and starts playing a tape of you acting interrested
I'd do one that just went... "Hello? Hello?... Hello?... Can you speak up? Hello?... Sorry, the phone doesn't seem to be working, could you try calling back? Hello?". Then see how many times the person calls back. =)
Hmmm... there goes my automated video game reservation messages, my Blockbuster overdue messages, automated messages from companies telling us our product has shipped, and any other ligitimate and useful automated phone message you might receive for appointments, etc.
Option to "Reopen Closed tabs" in IE - This will be addressed via "Are you sure you want to close this tab?"
I'd have to comment that this is the path of least resistance/thinking and not the best usability solution. "Click through" of pop-up messages has become common. Everyone's probably had that "oops" experience where they clicked on something out of muscle reflex.
Taking this to the web design concept and comparing it with some readings I did, particularly of Gmail and the world of web 2.0, the rule goes, don't offer any function to a user that cannot be 'undone'. When you delete, move or do some action in Gmail (at least most of the time this is true), you will be presented with a highlighted box on the page that says "Undo recent change".
Likewise with browser tabs, I feel it would be much more user friendly to simply add an 'undo' button instead of the annoying pop-up that will have to include the 'check hear to always do this' box. A lot of people will click on the "always do this" box and now you've just defeated the whole purpose of adding that pop-up and you won't save a person from quickly recovering their tab if they spasm click away their tab windows (which can happen to me in Firefox when I'm quickly trying to close a few tabs).
However, a small unobtrusive 'undo' button, that will reload a tab to to the URL you last had open would go much farther in usability than a) annoying people with pop-ups (haven't we learned from one of Vista's infamous stereotypes?) b) allow quick recovery of errors, which is what we're really after. This interface device can be learned from web interfaces and I wish I could remember where I read this to give proper credit, but it's not my original idea, I just support it.
[Yahoo] are more interested in getting some traction in a new market rather than being good human beings.
The sad thing is that it doesn't matter what Yahoo! (or any other American company) does to gain market share in China, it can all swiftly be taken away should they anger the wrong person.
Target is a big box retail often found in the same cities as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, ShopKo, etc. and games stores like GameStop/EBGames, etc. No big deal if they pull them. Consumers will just walk next-door and pick it up. Now, if Wal-Mart pulled it, that would be something because a LOT of those other stores will follow Wal-Marts lead when they do things.
It's just more copies for the stores that are selling them.
gah, I forgot to mention, another great thing is always having a map at the ready and being able to use it to write notes or even needing it to solve puzzles or find treasure (mark the location of each item 'x' and draw lines connecting them to find where you should dig).
This Zelda game has been one of the more enjoyable Zelda's I've played in a while. It's style brought back a lot of "classic" Zelda feelings. It's not worth a perfect score, but I feel it was much better than "Twilight Princess" and hands-down worth buying* (if you liked the Wind-Waker).
The main reason? The DS Stylus. They new ways of doing things, with your weapons, really added a lot of flavor to the puzzles you could solve. There was a lot of use of the stylus that was just great stuff. Drawing lines to 'guide' a moving platform. Navigating your boat (fun for monster battles, something that could be drawn out more... pun intended). Holding the stylus down to aim your bow and releasing to shoot. Drawing your boomerangs path or the Bombchus. It really added a lot of 'new' to a pretty old franchise that has been getting stale for me because of the lack of different game play or puzzles.
Now, I would have preferred not having to run through all the same floors of the 'main' dungeon after defeating every new dungeon and getting a new toy, but I that's only a small annoyance. Also, I found the amount of "talking" to be unnecessary. Every time I wanted to get back on the ship, the Captain had to spout off on some dialog. Just get me back on the ship and screw the Vista-esque "Get on the ship? Yes or No?" Likewise, some travel could get old and long and could have been improved with some more warp-points.
If you hated the Wind-Waker, then you'd probably want to stay away from this game. Otherwise, this definitely is a "buy it" game recommendation.
I've was Netflix customer for a pretty good time. I was using it not long after they started. I then stopped and rejoined both Netflix and Blockbuster online at the same time. It was a good ability to see the difference. Long story short, I find I get much better use of money from Blockbuster. It use to be better, but they recently changed their subscription packages (less movies a month, higher cost, removed their free monthly coupon for movie/game). Still, it's a far better deal for me, why? I get about double the movies than Netflix.
