Free Press, or Just Good Advertisement?

A news story comming out of the LA Times (here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines) tells of how the US is secretly paying Iraqi news media to run stories that were written by the US military.
With other news of US military taking over some press organizations, this doesn't bode well. Why should the US even need to pay to get good stories in the paper?
Or better yet, isn't one of the goals of building a democracy is to make a free press, one which could watch the government (or in this case, the occupying force)?
On top of other scandels involving press manipulation (see Karen Ryan), it's another unfortunate sign that the Bush administration cares more about good press then actually doing good.

PS3 Controller Good?

Via Joystiq, someone posted an animated gif (here: http://www.forz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/boomerangdebunked.gif) that shows that the PS3 "boomerang" controller is a better design.
My first thought: doesn't the index fingers look a little...unrealistic. It might be the lighting, or it might be that this person had to animate it. Nothing else was linked, so I'm just guessing here.
Also, looking at the animation, it still looks rather uncomfortable for the triggers (though I wouldn't mind N64's Z-button style triggers) and for the buttons/directional pad. Joysticks do look ok though.
Although I will still say the design could be better, this did sway me a little closer to saying it might be good. But it all comes down to how it feels in MY hands.

When Gaming Meets Politics: The Big Day

Go over to GamesPolitics (to the right if you're viewing the Blogspot mirror), because there's plenty of news regarding political aspects of gaming.
In short, First the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) released a report card on their assessment on videogames and their ratings, giving the ESRB overall a very negative rating. Then the ESRB responded, basicly saying that the NIMF report card is nothing more then a biased, unscientific account from a group that went from a independant group to now a lobbiest (I'll agree with the ESRB's former suggestion, but disagree with the latter).
Then Hillary Clinton came out to announce the introduction of a bill that would restrict the sales of M and AO-rated videogames to minors. The ESRB responded in saying they will not support the bill, saying the bill is unnessisary (especially with all three next-gen consoles will have parental controls).

While I will say that this isn't the worst bill on the topic, I still tend to agree with the ESRB. I would accept AO-rated games being restricted (since NC-17 movies get the same treatment), but there really isn't anything to restrict. No retailer even puts an AO game on the shelf, so videogame developers don't make them. There isn't even Unrated games at brick&morter stores; you have to buy them online (even then, there's only one game that I can think of). Unrated movies are sold all the time in stores.
This seems to be more of a case of videogames being singled out and blamed rather then an actual concern.

Now I would like to go through the report card that was posted (here: http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2005.shtml).
Ratings Accuracy: Two things seem to come out of their score (which was F): difference of opinion and the Hot Coffee controversy. On the latter, this was rare, probably one-time only event. The code was hidden, so it wasn't accessable until hacks came about.
On the former, they seem to want stricter ratings across the board. Whereas most raters (ie: ESRB, MPAA) consider only explicit sexual activity in the highest, these people want to see extreme violence as a AO/NC17 rating. While the definition between M and AO ratings seem a little vague, it seems that there hasn't been a game so violent, that it earned the extreme rating.
One thing NIMF seems to miss, and the ESRB points out, is that developers avoid getting an AO-rating if at all possible. It isn't that the ESRB is afraid to give such a rating, it's that developers conform to the ESRB's definition of M-rating.

Ratings Education: The fun thing about this is that they put the emphasis on retailers, not the ESRB. I've seen more then a few commercials on the ratings, and almost all M-rated game commercials state so at the beginning or end of the ad.

Retailer Performance: Ironicly, they called Best Buy the best, whereas Jack Thompson is about ready to sue them because of the same topic.
There are only two things that come into mind. Does the retailer in question have a policy for this, and how well do they enforce that policy (not NIMF's)? Even presuming no on the first, I still ask: where are the parents?
Their assessment is that the policies are good, but enforcement isn't. This of course they have to call on the retailers about.

And finally, the two studies. The parental study, while seems a little inaccurate in numbers (they polled around 150 people, where I belive it takes around 350 to have a +/-4% accuracy), but I do have the feeling that they are probably correct. Most parents are either inexperienced with the rating system, or just don't care. However, I'm curious on why ~45% of the parents polled said they weren't with their kids when they purchased a game. Don't kids need transportation (I'm doubting kids will walk very far to get a videogame)?
As for the childrens polls, a much higher sample was made, but didn't release any specifics. The age range they have is 8-17 (note, one year is at the M-rating), but they don't specify beyond that. They average ~13, but I can still see this survey being thrown a bit. One thing I like about political surveys is that they do brake-down the statistics.
Also, their question on parental-involvement was on if the parents stopped them from buying an M-rated game. Not if their parents said okay or weren't involved, or even manuevered around. Again, something they should look deeper into. The only depth they even tried to go into was in what they played or bought.

With gaming in an age where it is mostly adults playing (and thus targeted), parents do have a roll in controlling what their children play. But taking a quote from the survey

"Obviously, parents play a very important role in supervising the game play of children. From the Student Survey it appears that not enough parents are paying attention."

So why is it that the game industry has to suffer? Would it do any good to do more? Or would it actually do more harm?
Many videogames do try to push the limits of what's acceptable. A majority of such titles fail commercially. Some games just feed off the controversy (Postal anyone?). It's something we seen in music and movies. Videogames are still a refining medium, but NIMF is trying to cut it off before the phase ends. I don't completely disagree with what some of their goals are, in keeping adult games out of kids hands. But they seem to be taking this goal not only to extremes, but the wrong way.

