to entertain. The real question is whether entertainment should have boundaries. Is a mass murder FPS acceptable? How about a rape simulator? Or a kiddie porn strategy game? I believe deriving entertainment from a tragedy, especially one still fresh in the memories of its victims, is in poor taste. And for many Iraqis, this war DID result in tragedy. One that isn't over yet, and won't be for some time.
The best war games are those where both armies were basically equal strength, and had to rely on tactics instead of raw power.
Hear, hear. Even ignoring the issue of 'how soon is too soon?', Operation Iraqi Freedom was such an unbalanced war that any game based on it could hardly be called challenging - unless the challenge was derived from secondary objectives, such as keeping casualties to a minimum or remaining undetected.
Either way, the bulk of the Iraqi forces consisted of ordinary men whose own lives (as well as that of their families) were under threat from Saddam's regime. Any game in which players are rewarded for killing or capturing those soldiers, in some cases ensuring the massacre of their families, hardly seems in good taste.
Perhaps equally important is this: the war isn't officially over, the debate about whether it was justified is still raging, the victims are still grieving and the effects on the future of Iraq - let alone the entire Middle East - are still unsure at this point. When we play games based on World War II, we already know the full outcome of the war, and we (well, most of us anyway) feel that this outcome is worth fighting for. That simply isn't the case yet with Iraq.
Good point. And if the new, democratically-elected Iraqi government votes to raise the per-barrel prices to OPEC levels, the CIA can simply overthrow it and put another dictator in charge, just like they did with Iran!
(Of course, the US will probably build safeguards into the Iraqi voting system to ensure that it will never come that far. The last thing they want is another Turkey, voting against US troop placement even in the face of losing substantial financial aid.)
Long live the free people of the new, democratic Iraq!
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
Awww, you big patriotic troll you... And you wonder why some people react with terrorism?
Threaten our autonomy, threaten our culture, threaten OUR way of life, and we will go to terrible lengths to return the favor. If the U.S. had bothered to consider 9/11 a symptom, not a disease in itself, it could have avoided this slow erosion of freedoms. Instead, with every bombing raid more and more potential terrorists are created - forcing your once-free country to become a paranoid police state.
I can see how Microsoft keeping control of subscriptions might make the Xbox Live service less appealing to publishers trying to set up an elaborate MMORPG, but as for 'normal' multiplayer games like Unreal Championship - why not? If it significantly enhances the game (and therefore, theoretically at least, makes the game more appealing to consumers) why not build in Xbox Live multiplayer support? Are the development and server maintenance costs higher than, say, building in multiplayer functionality in an average PC game?
Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG?
on
Real DRM
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The codecs and the file format itself are open, true, but anyone (including RealWhatsitsface) can do whatever they like with the files once those have been created. So it's perfectly legal to compress, wrap, distribute or even sell the files themselves. However, Vorbis-encoded files with a DRM wrapper probably can't retain the OGG format extension, as this would cause unnecessary confusion and player incompatibilities.
Re:I'd only point out that. . .
on
Tai Chi Robots
·
· Score: 2
You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course someone who only practices martial arts movements will lose to a boxer or an untrained fighter who's actually been in a few scraps. The reverse also applies; a boxer who's only practiced on a punching bag will lose to a martial artist who's actually been in a ring or an actual fight.
*That's* where you get to prove what you've learned, and that's where - theoretically at least, but I've seen it in practice, regardless of whether you believe me or not - an experienced martial artist will always have an advantage over an experienced boxer of the same weight class.
You don't even need fancy flying or spinning kicks; a good sweep or a kick to the knees is easy enough, and something that the boxer doesn't train for.
Does anyone really think that this will change the alleged minds of doubters?
As they say - cogito, ergo sum. What would happen if you challenged the doubters to prove that they did in fact have minds, then started calling their evidence 'doctored'? Would they disappear in a poof of their own logic?
Slashdot Mirror
Small correction: Vorbis is for audio, Ogg is the moniker for a suite of codecs from Xiph, including video and speech-specific compression.