For $30/month I get 3 movies at a time. Those 3 movies can then be returned at a local store for 3 free in-store rentals. Your next movies will be shipped the next day*. There's no shipping delay in shipping movies back. I receive movies pretty much within 1 business day of having shipped. That might be due to being only 3.5 hours from Chicago (by car), which is one of their hubs.
With that said, it's also only worth it if you have a local store near by. If you cannot trade your movies in for free rentals, it's just not worth it to Netflixs. Otherwise, comparing the "service" of both services is about the same. I've received the occasional wrong DVD from getting Disc 4 instead of Disc 2 or even just completely obscure random movie. I've also received completely cracked DVD's from both services. I don't mean scratched (those on occasion as well, more so from Netflix for some reason) but DVD's that where cracked in half, 2-pieces.
Other systems offered the ability for me to go online and just "report a problem" and they'll reship or ship another DVD the next day.
As for contacting. I find Netflix very difficult to contact or get a response from. I'm not the only one. Right now, I have a co-worker who's a big Netflix user while we often compare services and trade movie advice. I found that Blockbuster was a lot easier to contact. I've often contacted them about bugs on their website (as a web developer) and other misspellings or suggestions and usually get a nice thank you email with partially a copy/paste statement and part direct response from a person.
As for their website, Netflix is significantly better. It just runs a LOT better. I don't know how the hell programmed the Blockbuster Online one but it is ASS slow when trying to make updates to the Queue. I can say that their AJAX skills are NOT strong and they must be doing the slowest possible DOM operations to do something as simple as change a number ordering. It's slow in Firefox and IE7/6, so it's likely not browser specific. There recommendation system for Blockbuster online isn't as good either. Nor is their search functionality. It's not the worst, but it might take 2 search attempts to find what you're looking for.
For selection, Netflix is definitely better... better if you like obscure indie films. They're pretty much going to have any American film you could want, but if you start looking for foreign films and indie films, you might find that Blockbuster just doesn't have it.
On a side note, it IS annoying to get that stupid Blockbuster associate (that one that loves to talk too much and think it's some kind of excellent service) that insists that those with Blockbuster Online should sign up for the in-store package as well to spend another $/month to "get one more free movie". As he put it "People love to do it just for the free movie". Yeah, there was something wrong with that guy.
So sum it all up? Blockbuster is better for those with a local store near by, Netflix is better if it's really important to find some occasional obscure movies. The website performance is annoying but you will only spend a small amount of time on it to add a few things to your queue. I've been throttled by both companies in the past. I can say that with Blockbuster online, It's pretty common for me to rent 40+ movies a month for $30 (including in-store rentals). I've slowed down a bit now to about 33/month. However, actually paying the ridiculous prices they ask for at a brick/mortar BB store? No way. I'm not spending $5 for a one-night movie rental when there's other rental stores I can rent from for $1-2.
I beta tested it for a while, gave some input and found a bug or two (or so I thought). It's pretty much similar to WoW. You grab a bunch of quests and then step outside of the camp and kill some stuff, collect some stuff, and return to camp to cash in.
All in all, I didn't find it particularly engaging, but that was earlier in the beta. Things probably have improved since since then. Also, I think that MMO's are just out of favor with me, so it might be better than I state.
It's probably more of an excuse to move towards a "game license" system like other too well known software products. No longer will you own the game, you'll only own a license to play it on your machine and you'll have to continue to pay a monthly fee to play it. Sound familiar? Games will stop being on a disc and companies will start distributing them via download play only.
After all, the resale of their games really kills them. Sure, I pay $50-60 for a game but I can turn it around for $35-45, costing me about $15 to play. So, now, they can move to a download system (all the current gen consoles have internet connection, so I cannot see the next-gen skipping it and PC's have had it forever), so you can pay $10 for a game per month or something. There's probably a lot more people who will pay $10 to play a game in one month than who will buy a $60. This concept isn't too far from the Virtual console (and Live/PS3 store, though I have no experience with those).
I don't doubt that's coming soon. How good or bad it will be, my crystal ball is too foggy. There are also other business models that can come about like micro-transactions and ad. supported games. I wouldn't doubt these new business models being tried on on consoles in not too long.
