SourMillennia's forum posts

#1 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

First off, I am not an Apple person (except for my iPod), I respect them as a company that makes good products, but I tend to favor PC's and Microsoft goods. But last night, I had a strange dream that Apple released a videogame looked quite a bit like a Wii, but with more processing power and graphical abilities. And then I began to wonder, is this even a possibility? I think it could happen sometime down the line, here is my reasoning for this:
Apple attracts a major market of middle-upper class folks (everyone of all demographics uses Apple products, I know, just work with me here), much the same market the Wii targets. Furthermore, Apple is considered very 'hip', even with people that may not necessarily be tech-savvy or avid tech followers. Also, Apple caters to people in a (usually) very tech friendly way. I can see an Apple console being a direct competitor to the Wii for market-share and accessibility, as well being a competitior to the more advanced systems on the market. How? Two words, Apps, and iTunes. The rise of the App has become extraordinary, and while there are plenty of crappy ones on the market, there are also some gems (games or otherwise). Also, creating an iTunes based media service with music, movies, T.V. and more, directly on the T.V. could put major pressure on Microsoft and Sony to meet these entertainment standards as well as the (likely) smooth and slick interface details. 
Apple could be a major force. They have swept the music player world by storm, as well as cell phones, now they are tackling  tablets...what might be next? Would you buy an Apple console if it came out? What do you imagine it looking like, playing like, costing? I probably wouldn't buy it, but I would welcome the new wrench thrown into the now stagnant machine of innovation. 
Let me know what you all think!

#2 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -
@BeachThunder: Good call, I misread that part of it when I looked over the article, appreciate the catch!
#3 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

Recently, the CEO of Codemasters (publishers and developers of such titles as Dirt, Grid, and others) recently stated a unique and somewhat strange approach to fighting piracy in games...don't finish them. The idea may seem convoluted, but it works in a pretty simple (if drawn out) sort of way.
Let's say Developer A ships a game out to stores. You, the savvy consumer, picks up the game from the store and takes it home. At that point you would have to download many of the core assets of the game to play it. The game would be sold for less at retail, because the 'full' cost would be made up with the many micro-transactions to actually 'finish' the game to make it playable and enjoyable. The reasoning for this way of doing things is because, to quote CEO Rod Cousens, "...DRM is not the answer to piracy." 
I know many gamers hate DRM, but what about this idea? Does it seem worse to you as the consumer? For me, it sounds like this would be a method used on the PC more than anything, of course game piracy is rising on all it could happen across the board. It reminds me a bit of what EA is doing with their online access codes, of course that is for slowing used game sales and this is against piracy. I think the idea is an interesting one, but it may end up causing too much confusion for the consumer and turn people off from buying certain games.  I personally support it, as long as I am only paying for what I need to play the game and not miscellaneous junk.
I'm interested to hear what people think about is the link to  the article.

#4 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

Members of Giant Bomb...a quest has been passed unto you. Not a very serious one, mind you...but important all the same. What are the best things to make a sandwich out of? Do you have any ideas...I know I have mine, but I'm interested to see what type of foodstuffs member of the site eat. Could be interesting or terrifying...I really don't know. Let me know,it is urgent,for I am hungry.

#5 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

One day, this may very well be a question you ask yourself after buying a product that seemingly has no relation whatsoever to videogames. Why? Well, recent trends from various companies show that many retailers and producers of non-game items want to pack-in games as a marketing and enticement tool. A good example of this? Remember those (pretty horrible) Burger King games from a few years ago...apparently that was just the beginning. 
The 'joke' quote from the article this blog originated from was, "Games will be in microwaves next...". Unfortunately, that may be true. The logic of some manufacturers go like this (this is from the article and some further research): games are now bigger than  ever, even Grandma plays them sometimes, as such there is a profit to be made by producing cheap, usually lackluster, and quick games. Most gamer gamers (whatever that really means) will probably not feed into this (unless a cheap browser-based like game knockoff sounds appealing to you), but that doesn't mean the folks who buy Wii Carnival Games 4 won't. 
From a marketing standpoint I really get it, though the logic seems a bit too cut and dry for my taste. But will it actually work. Would it appeal to you, the reader, as something worth looking into? Does that Maytag or GE appliance or box of cereal seem better because it has a 'game' in it? Of course, I could be wrong...maybe there could be future Halo's, COD's, Gears' or Uncharted's in the midst of all of this...stuff. But I don't really think so. What do you guys think? Is it worth it, will it work? Will it even happen at all, or is this just some marketer's pipedream? I'm interested to hear what folks say about this. Let me know, and thanks!

#6 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -
@DarkGamerOO7: Hey all,
Glad this blog cas created some discussion, here is the link I used to write this post: 
#7 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

It looks like the California legislature is debating violent games...again. This time though it could be serious. Apparently, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is paying close attention to this legisaltion to possible dictate how the U.S., on a national level, will dictate games sales. In a nutshell, without getting too deep into the legal talk, it is banning the sales of violent games for minors. 
In some states (like my own Colorado), they check your I.D. as a matter of corporate policy, not state/national law. But within California, the possible ramifications are fairly dramatic. While the legislature could simply tell business that "if you sell an M rated game to a minor you will be fined", it looks like they may do the movie rental store-esque "back-room". Where to even look at the games one would have to show I.D. Hopefully, this is just speculation (I imagine it is just hyped up OMG's from the gaming community), but the law is very real. 
Personally, I understand why they are trying to stop minors from buying violent games, I get that. But it still doesn't stop Mom & Dad from buying little Timmy Gears of War 3 or Medal of Honor. To me, it seems more like a parenting issue than something laws and statutes can address. I'm well over 18, thus the law (if it goes nationally) won't affect me too much. 
What do other people think? Is the law necessary, ridiculous, good but needing alteration? Is there a better way to do stop minors from getting violent games (does it matter if minors, or those below 18 years of age, play violent games?) I'm interested to hear what people think....

#9 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

I rarely play online games in the sense of "Alright, time to play some COD" for an hour or so everyday. Usually I play games for looooong periods of time but only once a week or so. I played Halo 3 for about two years on a weekly basis, and MW2 has been on rotation since release. I'm also a major single-player fan, so if that part of their game sucks, I won't even boot up the multiplayer.

#10 Posted by SourMillennia (41 posts) -

Sadly, no. I have to assume Sega is not raking in the dough with most of their recent titles (both because they are bad and they are releasing less games each fiscal year). Designing, making and marketing a new console is super-expensive and time consuming. And the Sega name, with the newest generation games being raised on PlayStation, Xbox, and Wii, means nothing. Sad for me to say this, but I would be surprised if Sega is even around as an company in twenty (if not less) years or so unless they can really pick things up.