Yes, but what if the quality of camcorder recordings increases, because, I don't know, camcorders improve all the time? What if that follow-up to last year's multimillion dollar blockbuster somehow gets transfered from reel to harddisk by a disgruntled theater employee, who subsequently releases his near-perfect copy onto the Internet for everyone to share? In other words: what if the quality, or ease of distribution, of 'pirated' movies reaches a level that most people are happy to put up with?
Personally, I think the MPAA faces the same problem as the RIAA, or it will pretty soon. I fear that certain aspects of this problem pose an even bigger threat to the MPAA than the RIAA, and may even adversely affect us, the end consumers. When you go to a live concert (still the primary source of income for a lot of music artists, from what I've been told), that experience is almost impossible to duplicate. It involves a shared experience with hundreds or even thousands of other fans, reacting to - and, to a degree, interacting with - the artists and their music. For movies, it's slightly different. A lot of them can be equally appreciated in a movie theater or from a home entertainment system. It depends on the type of movie; I've found that some emotional or thought-provoking films are better viewed at home, while other mindless blockbuster FX movies require as large a screen as possible.
My fear is that if movie piracy becomes too easy and too commonplace, Hollywood will limit itself to producing mostly mindless FX blockbusters, because those are still best viewed in theaters. You can watch a grainy VCD rip of The Blair Witch Project on your PC monitor in the dark at night and find that it actually adds to the experience, but you can't do the same with Terminator 3 or Matrix Reloaded without losing some of the atmosphere.
I guess I don't really have a point, or an answer to any of this. I just don't think it's as clear-cut as a lot of the posters here present it, and I do have some concerns about the long-term effects on movie quality in general.
Being a parttime Linux user myself I thought the article made some valid points, so I'm a bit disappointed about the reactions here one Slashdot. It's strange how most of the pro-Linux comments in this thread fall into one of three categories:
1) They point to the overall vagueness of the article as a sign that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, suggesting that he is unqualified and his experiences shouldn't be taken too seriously. You might as well apply this to any user you don't agree with, or can't be bothered to listen to.
2) They point out that Windows isn't without flaws either. Well, of course it isn't. Why do you think the author chose to look at the viability of Linux as an alternative in the first place? People are constantly looking for improvements over the status quo. The point is that the Linux distro tested in the article doesn't offer this improvement (yet), either.
3) They believe that Linux shouldn't try to emulate Windows, or compete for end user desktops with Windows, because the two systems are fundamentally different and are intended for different use(r)s. This, to me, seems the most valid argument.
However, it may also reveal a rift within the Linux community itself. One part of the community acknowledges that each operating system has a different purpose, choosing to focus on better achieving that particular purpose, while the other (sometimes obsessively) focuses on the inferiority of Windows and its users, essentially claiming that Linux is the only operating system a computer needs.
Well, you can't have it both ways. If Linux, its developers and distributors want to gain a foothold in the mainstream business/desktop market, they'll have to play along and emulate Windows to some degree - because a lot of end users have come to expect Windows-like functionality from their operating system. In the absence of this functionality, Windows is still the best choice of system for many users, and some of the pro-Linux/anti-Windows fanatics in here would do well to acknowledge that.
Lots of good tips in here. College is behind me now, but I had almost the exact same problem. In the end, I resorted to working exclusively at night; that way I wouldn't be interrupted by anyone and there wouldn't be any point in going out (except on weekends).
But please don't follow my example; it was hell on my social life (I'd be too tired to hang out with friends during the day) and it completely messed up my day/night rhythm. In fact, I'm still suffering from an unstable sleeping pattern to this day. It's gotten to the point where I can't pull an all-nighter or have a quick daytime nap without lapsing.
Agreed. If you wish to turn it into a cheap PC, or an audio system, or a really expensive paperweight, obviously that's your business.
The problem is that an online service like Xbox Live, and pretty much networking in general, can turn it into my business as well. Therefore, I believe your right to tinker becomes less obvious when it begins to affect me. It doesn't have to be through cheating; someone might figure out a way to modify their Xbox so that it could infect other Xboxes and turn them into DDoS zombies, for example. Unlikely I admit, but it hardly seems less annoying than cheating in games.
I don't necessarily blame the hackers, or the programmers who were confident in Xbox's existing security measures. But I do blame the cheaters, if they indeed take advantage of recent developments.