If the guy's just saying "lets lower the cost of games!" then I'm all for it, but that's not very business savvy, so I know there's a catch.
If there is no such thing as a perfect game, when why the hell are you scoring out of 100? [...]The movie reviewers solved this problem a long time ago. That's why most adopted a simpler rating system in which a 4-star movie
Am I the only one who finds that comment just odd? While I can agree with you that the system is broken because there's no such thing at a "zero" rated game, but I do not see the difference between 100 points and 4 stars, besides it being simply "divided by 25". Then, of course, that's not good enough, so they start assigning 0.5 stars.
Also, I never considered "100/100" to be perfection, but as "supreme excellence" as noted. After, WTF is the difference between "supreme excellence" and "perfection"? Someone is just trying to argue semantics.
Of course, I don't even like the "four star" or 100 point numerical system. When I ask/tell people about a movie I simply say "Is it worth seeing in the theater?", "Is it worth a theater matinée?", "Is it a rental?" or "not worth your time, period".
In this sense, I saw the "Number 23" in the theater and I recommended that it was worth seeing in the theater. While "28 Weeks Later" was easily worth waiting for a rental (despite being a fan of "28 Days Later" and zombie films in general).
In that regards, I would say games should be rated as "buy it!", "rent it/demo it!", "stay away". (rent for console / Demo for PC games). Guitar Hero games are "buy it" games while something like Zelda:Twilight Princesses might be a "rent it" kind of game (I bought it, I'm a fan of Zelda, but still feel money better spent on a rental. I would not have given it 100/100 as some reviews did). World of Warcraft? "Buy it".
Of course, such a system needs a context. I'm not going to tell a FPS fan to buy an RPG, it's in the context of RPG fans.
True, but a 1-year subscription is 2x cheaper than a wifeless router.
I imagine the benefits of a wifeless router are far superior than any magazine subscription will net you. Where do I pick one up? Hehe, I can games for more than 10-mins without being nagged.
I've been seriously considering picking up a PS2 specifically for the purpose of wanting to play the Guitar Hero games.
I specifically picked up a used PS2 for Guitar Hero, about a year ago. It was definitely worth it. I still play it pretty often and always when there's a party.
Unfortunately, now that Harmonix has given up the GH franchise, I doubt it will get better from here.
I have some worries about GH:III due to this fact, but I'm still more than willing to give it a shot. The track list, at over 70 songs, is just simply killer and according to Wikipedia, it appears GH:III will have several new gameplay additions, particularly for competitive play, which really does sound like some nice touches.
Likewise, I'm actually MORE excited for Rock Band. I've only recently picked up Karaoke Revolution and really enjoy it. I can imagine adding Drums and 2-3 friends would really kick butt. Except... I only own a Wii and PS2. Rumors are they'll release a Wii version, but no concrete details and if and when. There's a PS2 version which I might just break-down and buy until a Wii version arrives (at whatever cost I'll loose by trading in the PS2 version). Though, I want to avoid the PS2 due to no downloads and I don't feel like dropping $400 for a 360/PS3 to buy a $200 game. So, I'm hoping GH:III will tide me over until more details on a Wii version arrive.
Why bother buying the box at gamestop when you can download directly from Valve for a cheaper price because it excludes taxes.
here are some reasons:
Resell credit : You can knock the price of the PC game to $0 if you trade-in some of your console games, which will have 0 tax because there's 0 value.
Physical media : You could burn the game files to a disc for backup, but that'll still cost that extra $1 or $2 for the blank media.
Faster : Multiple hours to download several GB's for a game vs 10mins to stop-in at a store on your way home. Instant gratification.
Printed literature : Not as common as before, but I use to enjoy the game manuals games included. Some games like Never Winter Nights would include maps or Titan's Quest, which included a nice fold-out ability tree.
Swag : Yes, some boxes have cute little pack-ins such as miniatures, etc. Might not get that if you download.
Store Discounts : Just like a manufacturer, a store can raise sales by having loss-leaders. Gamestop offered $5 off pre-ordered Orange boxes. I'm not sure how much Valve was charging for the "orange box" online, but I imagine it was MSRP. There's no way valve, even with Steam, can make up in higher margins what they'll loose in sales by going strictly download and hope they'll cannibalize retail sales for higher margin downloads.
