I agree. While I'm not currently a subscriber because I don't have much time to play games anymore, I was very pleased with what I saw when I did use the service. They're regularly adding games too, so you're always getting more bang for your buck.
Thanks for clarifying. I know what you're saying now.
I think the only issue I have at this point with the notion of the ESRB refusing to rate a game is that this is a private entity whose clients are million dollar corporations. Money talks... I don't think it's unthinkable that ratings can't be "bought". Don't get me wrong.... this isn't to say that a government run agency would be any less corrupt. I just think that when things are privately run, there is less oversight, and so there is an increased possibility for such dealings.
And what does the ESRB refusing to rate a game have to do with a company hiding key aspects of the game's content? I assume you're suggessting that in order for the ESRB to offically give the game a rating, the company and the board both have to reach an agreement on the rating the ESRB wants to give the game (Otherwise, the objectionable content is removed in another version, or the ESRB doesn't rate/endorse the game). This is outside of a company shipping a game without the ESRB having found the content. Entirely different issues.
I used to work as a tester for a videogame publisher, and I remember wondering why the ESRB didn't play through whatever games were submitted to them when we would splice footage to send to them.
It just seems like that's the only way to assure that the agency does the job they're supposed to do. Are we supposed to trust videogame developers/publishers to highlight the most sordid portions of their game in the name of protecting the children? Guess what... these companies want to make money, and if a more child friendly rating on their game will enable them to push more copies, I'm certain they'd do whatever is necessary to assuage any images of their games being harmful to kids, including witholding information from the ESRB.
I think, practicality aside and if the ESRB MUST exist (I'm more of a proponent of personal responsibility), this is something that should be done.
Sure, it might make sense from a revenue standpoint. I won't argue that. I think it was a bad idea to sell these things seperately in the first place though. However, this could be a sign of their attempt to become more mass market, if you consider the nunchuk accessory as being targeted toward those who are more "serious" about their gaming. They're the one's who are going to get games like metroid, and their probably the same ones who are used to things like visualizing/ moving around in 3d spaces; the old skoolers... The other crowd who they're trying to lure in won't want games as complex as metroid, and so they can opt for the more simple games without the complex controller configurations which only use the wiimote.
That's the only justification I can think of, beside any lame reasons about cost of manufacturing. The thing is, I don't even think this is the case. Just look at Wii Sports. This game is a pack in title that just screams mass-market accessibility. However, isn't it true that you need the nunchuk attachment for the game? If this is the case, then my theory about nintendo doing this so to privide options between the two groups of gamers is incorrect, and instead they're just money grubbing bastards... But hey, that's the nature of businesses isn't it?
Say what you will about the cost of the system, they're STILL undercutting the competition's price points for this generation as well as the previous generation of consoles.
I think my biggest gripe is the cost of those controllers. Who's idea was it to sell half the controller for more than half the total cost of the complete assembly? It seems criminal considering that some games will undoubtedly require use of the analog stick.
Popular Science picks at the brain behind Spore, Will Wright
Feb 13th 2007 12:28AM (Joystiq)GameTap for $5 paid in advance
Oct 13th 2006 6:48PM (Joystiq)Proposed legislation: ESRB must complete every game
Sep 28th 2006 5:08PM (Joystiq)Thanks for clarifying. I know what you're saying now.
I think the only issue I have at this point with the notion of the ESRB refusing to rate a game is that this is a private entity whose clients are million dollar corporations. Money talks... I don't think it's unthinkable that ratings can't be "bought". Don't get me wrong.... this isn't to say that a government run agency would be any less corrupt. I just think that when things are privately run, there is less oversight, and so there is an increased possibility for such dealings.
Guess I'm just a cynic.
Proposed legislation: ESRB must complete every game
Sep 28th 2006 4:45PM (Joystiq)ESRB will find out pretty quickly.
Really? What guarentee do you have of that?
And what does the ESRB refusing to rate a game have to do with a company hiding key aspects of the game's content? I assume you're suggessting that in order for the ESRB to offically give the game a rating, the company and the board both have to reach an agreement on the rating the ESRB wants to give the game (Otherwise, the objectionable content is removed in another version, or the ESRB doesn't rate/endorse the game). This is outside of a company shipping a game without the ESRB having found the content. Entirely different issues.
Proposed legislation: ESRB must complete every game
Sep 28th 2006 4:22PM (Joystiq)It just seems like that's the only way to assure that the agency does the job they're supposed to do. Are we supposed to trust videogame developers/publishers to highlight the most sordid portions of their game in the name of protecting the children? Guess what... these companies want to make money, and if a more child friendly rating on their game will enable them to push more copies, I'm certain they'd do whatever is necessary to assuage any images of their games being harmful to kids, including witholding information from the ESRB.
I think, practicality aside and if the ESRB MUST exist (I'm more of a proponent of personal responsibility), this is something that should be done.
Columbine game scapegoated for Montreal shootings
Sep 14th 2006 5:04PM (Joystiq)Critiquing Nintendo's Wii launch details
Sep 14th 2006 3:09PM (Joystiq)Sure, it might make sense from a revenue standpoint. I won't argue that. I think it was a bad idea to sell these things seperately in the first place though. However, this could be a sign of their attempt to become more mass market, if you consider the nunchuk accessory as being targeted toward those who are more "serious" about their gaming. They're the one's who are going to get games like metroid, and their probably the same ones who are used to things like visualizing/ moving around in 3d spaces; the old skoolers... The other crowd who they're trying to lure in won't want games as complex as metroid, and so they can opt for the more simple games without the complex controller configurations which only use the wiimote.
That's the only justification I can think of, beside any lame reasons about cost of manufacturing. The thing is, I don't even think this is the case. Just look at Wii Sports. This game is a pack in title that just screams mass-market accessibility. However, isn't it true that you need the nunchuk attachment for the game? If this is the case, then my theory about nintendo doing this so to privide options between the two groups of gamers is incorrect, and instead they're just money grubbing bastards... But hey, that's the nature of businesses isn't it?
I'm still getting one.
Critiquing Nintendo's Wii launch details
Sep 14th 2006 2:42PM (Joystiq)I think my biggest gripe is the cost of those controllers. Who's idea was it to sell half the controller for more than half the total cost of the complete assembly? It seems criminal considering that some games will undoubtedly require use of the analog stick.