@DY357LX: This is certainly a good idea, and proves a good point. A lot of the features on Xbox Live provide little utility or enjoyment for many subscribers (such as myself). They are extra bells and whistles that few have asked for. Xbox Live subscribers are choked with the price raise because they're paying for things they never wanted in the first place.
@Arctic16: iPods.
@Lnin0: The real difficulty for the tech is replicability. There are many nuances to physical motion. The tech needs to be able to find the line of best fit, as it were, between similar motions and translate them as doing the same thing, every time.
Reproducing movements is not difficult for humans. We perform an array of complicated and precise motions every day, be it showering, lifting, pointing, driving, or some other such. Learning a move/skill set with Kinect may be difficult because the feedback interface is not tactile. It requires an application of abstraction from the player. In Kinect, a movement is only a gesture and does not correlate directly to some physically felt effect (save perhaps muscle strain).
So, the intuitiveness lies in how the tech is able to replicate results, not the 'controller'.
Reproducing movements is not difficult for humans. We perform an array of complicated and precise motions every day, be it showering, lifting, pointing, driving, or some other such. Learning a move/skill set with Kinect may be difficult because the feedback interface is not tactile. It requires an application of abstraction from the player. In Kinect, a movement is only a gesture and does not correlate directly to some physically felt effect (save perhaps muscle strain).
So, the intuitiveness lies in how the tech is able to replicate results, not the 'controller'.
In the future games will have a balanced perspective. They will not be jingoistic and promote the agenda of one nation over another. They will make gamers ask questions about their home nation's foreign policies. Hell, the game might even teach them something, instead of repeat the same message delivered by similar media of the time.
@El El: And unhealthy.
How one chooses to act based on their anger is a choice (albeit a difficult one), but simply feeling anger is not a choice--unless one can consciously regulate neurochemicals, which I highly doubt.
@Hearthole: No no. In this case I was simply using Nazis as exemplars of efficient servitude (i.e., just doing their job), though their tasks were in no way commendable. Similarly, I believe Kotick's job is in no way commendable, even if he executes it (REALLY) well.
@Vanderblade: Completion of a task does not make the person who completed it virtuous or laudable. I mean, Nazis were just doing their job when they ended the lives of countless Jews and other minorities in WWII. We can't REALLY hate them for that, right?
@Ryodestined: Logic FTW.
@bakana: Are we really going to say video games, "Here is your box. This is where you'll stay,"? The discourse here is indicating that video games only every ought to be entertainment, and if they're something else then swell, but they can't simply be the something else. Balderdash, I say. Is film meant simply for amusement? Is a hammer supposed to only pound nails? Are trees simply there for LOOKING AT? Video games are a MEDIUM. They are allowed to achieve different ends. They are flexible. They don't HAVE to entertain. That is the point here.
@Strife Fox †: Though Fahey didn't say it explicitly, this quote, "You prime the mind to accept that pace. Real life doesn't happen fast enough to keep your attention," indicates that the attention problems become salient outside of the media realm more often than not.
Video games, TV shows, and films are able to satisfy those with poor attention spans because they deliver large quantities of stimuli (predominantly visual) at a rapid pace. They allow those with attention deficits to maintain their focus. Outside of those types of environments, such a person's attention will wander.
Video games, TV shows, and films are able to satisfy those with poor attention spans because they deliver large quantities of stimuli (predominantly visual) at a rapid pace. They allow those with attention deficits to maintain their focus. Outside of those types of environments, such a person's attention will wander.
@Kiori Hayabusa: Thank you for this civil and well-constructed response. I was rather baffled when my comment incensed so many people. I thought it was fairly innocent and benign.
Anyway, value does not have to be expressed through monetary means. The best and simplest example is the notion of thanking someone. When you say something like, "Thank you for helping me with the yard work," you express to the person you addressed that you valued their help. In fact (and I really should find psychological studies on this to back me up), that type of valuation is more meaningful and fulfilling to a person, as opposed to monetary valuation. So, just because someone jacks a game for free doesn't mean they do not value the people that made it.
The idea of the value of personal property, monetary system or no, is only an issue in a world of scarcity. For example, truffles have a high monetary value associated with them because they are scarce. Potatoes, on the other hand, are far cheaper, since they are far more abundant. In a world of abundance, commodities and personal property would have very little value, if any at all, since everyone would have equal access to everything--which means that a type of barter or monetary economy would not be a necessity.
And yes, within the current trade system, not giving money to the developers is a blow against them, but not necessarily the worst and only kind. It's probably more of a personal blow to receive only one or two dollars for games they've invested a lot of time and creativity in.
It's also possible that some of the developers are probably happy just having a lot of people play their games. A lot of musicians certainly don't have major gripes with piracy, because it means they can attract more fans, even if they aren't paying for a CD. It may (and often) results in bigger crowds at their concerts. Perhaps someone who pirates a game from a particular developer may be more inclined to purchase future games from the same developer.