Local support : Sometimes you just want to support your local store(s). Maybe it's a mom/pop shop (do those exist anymore?) or maybe the people are your local Gamestop are real cool, friendly, and offer services such as hooking you up with lots of free swag or Demo-disks. Making sure you get that popular copy of a game for being such a kick-ass customer. I've gotten plenty of beta keys and disks from my local boys, whom know me and I make sure I pre-order with them (so they get their sales credit).
Health : Walk to the bloody store and get some exercise tubby! =P No Seriously, depending on your location, of course, it can sometimes be nice to just take a walk and enjoy the fresh air. It can make the GF happy and you get a game to boot! Schweeet!
There's probably some other reasons but when it comes down too it, as a consumer, prices are not competitive for downloading and even with broadband, it can take time. Since I'm a gamer and I buy fun games, I always have some console games laying around to trade in. If I want a PC games, thats some extra money off that downloads will never be able to get, less Valve wants to buy my DS games. =) If it's 10pm on a Friday and the stores are closed, it's great to have a Download option if you have the urge. Downloading is not going to replace retail anytime soon, but it's a great compliment!
a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site. IE. Coca-Cola registering Pepsi.com and redirecting it to Coke.com. However, IANAL, and but they can probably convince some judge of part (iii) and (iv) below.
b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
As far as I am aware, what each of those lack (despite being useful, useable and successful, each, more or less), I think, is the big act/star power that a few bands the caliber of Radiohead would bring to such a venture.
Then it might be worth mentioning 10 Years is on Garageband.com. I don't recall their story, but I believe they won a Garageband contest to get a record deal. Though, I didn't know this until later... after I was hearing their music played on the local rock radio stations. The truth is actually exposure. Despite the public availability of Garageband (and other sites), the internet is a haystack that even if you know of a site, you still have to do a lot of digging to find your needle. It's just much easier (and probably a part of human nature) to take the path of least resistance and just turn the radio on and listen to what others think we want to listen too, which usually isn't bad, it's just not always very good.
the "Timesplitters" series, though not a blockbuster franchise, it's certainly more well received than Rares offerings over the last 5 years.
Sadly, TimeSplitters was and still is an excellent game series. The game play matches, or not passes, that of GoldenEye for the N64 and the story was super fun and humorous. Sadly, I never meet many people who knew this, despite them saying how much they loved GoldenEye.
Acknowledge. Which is why it would be only a temporary solution until they get it out on the Wii, which would hopefully have their download content sorted out by then. At which point, I'd trade in the PS2 version. Of course, it's interesting if they decide to release a PS2 "encore" disk(s) that contain the previously download only tracks. I could see that working.
All well and good, but the only news I want about Rock Band is information on when it's being released for the Wii. I was this close *holds two fingers together* at buying a 360 just to get this game but then the Harmonix CEO said they would "Absolutely" have a Wii version. So, I'm holding off until then.
If rabid Rock Band mania consumes me, I guess I'll pick it up for the PS2 until a Wii version is released.
This is unfortunate, though understandable given the many different SKUs that will be necessary to sell this beast piecemeal. I was, however, really looking forward to dueling drums on day one, and I'm not willing to buy two bundles to make that happen.
My understanding is that you can only get the game with the bundle pack. Peripherals will be sold separately as it seems the game will only come with 1 guitar and it's capable of being played with 2. If they're going to see the drums at the start, has yet to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd do one that just went... "Hello? Hello?... Hello?... Can you speak up? Hello?... Sorry, the phone doesn't seem to be working, could you try calling back? Hello?". Then see how many times the person calls back. =)
Hmmm... there goes my automated video game reservation messages, my Blockbuster overdue messages, automated messages from companies telling us our product has shipped, and any other ligitimate and useful automated phone message you might receive for appointments, etc.
I'd have to comment that this is the path of least resistance/thinking and not the best usability solution. "Click through" of pop-up messages has become common. Everyone's probably had that "oops" experience where they clicked on something out of muscle reflex.
Taking this to the web design concept and comparing it with some readings I did, particularly of Gmail and the world of web 2.0, the rule goes, don't offer any function to a user that cannot be 'undone'. When you delete, move or do some action in Gmail (at least most of the time this is true), you will be presented with a highlighted box on the page that says "Undo recent change".
