tanstaafl

Hmm, very interesting how the last point is mentioned as a con. I really wouldn't put it as a con. Where the Wii controller is associated with real-life motions, it adds immense value. But where it may not mimic real-life motion, it does not detract from the game experience does it. It's not like a standard controller adds to the gaming experience in that situation.
So instead of a button press, you have a small gesture. I am willing to make that change if in the rest of the cases (where controller mimics real-life motion) the game experience changes hugely.

Well, there is also the fact to be considered that video games have a very nice portion where an advert(imho)would not make any difference to me. Mini games in loading screens are patented and hence cannot be used. Why should I begrudge the developers any money they make placing an advert during that time? The more money they make, the higher the chances that another game company doesn't go belly up. Games like F.E.A.R/Doom 3 have 10-15 second load times. A text/image advert shouldn't be a problem.

What [i]could[/i] happen is that the load times are intentionally increased to include more adverts. Now [b]that[/b] would piss me off.

@Jon
hmm.....Let me see...Maybe till the price drops. Or wait, maybe till they have gotten to a large enough install base so I don't have to worry if it will have HDMI support. But yeah, mostly till I don't have to sell my firstborn to get a system.
(Also , cost of a decent hdtv in my country is about 4 times the annual per capita income, so that may have something to do with market penetration)

Never ascribe to malice that which could be adequately attributed to human ignorance.
Have you ever wondered if this person actually understands what the symbol stands/stood for. I remember suggesting to someone that they watch Der Untergang. At the end, I realised this person knew nothing about WW2 and thought Hitler was just another conquerer like Alexander/Genghis Khan, and maybe even a character to be admired. I sat him down and explained what the whole scenario was. You could very well see some poor ignorant sod who would go and put up the image. So considering the probability that the person did this out of ignorance and not malice, should this be a large consideration on free expression?
I am posting from down here in India where the effect of WW2 was not felt to the extent that it was in other places, but there should be a fairly large number of people who may be ignorant about WW2. (Hell, there are tons of people down here who don't know about the wars India was involved in less than 35 years ago)