However, I don't buy the argument that companies alone should take the blame for compromised security. Surely the hackers who worked tirelessly to defeat the (rather beefy, judging by some reports) security measures have to accept some responsibility for their own actions? It's different when they're merely pointing out security flaws rather than exploiting them, but that's not what happened here.
In the case of Microsoft, they provided a pretty nice product, and for the longest time it didn't seem like anyone was able to hack it (other than with modchips, which are detectable to Xbox Live), so I voted with my money by buying an Xbox. I'm still glad I did because I'm getting a lot of enjoyment out of it, but I wonder how much longer Xbox Live will be safe.
Maybe you've never experienced how frustrating it is to play online games against cheaters. Maybe you just don't care about games that much, and you think they're for kids, and therefore you tell me to grow up.
But I'm passionate about games, and I've invested in an Xbox, a sound system, an Xbox Live subscription, and a number of online titles to celebrate that fact. The possibility that my investment will be wasted because some hackers wanted a cheap PC and inadvertently left the door open for cheaters - well, it scares me.
The EFF's Fred von Lohmann made an interesting point in the article:
While I certainly believe in the right to tinker with an Xbox you paid for and use by yourself, I see a shady area when it comes to interaction with other (unmodified) Xboxes - like on Xbox Live. I'm talking about cheating here, but I think the same can be applied to use of compromised software in an online environment.
Online PC games have been plagued by cheating players since day one, because of the ease with which their client software can be modified. Xbox Live does not have this problem yet (so far cheaters have been exploiting existing flaws in Xbox games), but I fear this will not last for much longer if easy, modchip-less Xbox hacks become commonplace.
Which brings me to my point: just how far should your right to tinker extend? What if it interferes with my enjoyment of the product? Especially since I paid for the product too, and I'm using it for its intended purposes while you're not?
This is one of the main concerns of many Xbox Live users like myself, and I haven't seen this issue addressed properly by either the media or the Xbox hackers. Can anyone enlighten me? How do Xbox hackers feel about this matter? Are they taking it into consideration?
No, no, what Sabalon meant was that sleeve designs for certain cheap DVDs seem to deliberately mimic the style of their big-budget equivalents, thus potentially causing confusion among customers. For instance, parents doing some last-minute Christmas shopping might accidentally buy the wrong Pocahontas movie for their kids because they're too rushed or uninformed to distinguish it from the "real" thing.
I can see how this problem might increase somewhat if the copyrights on, say, older Disney characters and movies expires. Every two-bit company praying on the gullibility of customers can put a crappy derivative work out there with a sleeve design strongly resembling that of the original. It would leave a lot of confused parents and a lot of disappointed kids on Christmas, I'll tell you.
However, clear, upfront company branding ("Look for the official Disney logo!") can straighten this sort of thing out quickly. Anyone who's ever shopped for toys knows that there are plenty of me-too knockoffs out there - but they never bear any official marks or logos outside the telltale "(c) made in china". In other words, if the market is flooded by seemingly identical products, established brand names and company logos can serve as a seal of quality. And increased brand awareness among customers is never a bad thing for companies.
I suspect the real danger comes from something else Sabalon mentions: companies abusing their own brand popularity to sell related, but inferior (or simply different) products. For instance, in my country the Spider-Man cartoon DVD was released simultaneously with the Spider-Man movie DVD. Of course it's nice that true Spider-Man fans are able to own both, but at the time this had a lot of potential for confusion, and the sleeve design of the cartoon DVD didn't help matters.
GameSpy recently ran a feature called The 25 Dumbest Moments In Gaming. The Universal vs. Nintendo infringement suit made it to number 20. They discuss it here.
Copying files to an Xbox memory card is possible with cheat systems like Action Replay. The CodeJunkies.com website already hosts a number of Xbox save files for use with the Xbox version of Action Replay, so my guess is it's not impossible to use their device for non-save data as well.
I used to do that too. The music wasn't bad, but the sound was just so much more atmospheric when you turned off the songs. My character would be hiding from one of those crazed protocol droids, behind a storage unit, listening for their mindless banter, or the mechanical whirr of a security camera... Listening...
"AH! THERE YOU ARE, SIR!"