Likewise with browser tabs, I feel it would be much more user friendly to simply add an 'undo' button instead of the annoying pop-up that will have to include the 'check hear to always do this' box. A lot of people will click on the "always do this" box and now you've just defeated the whole purpose of adding that pop-up and you won't save a person from quickly recovering their tab if they spasm click away their tab windows (which can happen to me in Firefox when I'm quickly trying to close a few tabs).
However, a small unobtrusive 'undo' button, that will reload a tab to to the URL you last had open would go much farther in usability than a) annoying people with pop-ups (haven't we learned from one of Vista's infamous stereotypes?) b) allow quick recovery of errors, which is what we're really after. This interface device can be learned from web interfaces and I wish I could remember where I read this to give proper credit, but it's not my original idea, I just support it.
Cheers,
Fozzy
The sad thing is that it doesn't matter what Yahoo! (or any other American company) does to gain market share in China, it can all swiftly be taken away should they anger the wrong person.
Target is a big box retail often found in the same cities as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, ShopKo, etc. and games stores like GameStop/EBGames, etc. No big deal if they pull them. Consumers will just walk next-door and pick it up. Now, if Wal-Mart pulled it, that would be something because a LOT of those other stores will follow Wal-Marts lead when they do things.
It's just more copies for the stores that are selling them.
Cheers,
Fozzy
gah, I forgot to mention, another great thing is always having a map at the ready and being able to use it to write notes or even needing it to solve puzzles or find treasure (mark the location of each item 'x' and draw lines connecting them to find where you should dig).
I agree.
This Zelda game has been one of the more enjoyable Zelda's I've played in a while. It's style brought back a lot of "classic" Zelda feelings. It's not worth a perfect score, but I feel it was much better than "Twilight Princess" and hands-down worth buying* (if you liked the Wind-Waker).
The main reason? The DS Stylus. They new ways of doing things, with your weapons, really added a lot of flavor to the puzzles you could solve. There was a lot of use of the stylus that was just great stuff. Drawing lines to 'guide' a moving platform. Navigating your boat (fun for monster battles, something that could be drawn out more... pun intended). Holding the stylus down to aim your bow and releasing to shoot. Drawing your boomerangs path or the Bombchus. It really added a lot of 'new' to a pretty old franchise that has been getting stale for me because of the lack of different game play or puzzles.
Now, I would have preferred not having to run through all the same floors of the 'main' dungeon after defeating every new dungeon and getting a new toy, but I that's only a small annoyance. Also, I found the amount of "talking" to be unnecessary. Every time I wanted to get back on the ship, the Captain had to spout off on some dialog. Just get me back on the ship and screw the Vista-esque "Get on the ship? Yes or No?" Likewise, some travel could get old and long and could have been improved with some more warp-points.
If you hated the Wind-Waker, then you'd probably want to stay away from this game. Otherwise, this definitely is a "buy it" game recommendation.
Cheers,
Fozzy
I've was Netflix customer for a pretty good time. I was using it not long after they started. I then stopped and rejoined both Netflix and Blockbuster online at the same time. It was a good ability to see the difference. Long story short, I find I get much better use of money from Blockbuster. It use to be better, but they recently changed their subscription packages (less movies a month, higher cost, removed their free monthly coupon for movie/game). Still, it's a far better deal for me, why? I get about double the movies than Netflix.
For $30/month I get 3 movies at a time. Those 3 movies can then be returned at a local store for 3 free in-store rentals. Your next movies will be shipped the next day*. There's no shipping delay in shipping movies back. I receive movies pretty much within 1 business day of having shipped. That might be due to being only 3.5 hours from Chicago (by car), which is one of their hubs.
With that said, it's also only worth it if you have a local store near by. If you cannot trade your movies in for free rentals, it's just not worth it to Netflixs. Otherwise, comparing the "service" of both services is about the same. I've received the occasional wrong DVD from getting Disc 4 instead of Disc 2 or even just completely obscure random movie. I've also received completely cracked DVD's from both services. I don't mean scratched (those on occasion as well, more so from Netflix for some reason) but DVD's that where cracked in half, 2-pieces.
Other systems offered the ability for me to go online and just "report a problem" and they'll reship or ship another DVD the next day.
