FTM

So... um... what happens to all those people who bought their retail outlet's extended warranty?

You should think about celebrating the "AO" rating.

1) Someone has to get the first one.
2) Having an "AO"-rated game will help remove the idea that video games are only for children. It may also open a dialogue with parents
3) It *does* give the ESRB credence when they say that they rate games appropriately. People like Jack Thompson use a failed ratings system as fuel for his fire. It will allow the ESRB to survive. If ESRB doesn't survive, the ignorant government grandstanders will get involved in rating your games.
4) Parents may actually become more aware of the ratins system in place. Think about it: How many parents actively screen what movies (and/or games) their children watch? As teenagers, were you actively stopped from watching R-rated movies? Probably not. Your parents probably watched them with you. But your parents know better than showing a teenager an NC-17 or X-rated movie... and game ratings are the same way. E, E+10, T, M... they're all fluff. AO is the equivalent of an NC-17/X rating. Of all the "confusion" parents and retailers may have over the ratings system, the AO rating - and its requirement to purchase - is beyond intuitively obvious.

The AO rating makes the ESRB more... mature.

And that's a good thing.

A very good thing.

Rockstar better suck it up. They've just done everyone a favor... even if it costs them a few million dollars.

@53

Thin-skinned people can appreciate the humor in derogatory remarks - when they're skillfully used. Using "gay" and "fag" and "bitch" one or twice would have been fine and an excellent use of comedic restraint to prove a parody.

Revise the video and at each time "gay", "fag", "homo" or "bitch" is used, use equally-specific and denigrating words in their place. Would the video go past its humor into being socially unacceptable if the n-word were used instead, for instance?

The problem that most of you fail to admit is that you're not using these words for ONLY their comedic effect, your basis for defense.

There's a difference in using derogatory words for comedic effect and, in doing so, you just so happen to insult people in the process versus when you use derogatory words to genuinely insult people and it just so happens to be funny, too.

In his surmising that those who took objection must be homos, #53 is part of the latter group. Nowhere does it appear that his/her remark was made to elicit a laught first. A casual reader would see an insult first. That's the wrong part. It's not about being thin-skinned. It's about being pig-headed and wrong.

@Nick Mendez

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the slurs were a bit excessive. It's good to know there are other conscientious gamers out there.

One of the funniest things I've seen in a long, long time... up until 03:00. Then the use of homophobic slurs becomes too excessive. I didn't bother finishing it.

Way to push the stereotypical anti-social, homophobic gamer angle.

While Joystiq would remark on WSJ's use of "Wiimote" insetad of "Wii Remote", as a sign of the publication's hipness, they should also remark on the video using ThinkGeek's WiiHelm, their April's Fools joke on the Wii community.

Had they done their research a little more, WSJ wouldn't have included that clip (unless they knew it was a joke, in which case they're journalistic integrity is in question for not mentioning it as such). Luckily, they didn't include it in the article as well.

On another note, is it really "hacking" if all one does is repurpose the signals the remote is sending out?

Re: Florida Cities at the Bottom of the List

It's not about the warm vs. cold debate...

...just remember that a disproportionally large amount of OLD PEOPLE live in Florida, particularly around those towns.

That can explain the percentage difference... unless granny's getting it on with some GoW action!

@ #126:

Whoever said being gay was something to not disclose? Your analogy is good, thought your choice in subject is interesting. Being gay should not be "news", but that's another conversation for a completely different thread.

Sony's new features, however, IS news. Ever since Sony said they were coming out with something big, Kotaku owed it to their readers, over Sony, to report on the information they find. That's the nature of the business.

Here's where the analogy you presented, though very good (very), goes a little off-track:

If the friend you have has assembled evidence supporting that you're gay, the same one that you asked not to share their conclusions with the public, was a person who has said good things about you in the past, who listened to every new idea and "feature" you ever had, who tested the inventions you made and who offered valuable (if sometimes critical) feedback to help you evaluate how you were performing in school (the market), and this is one of those rare instances when the two of you disagreed... would you still cut them off?

Your reporter friend, on the other hand, has several other friends he reports on and provides feedback to. They didn't get chafed when he analized their sexuality and they still invite him to their birthday bashes... so why are you deciding not to? Picking up your ball and going home is kinda childish, don't you think?

Like I said in my previous post... Sony needs Kotaku more than Kotaku needs Sony.

@ Everyone that thinks Kotaku got what they deserved:

As a matter of course, Journalists check with the subject of a rumor to verify if it is true or not. The response they get ("yes", "no", "no comment") will tell them how to present the information: as rumor or as fact.

There are two instances where Journalists/bloggers/whatever should decide *not* to make information they have public:

1) After confirming the rumor they have with the subject of that rumor and they are told that it is absolutely false. Depending on the nature of the rumor, continuing to disseminate it may be seen as libel.

2) Journalists will make concessions about when they post stories when the release of information prematurely (or the attempt to verify it) may compromise their source's identity and access. This is the primary agreement between confidential sources and journalists. A Journalist's best friend is "The Source" and it serves a writer well not to hang their credible informants out to dry.

A company can restrict the access of any journalist/bogger it chooses. The problem with this is that journalists/bloggers are just as useful to the company as the company is to the journalists. Press Releases are called such because companies give out information to the press that they hope will be sent out to the readership. All a journalist has to do is decide *not* to do anything with the press release!

And with that, my friends, the journalist weilds as much - if not more - power than the company.

In the long run, you people won't care how much less information Kotaku puts out on Sony. Kotaku (and Joystiq) report on much more than just a single company. Sony, on the other hand, should care how much less Kotaku reports on them. Sony is silencing a very valuable voice to them.

Just remember the cardinal rule of marketing:
Good or Bad, ANY press is GOOD PRESS.

Dawn of War had a horrible ending. There's the general-guy, ready to do some damage against a hellspawn-thing, and the game goes to credit! No closure, no sure-fire defeat of the summoned beast... quite the opposite, even! He's stronger than ever and you don't get a chance to give him a what-for! Frustrating as heck!