And then I would jump back from my desk because I had forgotten that once in a while those damn droids fall silent and sneak up on you. By the time I finished playing, even the somewhat disappointing endgame couldn't diminish my admiration for System Shock 2.
Oh, and when I found out what had become of the nurses... Not even the personal logs could prepare me.
I believe true classics are usually the games that leave you with great anecdotes once you've finished playing them. Things that you enthusiastically tell to your friends, even though they probably have no idea what you're talking about.
Having said that, one of the most intense moments I ever experienced wasn't with an 'officially' sanctioned classic - it was the PC version of Aliens Versus Predator. I remember it like it was yesterday...
[cue harp music/wavy video effect]
I'd gotten really far in that level where you encounter the Predator in the hangar bay. The savegame patch hadn't come out yet and I was down to my last 40 bullets, plus two grenades. It had taken me five tries to get this far, so needless to say I was a little on edge. As I rounded the corner into another half-lit corridor, I spotted two xenomorphs clinging to the ceiling. I was about to dispatch them with my autorifle when suddenly, an enormous Praetorian appeared at the end of the corridor, racing towards me. Almost simultaneously my motion detector went haywire, and I heard a cacophony of screeching, snarling noises coming from behind me. I was trapped! Desperation crept over me as I dashed towards the oncoming Praetorian, emptying the remaining rounds into its head while firing a grenade at the xenomorphs on the ceiling. The explosion splattered their acidic remains all over me as I ran past the dazed Praetorian, but I couldn't afford to slow down - the pursuing xenomorphs were almost on top of me! I raced towards the end of the corridor and into the hangar bay, frantically hitting the door switch to the right in the hope that it might contain the xenomorphs. Through the combined miracles of technology and reinforced steel, it did. I was safe--
But that's when I saw it.
Just above the door switch, and moving towards my head, was something that made my skin crawl: a triangle of little red dots. Laser guidance dots. There was a bright flash as I jumped away from the switch, and in that instant I could see the hangar bay very clearly: test rockets everywhere, the ghostly silhouette of a predator moving among them, and in the back... two deactivated sentry guns. My only chance! I fired my last grenade into the rocket closest to the predator, causing a huge explosion that short-circuited his optic camouflage. At the same time, I ran for the sentry guns at the other side of the hangar, hoping the predator would be too disoriented to respond. As it turned out, he had other things on his mind - like the seemingly endless flood of xenomorphs pouring through the ceiling hatches and bay doors. I could hear the clicking, scratching sound of their nails on the metal floors, I heard the Predator scream with rage, I reached the first sentrygun, hit the activation switch, ran towards the other--
And then it was all over.
As the first sentry gun roared to life, it started firing indiscriminately into the writhing mass of xenomorphs on top of the predator. Bullets struck the remaining rockets, causing a chain of explosions that seemed to last an eternity. The surviving xenomorphs lunged at my hiding place behind the sentry gun, but they were caught in mid-air by a hail of bulletfire so intense it almost seemed to keep them suspended as it ripped them apart. Then everything fell silent.
I looked around, looked at my motion detector. Nothing. Shrapnel and alien remains were all that was left of the hangar bay. My heart was racing and my ears were ringing, but I had survived. With three percent health and no ammo left, I prepared for the second half of the mission...
[cue harp music/wavy video effect again]
See what I mean? My memory may have colored in some details here and there, but even so, you still have no idea what I'm talking about!
(Side note: one might argue that GTA is not based on actual recent events, and therefore not as morally repugnant. Even so, for many people outside the gaming hobby, this distinction will seem trivial.)
What I'm trying to say is that - although free market economics might deem an Operation Iraqi Freedom game viable - the developers should still consider whether it is in good taste. My personal belief is that it isn't, but like you said, I won't buy something that offends me. However, the publishers should at least consider the impact of the content they are releasing. If they choose to release the game anyway is up to them, but at least they've given it serious thought.
To me, many publishers (including Rockstar Games of GTA fame) are giving off a bit of a "if it sells we'll release it" vibe, and this lack of self-control - or self-censorship, if you must - in the gaming industry has me worried. I believe the question about the boundaries of entertainment should be asked and asked again, if only to keep our conscience in check.
