Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Higher profits (Score 1) 351 351

No. I never said that. That also doesn't change a thing about what I said.

If they aren't aren't buying new consoles, nor new games, the money of the budget gamers never reaches the industry. They might as well not exist to the industry. Only the retailers make any profit from them and they aren't responsible for the development of new games.

Comment: Re:Higher profits (Score 1) 351 351

It doesn't matter to the publishers whether the gamers that spend $20 a month on used games will only buy a new game every 3 months. For them, that is profit already. Not a cent spent on used games goes to the publishers and studios. It all goes to Gamestop and other retailers.

Even if people buy 1 new game every six months rather than 10 used games a month, it's more beneficial for the publishers that way.

Comment: Not dying, yet (Score 1) 174 174

As long as content creators support Flash, it will still exist. Newgrounds, as an example, still has a large community of flash artists and programmers, which regularly provide animations and games for free.

When these sites make the transition, Flash may die. Until then, it may be used significantly less, but it will still be there.

Comment: Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 661 661

This announcement sounds perfectly reasonable to me--not having plugins in the Metro browser closes a lot of security holes and eliminates crap like Flash that's proprietary, hurts performance, etc. It's a competitive move that raises the bar for other browsers to become more secure and stop supporting things that people don't want.

Emphasis mine.

Speak for yourself. I regularly watch flash animations, play flash games and use web apps made in flash. If I were one of the creators, I wouldn't be very happy either. It should be my choice to make, not Microsoft's. Limiting my choice is not a benefit.

Comment: Re:No win, really (Score 1) 213 213

Would it really? Foxconn has been target of controversy for quite some time, but iPhones still sell very well.

By censoring this game, not only they triggered Streisand effect and brought the problems about iPhone production to attention just the same, but also made the iPhone look like a restrictive platform for developers once again.

Besides, do you really think iPhone buyers really actually care about it's production problems enough to not to buy them?

Comment: Re:Cloud = For Suckers (Score 1) 206 206

I regularly use "cloud stuff" like Google Docs and the Aviary apps, as well as Dropbox. That means I can access and edit my documents everywhere I can find a barely decent computer with internet connection. As well as download them everytime I need.

So, no. Using the "cloud" has saved me a lot of hassle.

Comment: Re:Complete and utter garbage (Score 4, Insightful) 96 96

We used to drive excellence through insults.

No, you used to drive away poor quality jobs through insults. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are responsible for someone else's success.

Besides, when the internet was younger, it's users were far more likely to be technologically adept.

Comment: Re:The length of time? (Score 1) 637 637

What is boring for some people is fun for other people. Wandering around, exploring the game world, hunting and such is what made RDR interesting for so many people. It wasn't just a western game, it was a full blown wild west world. In it's particular case, I think there is a considerable amount of people that didn't buy it for the story, but for the sandbox world. So, it doesn't matter whether they finish the game, because it doesn't mean they didn't enjoy it.

While I do believe there is a lot of unnecessary padding in games, not everything would be benefited by being cut shorter. Hell, there are even people that like grinding, so it's really something to be thought in a case by case basis.

Comment: Re:What a bunch of pricks. (Score 1) 205 205

Their trademark is "Elder Scrolls". While I think Mojang's "Scrolls", even as a fantasy game, is too generic to be trademarked, it is not violating Bethesda's trademark. They are claiming they own the individual words of their trademark, even though they are common english words, and that's clearly absurd.

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.

Working...