Carl Abrams

WHY? WHY? What made you post this? Even worse, what made me click on it to watch and listen to it?

Seriously - this is possibly the biggest case of WTF I've ever seen.

One of the things I see at the retail level is that middle aged consumers - of which I effectively now am one, at 46 - have the money for the fun toys.

We're the guys that grew up playing table war games, played StarFleet Battles and Babylon 5 Wars, and also the early computer games. At the same time, a lot of us have been at least studying computers for a long time - at the retail store I work part time at, I've been studying computers longer than anyone I work with has been alive.

Which also means that when they're all excited because there's an in store game night so they can play games on a 42" or bigger TV, I'm going yeah, so what? I've been playing on my 56" big screen for years. It's just not that big of a thrill to me.

Anyway, the Wii has at retail, for better or worse, the reputation of being a kids or party game system, while the PS3 and 360 are for serious games. (I'm NOT saying thats true - that's just the reputation it has.) So the older gamers that want to sit on the couch and GAME - that's what we're buying.

I suppose that you could look at this from a licensing versus monopoly issue. The NFL has a legal monopoly and legal right to their trademark - game rebroadcasts, use of logos, etc. They also have the legal authority to license these things - that's why you can't just market a jersey with the NFL or a team logo on it without permission (and paying royalties).

Technically, anyone could enter into negotiation with the NFL to get a license to use their products. It's just that right now EA has that sewn up.

Where this could - and should - run into anti-monopoly law would be if there were proof of sweetheart deals. While a royalty to the NFL for each game sold would be quite appropriate - EA giving the commissioner a bunch of freebies (aka bribes) in order to keep exclusivity would not.

If these guys really want to succeed, all they really need to do is get Congress or the Supreme Court involved. They should state that EA is making extreme profits from this license, and that the government should step in and do something about it.

Actually, you are in error. If there were legislation passed, then you COULD force a company to license its product, whether it wanted to do so or not. (That's also called socializing it, or basically a mainstay of the Democratic Party in the US.)

EA did not have to lower their price back in '05. That they did so as a result of competition, and then raised it back again when there was no competition, does give some creedence to the monopoloy theory. I suspect that, even though EA has deep pockets for their lawyers, that this will drag out and Congress will end up getting involved due to the potential for good publicity, if nothing else. Justice should be blind - but give a politician a good photo-op, and justice be damned.

My remarks should not be construed as legal advice, either - just common sense from someone who has a Criminology degree and studied pre-law before getting sick of the whole jurisprudence system.

Don't post the rest of the article - which says WHERE the chip came from... :)

"The ATI Technologies GPU, the graphics processor, clocks in at a lightning fast 500 MHz. A second die
containing 10MB of embedded DRAM also supports the GPU."

It's so annoying that you can't even get dead systems on eBay cheaply any more, since the fix is so well known and so common.

And, quite honestly, the fix is pretty darn simple, too. My launch system died the week before GTA IV - after thousands of hours of gameplay - and it took me 3 hours and $10 worth of materials to fix it. (No warranty, so I wasn't out anything if it didn't work.)

Since GTA IV came out, between my son and I, we've probably put another 250 hours of gameplay on it, no problems whatsoever.

I think the thermal compound runnning all over the place is a serious problem - it mostly looked like someone went squirt like putting ketchup on your hamburger at McDonalds.

While the two main candidates (and Hillary as well) are all liberal in the American sense, I know my online gaming European friends consider ALL of them to be quite conservative - compared to what they have to deal with on a daily basis.

For those of us who happen to be conservatives first, Republicans second, then yes, they're all quite liberal.

And if you can't afford health insurance, then it's probably because you're used to abusing the system OR you have lots of claims. (And if you don't think that people abuse the system, you're sadly mistaken - those people that get the sniffles and instead of just taking a Tylenol and getting over it and instead run to the ER are the ones that run up the costs for everyone.)

Of course, when you're also dealing with such a concentrated population that already has VATs and socialist governments, you'd expect a corporation to send product where they can make the most profit.

There's some serious movie style sex in GTAIV right now without it being over the top. Go pick up a hooker and have a convertible - she either gives you a hand, oral, or full ride. Of course, then when you shoot her dead and take your money back, that makes it redeeming for the ERSB.

Going to the two strip clubs and sitting through all three dances - it's erotic without actually being the full Virtual Jenna. Those games are annoying, in that there's no real interaction. You simply dress the doll up, put whatever you into whichever hole you choose, and watch.

Having relationships in games will help - Mass Effect is done quite well in that you can make yourself grow with the character and care about them. I found myself quite annoyed in Oblivion that I couldn't actually relate more to the NPC's.

THANK YOU!

That was exactly who I was thinking of when I saw those pictures.

Don't get me wrong - Natalie Portman is good looking. But in the face, especially front on, that's all Famke.

Ask this one and the one about Alpha Centauri 2.

Gettysburg was such a fun game, I played all the battles, and I found a way of playing that was totally against civil war strategy but enabled me to win all the time.

Hint - it's called mobile artillery - you hook up your horses, keep the guns in traces, and then advance with your guns. Fire shot at distance and then switch to cannister as you close - keep the infantry on your flanks as you advance. The defending AI could NEVER handle it.

Scott cherry picked the article. The full comment, "I think the single-player, disconnected console game is probably in its dotage. Now, that doesn’t mean that those games aren’t relevant going forwards, but they will be enhanced by community features being embedded in them, or downloadable content becoming an inherent part of the experience, or some kind of user-generated content will be part of the experience....A relatively linear single-player game without online connectivity is going to be a challenge to green-light going forward."

Reading the whole thing, in context, merely makes it sound like Phil has converted to Xbox Live now that he's changed from Sony. Downloadable content and a sandbox type feature - sounds much more reasonable to me. I'm one of those people that, due to my age more so than anything else, doesn't LIKE playing against a bunch of other people online. I like games that I can change the content in, mess around with, and in general have fun with by myself. (I'm not anti-social, I just prefer playing against other people in real world environment - casino, backyard, or kitchen table).