Anyway, value does not have to be expressed through monetary means. The best and simplest example is the notion of thanking someone. When you say something like, "Thank you for helping me with the yard work," you express to the person you addressed that you valued their help. In fact (and I really should find psychological studies on this to back me up), that type of valuation is more meaningful and fulfilling to a person, as opposed to monetary valuation. So, just because someone jacks a game for free doesn't mean they do not value the people that made it.
The idea of the value of personal property, monetary system or no, is only an issue in a world of scarcity. For example, truffles have a high monetary value associated with them because they are scarce. Potatoes, on the other hand, are far cheaper, since they are far more abundant. In a world of abundance, commodities and personal property would have very little value, if any at all, since everyone would have equal access to everything--which means that a type of barter or monetary economy would not be a necessity.
And yes, within the current trade system, not giving money to the developers is a blow against them, but not necessarily the worst and only kind. It's probably more of a personal blow to receive only one or two dollars for games they've invested a lot of time and creativity in.
It's also possible that some of the developers are probably happy just having a lot of people play their games. A lot of musicians certainly don't have major gripes with piracy, because it means they can attract more fans, even if they aren't paying for a CD. It may (and often) results in bigger crowds at their concerts. Perhaps someone who pirates a game from a particular developer may be more inclined to purchase future games from the same developer.
@nlangan: Hey, I never said it was sound.
@Elmakai: This is also true (the latter paragraph).
@UglyZombie: All I did was present a possibility (a very unlikely one at that). I did not make assumptions.
There are many reasons for abstaining from charitable donations. The word charity is not inherently congruous with the word good.
There are many reasons for abstaining from charitable donations. The word charity is not inherently congruous with the word good.
@kejoxen: No. It would be absurd to try to make any kind of statement by anonymously stealing something.
All I was trying to do was get people to think about their words before painting all thieves the same colour with their knee-jerk reactions. Different thieves have different motives. Some are just; some are not. Some make you think about what the big goddamn deal is about personal property anyway. These thieves, apparently, do not.
All I was trying to do was get people to think about their words before painting all thieves the same colour with their knee-jerk reactions. Different thieves have different motives. Some are just; some are not. Some make you think about what the big goddamn deal is about personal property anyway. These thieves, apparently, do not.
While I won't deny how great of a deal the bundle is, I find it rather presumptuous to call these pirates assholes, douchebags, etc.. It isn't always about refusing to support a developer or a charity; it could be a matter of refusing to support the status quo.
It possible that people who pirated this bundle don't support the monetary system in general. Of course, to the people who do support the monetary system the pirates would still be assholes, because they refuse to do Whatever Everyone Else Is And Should Be Doing. But for the people who don't support the monetary system, their reasons for pirating likely go beyond wanting to make a few people's lives slightly more miserable (if at all).
It possible that people who pirated this bundle don't support the monetary system in general. Of course, to the people who do support the monetary system the pirates would still be assholes, because they refuse to do Whatever Everyone Else Is And Should Be Doing. But for the people who don't support the monetary system, their reasons for pirating likely go beyond wanting to make a few people's lives slightly more miserable (if at all).
Fahey, GameStop protocol aside, you accuse LittleJohn of failing to take into account the ignorance of consumers in the paragraph where you say, "Parents who might see an article in which a GameStop representative casually dismisses a game about brutal rape and decide to shop elsewhere."
Should a person be held accountable for what they say because other people might not understand it? I find it incredibly insulting that you place the onus on LittleJohn when it comes to the misinformed backlash of the ignorant, especially when LittleJohn put the content of the game into context, and neither extolled nor apologized for the game's content.
On top of all of this is the idea that LittleJohn is accountable for any comments related to GameStop outside of his place of employment. If GameStop believes this is and ought to be true, it also believes that LittleJohn is GameStop property, for only if something is your property can you dictate what it may or may not be used for, or do. If this is true, by definition, every GameStop employee is a slave. I'll let you make the appropriate conclusion.
Again, I'll close with this quote from Aldous Huxley, for its relevance is grave: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."
Should a person be held accountable for what they say because other people might not understand it? I find it incredibly insulting that you place the onus on LittleJohn when it comes to the misinformed backlash of the ignorant, especially when LittleJohn put the content of the game into context, and neither extolled nor apologized for the game's content.
On top of all of this is the idea that LittleJohn is accountable for any comments related to GameStop outside of his place of employment. If GameStop believes this is and ought to be true, it also believes that LittleJohn is GameStop property, for only if something is your property can you dictate what it may or may not be used for, or do. If this is true, by definition, every GameStop employee is a slave. I'll let you make the appropriate conclusion.
Again, I'll close with this quote from Aldous Huxley, for its relevance is grave: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."
@Nethlem: Indeed. It disgusts me to unexpected degrees how a fundamental right, built into the foundation on which a nation stands, can be overridden because some person or persons own a lot of stuff. Inconceivable.
I'll close with a quote from Aldous Huxley: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."
I'll close with a quote from Aldous Huxley: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."