As for contacting. I find Netflix very difficult to contact or get a response from. I'm not the only one. Right now, I have a co-worker who's a big Netflix user while we often compare services and trade movie advice. I found that Blockbuster was a lot easier to contact. I've often contacted them about bugs on their website (as a web developer) and other misspellings or suggestions and usually get a nice thank you email with partially a copy/paste statement and part direct response from a person.
As for their website, Netflix is significantly better. It just runs a LOT better. I don't know how the hell programmed the Blockbuster Online one but it is ASS slow when trying to make updates to the Queue. I can say that their AJAX skills are NOT strong and they must be doing the slowest possible DOM operations to do something as simple as change a number ordering. It's slow in Firefox and IE7/6, so it's likely not browser specific. There recommendation system for Blockbuster online isn't as good either. Nor is their search functionality. It's not the worst, but it might take 2 search attempts to find what you're looking for.
For selection, Netflix is definitely better... better if you like obscure indie films. They're pretty much going to have any American film you could want, but if you start looking for foreign films and indie films, you might find that Blockbuster just doesn't have it.
On a side note, it IS annoying to get that stupid Blockbuster associate (that one that loves to talk too much and think it's some kind of excellent service) that insists that those with Blockbuster Online should sign up for the in-store package as well to spend another $/month to "get one more free movie". As he put it "People love to do it just for the free movie". Yeah, there was something wrong with that guy.
So sum it all up? Blockbuster is better for those with a local store near by, Netflix is better if it's really important to find some occasional obscure movies. The website performance is annoying but you will only spend a small amount of time on it to add a few things to your queue. I've been throttled by both companies in the past. I can say that with Blockbuster online, It's pretty common for me to rent 40+ movies a month for $30 (including in-store rentals). I've slowed down a bit now to about 33/month. However, actually paying the ridiculous prices they ask for at a brick/mortar BB store? No way. I'm not spending $5 for a one-night movie rental when there's other rental stores I can rent from for $1-2.
Cheers,
Fozzy
I beta tested it for a while, gave some input and found a bug or two (or so I thought). It's pretty much similar to WoW. You grab a bunch of quests and then step outside of the camp and kill some stuff, collect some stuff, and return to camp to cash in.
All in all, I didn't find it particularly engaging, but that was earlier in the beta. Things probably have improved since since then. Also, I think that MMO's are just out of favor with me, so it might be better than I state.
Cheers,
Fozzy
It's probably more of an excuse to move towards a "game license" system like other too well known software products. No longer will you own the game, you'll only own a license to play it on your machine and you'll have to continue to pay a monthly fee to play it. Sound familiar? Games will stop being on a disc and companies will start distributing them via download play only.
After all, the resale of their games really kills them. Sure, I pay $50-60 for a game but I can turn it around for $35-45, costing me about $15 to play. So, now, they can move to a download system (all the current gen consoles have internet connection, so I cannot see the next-gen skipping it and PC's have had it forever), so you can pay $10 for a game per month or something. There's probably a lot more people who will pay $10 to play a game in one month than who will buy a $60. This concept isn't too far from the Virtual console (and Live/PS3 store, though I have no experience with those).
I don't doubt that's coming soon. How good or bad it will be, my crystal ball is too foggy. There are also other business models that can come about like micro-transactions and ad. supported games. I wouldn't doubt these new business models being tried on on consoles in not too long.
If the guy's just saying "lets lower the cost of games!" then I'm all for it, but that's not very business savvy, so I know there's a catch.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Am I the only one who finds that comment just odd? While I can agree with you that the system is broken because there's no such thing at a "zero" rated game, but I do not see the difference between 100 points and 4 stars, besides it being simply "divided by 25". Then, of course, that's not good enough, so they start assigning 0.5 stars.
Also, I never considered "100/100" to be perfection, but as "supreme excellence" as noted. After, WTF is the difference between "supreme excellence" and "perfection"? Someone is just trying to argue semantics.
Of course, I don't even like the "four star" or 100 point numerical system. When I ask/tell people about a movie I simply say "Is it worth seeing in the theater?", "Is it worth a theater matinée?", "Is it a rental?" or "not worth your time, period".