But aren't you afraid that this war will be regarded as nothing more than a 'diversion from their own lives' by people if a game based on it is released so soon? This war is REAL, and the consequences are still being suffered by people as we type. I do NOT enjoy this war, or protesting against it, in fact the idea of an entire nation disagreeing with my view of reality keeps me up at night.
But that's beside the point. I think game companies don't have a responsibility to make us focus on more universal concerns. Quite the opposite, in fact: their primary goal is simply to entertain. The real question is whether entertainment should have boundaries. Is a mass murder FPS acceptable? How about a rape simulator? Or a kiddie porn strategy game? I believe deriving entertainment from a tragedy, especially one still fresh in the memories of its victims, is in poor taste. And for many Iraqis, this war DID result in tragedy. One that isn't over yet, and won't be for some time.
Hear, hear. Even ignoring the issue of 'how soon is too soon?', Operation Iraqi Freedom was such an unbalanced war that any game based on it could hardly be called challenging - unless the challenge was derived from secondary objectives, such as keeping casualties to a minimum or remaining undetected.
Either way, the bulk of the Iraqi forces consisted of ordinary men whose own lives (as well as that of their families) were under threat from Saddam's regime. Any game in which players are rewarded for killing or capturing those soldiers, in some cases ensuring the massacre of their families, hardly seems in good taste.
Perhaps equally important is this: the war isn't officially over, the debate about whether it was justified is still raging, the victims are still grieving and the effects on the future of Iraq - let alone the entire Middle East - are still unsure at this point. When we play games based on World War II, we already know the full outcome of the war, and we (well, most of us anyway) feel that this outcome is worth fighting for. That simply isn't the case yet with Iraq.
That would certainly help Mr. Bush in convincing the rest of the world of the legitimacy of this war.
Good point. And if the new, democratically-elected Iraqi government votes to raise the per-barrel prices to OPEC levels, the CIA can simply overthrow it and put another dictator in charge, just like they did with Iran!
(Of course, the US will probably build safeguards into the Iraqi voting system to ensure that it will never come that far. The last thing they want is another Turkey, voting against US troop placement even in the face of losing substantial financial aid.)
Long live the free people of the new, democratic Iraq!
Awww, you big patriotic troll you... And you wonder why some people react with terrorism?
Threaten our autonomy, threaten our culture, threaten OUR way of life, and we will go to terrible lengths to return the favor. If the U.S. had bothered to consider 9/11 a symptom, not a disease in itself, it could have avoided this slow erosion of freedoms. Instead, with every bombing raid more and more potential terrorists are created - forcing your once-free country to become a paranoid police state.
I can see how Microsoft keeping control of subscriptions might make the Xbox Live service less appealing to publishers trying to set up an elaborate MMORPG, but as for 'normal' multiplayer games like Unreal Championship - why not? If it significantly enhances the game (and therefore, theoretically at least, makes the game more appealing to consumers) why not build in Xbox Live multiplayer support? Are the development and server maintenance costs higher than, say, building in multiplayer functionality in an average PC game?
The codecs and the file format itself are open, true, but anyone (including RealWhatsitsface) can do whatever they like with the files once those have been created. So it's perfectly legal to compress, wrap, distribute or even sell the files themselves. However, Vorbis-encoded files with a DRM wrapper probably can't retain the OGG format extension, as this would cause unnecessary confusion and player incompatibilities.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course someone who only practices martial arts movements will lose to a boxer or an untrained fighter who's actually been in a few scraps. The reverse also applies; a boxer who's only practiced on a punching bag will lose to a martial artist who's actually been in a ring or an actual fight.
*That's* where you get to prove what you've learned, and that's where - theoretically at least, but I've seen it in practice, regardless of whether you believe me or not - an experienced martial artist will always have an advantage over an experienced boxer of the same weight class.
You don't even need fancy flying or spinning kicks; a good sweep or a kick to the knees is easy enough, and something that the boxer doesn't train for.
Seriously, though. None of you ever built these contraptions when you were a kid? I mean, not even once? Come on!
Uh... Me neither. Just-- just checking, you know. (shuffles away quietly)
As they say - cogito, ergo sum. What would happen if you challenged the doubters to prove that they did in fact have minds, then started calling their evidence 'doctored'? Would they disappear in a poof of their own logic?