In this sense, I saw the "Number 23" in the theater and I recommended that it was worth seeing in the theater. While "28 Weeks Later" was easily worth waiting for a rental (despite being a fan of "28 Days Later" and zombie films in general).
In that regards, I would say games should be rated as "buy it!", "rent it/demo it!", "stay away". (rent for console / Demo for PC games). Guitar Hero games are "buy it" games while something like Zelda:Twilight Princesses might be a "rent it" kind of game (I bought it, I'm a fan of Zelda, but still feel money better spent on a rental. I would not have given it 100/100 as some reviews did). World of Warcraft? "Buy it".
Of course, such a system needs a context. I'm not going to tell a FPS fan to buy an RPG, it's in the context of RPG fans.
Cheers,
Fozzy
I imagine the benefits of a wifeless router are far superior than any magazine subscription will net you. Where do I pick one up? Hehe, I can games for more than 10-mins without being nagged.
Cheers,
Fozzy
I specifically picked up a used PS2 for Guitar Hero, about a year ago. It was definitely worth it. I still play it pretty often and always when there's a party.
I have some worries about GH:III due to this fact, but I'm still more than willing to give it a shot. The track list, at over 70 songs, is just simply killer and according to Wikipedia, it appears GH:III will have several new gameplay additions, particularly for competitive play, which really does sound like some nice touches.
Likewise, I'm actually MORE excited for Rock Band. I've only recently picked up Karaoke Revolution and really enjoy it. I can imagine adding Drums and 2-3 friends would really kick butt. Except... I only own a Wii and PS2. Rumors are they'll release a Wii version, but no concrete details and if and when. There's a PS2 version which I might just break-down and buy until a Wii version arrives (at whatever cost I'll loose by trading in the PS2 version). Though, I want to avoid the PS2 due to no downloads and I don't feel like dropping $400 for a 360/PS3 to buy a $200 game. So, I'm hoping GH:III will tide me over until more details on a Wii version arrive.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Hmm... an instance based team RvR game. I wonder how long you'll sit in bleachers until a game opens up to play.
here are some reasons:
There's probably some other reasons but when it comes down too it, as a consumer, prices are not competitive for downloading and even with broadband, it can take time. Since I'm a gamer and I buy fun games, I always have some console games laying around to trade in. If I want a PC games, thats some extra money off that downloads will never be able to get, less Valve wants to buy my DS games. =) If it's 10pm on a Friday and the stores are closed, it's great to have a Download option if you have the urge. Downloading is not going to replace retail anytime soon, but it's a great compliment!
Cheers,
Fozzy
It's not about "good use", it's about copyright and "bad faith".
In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site. IE. Coca-Cola registering Pepsi.com and redirecting it to Coke.com. However, IANAL, and but they can probably convince some judge of part (iii) and (iv) below.
Then it might be worth mentioning 10 Years is on Garageband.com. I don't recall their story, but I believe they won a Garageband contest to get a record deal. Though, I didn't know this until later... after I was hearing their music played on the local rock radio stations. The truth is actually exposure. Despite the public availability of Garageband (and other sites), the internet is a haystack that even if you know of a site, you still have to do a lot of digging to find your needle. It's just much easier (and probably a part of human nature) to take the path of least resistance and just turn the radio on and listen to what others think we want to listen too, which usually isn't bad, it's just not always very good.
Cheers,
Fozzy
lolore
Sadly, TimeSplitters was and still is an excellent game series. The game play matches, or not passes, that of GoldenEye for the N64 and the story was super fun and humorous. Sadly, I never meet many people who knew this, despite them saying how much they loved GoldenEye.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Right, it's like comparing Knocked Up with Halloween. Both R rated films but worlds apart in context.
All well and good, but the only news I want about Rock Band is information on when it's being released for the Wii. I was this close *holds two fingers together* at buying a 360 just to get this game but then the Harmonix CEO said they would "Absolutely" have a Wii version. So, I'm holding off until then.
If rabid Rock Band mania consumes me, I guess I'll pick it up for the PS2 until a Wii version is released.
My understanding is that you can only get the game with the bundle pack. Peripherals will be sold separately as it seems the game will only come with 1 guitar and it's capable of being played with 2. If they're going to see the drums at the start, has yet to be seen.
Cheers,
Fozzy
He was talking about Milwaukee being a major metro area of Chicago. =P