A GOOD Example of Customer Relations

With SonyBMG being a prime example of terrible customer relations, I just wanted to report someone doing something good for a change.
Via Nintendojo (here: http://www.nintendojo.com/infocus/view_item.php?1133145266), Target put a sale price on the Nintendo DS in their holiday catalog. Appearently, it was a misprint. It was supposed to be at the MSRP of $130, not the listed $99. However, rather then saying that the DS will be the MSRP price, Target will honor the catalog's listed price if you bring the catalog into the store.
This should be a classic example of how to do business. Target admitted they made a mistake, but would act toward the customer's favor. Why should it take a few weeks and a huge controversy for SonyBMG to do the same?

Are We Talking About the Same Thing?

Most people assume that FOX News channel is a very conservative network, or at least that their regular pundits...I mean hosts are very conservative.
So when I saw this on ABCNews (here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1338898), it seemed odd, but not surprising. Over the last election, FOX tried to put out a "documentary" that was critical of Kerry. The reason behind not showing an ad, which was against the Alito nomination, was that it was inaccurate.
But then, I went over Factcheck, which had an article on an ad that was against the Alito nomination (here: http://www.factcheck.org/article360.html). Their assessment: the ad was true as far as the subject matter that it covered.
So here's my question: are these ads the same commercial? Because if it is so, then FOX would have much more to worry about. Such a move shows obvious discrimination. And of what I read, these are the same commercials.
This isn't a decision of the FOX News content managers, it would be of their advertising department. Usually, to avoid problems in associating the content with the paying advertisers, media companies keep the two departments seperate. So why would FOX News do such a move? It certainly not because of the ad's inaccuracies.

Thoughts on X-Box 360

Being midnight (nearly now on the East Coast) is the launch of the 360, I just thought it would be a good time to put down some of my thoughts on it and the future of the new machine.

Design: It definatly looks better then its predecessor. The controller looks much better and more ergonomic. It also has a good feature of turning on the X-Box remotely.

SKUs and Features: Most of the features, like the marketplace, I probably won't use. Adding a new wallpaper just doesn't appeal to me if I have to spend money on it. Then again, for me at least, it's the same way with cell phone content.
As for the two SKUs: the Core and full system, is there a choice? I know the appeal of the Core System is for cheap-minded nongamers who are buying the system for gamers, but all the new features are on the full system. Plus, since I haven't got an original X-Box, I would prefer the ability to play the old games, which isn't possible on the Core System.

The Race and the Future: Price is important. Why else did the iPod Micro sell when one could get a better value with the original iPod? That is why I think between the X-Box 360 and PS3, Microsoft will come out on top. The PS3 will undoubtably cost players $400 minimum (unless Sony is willing to take even more of a hit), and the games will cost alot more to develop on Sony's system. Having a Windows dirivative OS on the X-Box 360, as well as more traditional parts in the system, will keep developement costs much lower, and turn out games much faster.
The Revolution: I'm still calling it a wildcard until Nintendo actually shows the games (cough cough).

Overall this is a good traditional gaming system. It doesn't do anything new or different then what one would expect, but it does it well. The cost of the full system will probably keep my budget-minded self from buying it for a while, but I will probably get it sometime in the future (if I can afford it).

How to Make a ***hat Mad

Not much to this story. First reported by Gamepolitics, and now Gamespot (here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140202.html), Jack Thompson attempted to quit from his latest case, but the judge instead rejected that motion, later only to throw Thompson out of the case due to another motion, which took away his temporary license to practice in Alabama.
What this all stems back to is the original "GTA Killer" trial, where Thompson was very vocal, too vocal for Judge Moore, who resides over both the criminal case and this case. As you can read from the above story, Thompson has gone on a fury of accusations, both on his opponents and Judge Moore.
Thompson just doesn't decent, of any manor, very well.

Retro Review: Perfect Dark

With the upcomming release of the X-Box 360 and a long awaited sequel, Perfect Dark Zero, I decided to take my Nintendo 64 out and play the original, which I had yet to beat all the single player missions on hard yet (now working on it).

Perfect Dark was Rare's follow-up to its biggest hit, Goldeneye 007. At the time, it was actually called a semi-sequel due to that the graphics and gameplay was based on Goldeneye, but was set in a new universe.
This game stared a female spy, Joanna Dark, codenamed Perfect Dark. The story starts as you (as Dark) infiltrate Datadyne's HQ in an attempt to extract a scientist.
The story seemed to be written after the levels were designed, rather then the other way around. Dark will have to infiltrate many famous locations such as Air Force One and Area 51. Considering, it still was actually good, except one thing. After all the story threads were done, you still have to play three more levels. It was what I like to call a Kubrick moment (see 2001: A Space Odyssey), where we're still watching the movie after the story is done. While I don't mind having more levels, it just felt pointless since the story was done.
Cutscenes are what shows off the improvement in graphics and sound. The character models are better then in Goldeneye, although wasn't the best by the time the game came out. Sound, on the other hand, was much more improved with fully spoken dialog. It seems a little weird today, with no lipsyncing (no mouths moving period), but it was a much better form of storytelling then most games on the N64 back then.
The level design was just as well done as it was in Goldeneye. There wasn't anything frustrating (see Control in Goldeneye), but there is still a challenge. The levels were more designed around the mission-objective system that Goldeneye introduced, and it helps make levels more focused.
Weapons are much better then Goldeneye, and actually are amongst the best in gaming to this day. The introduction of a secondary function makes each weapon unique.
If there's on blight, it's the Farsight. It was the much hyped weapon before this game's release, but it turned out either terrible or cheap. The ability to see (and shoot) through walls is a good idea, but the execution is flawed. The limited infrared sight makes it impossible to find enemies manually, but the auto-find function makes it too easy.
There are two additional options for two players: Coop and Counter-op. Cooperative everone should know: do the same missions as single-player, just with two people and more enemies. Counter-operative has one player as Dark, the other spawns into one of the guards trying to kill Dark. If the counter-operative player is killed, they spawn into another guard unless all the guards are down. Its a fun mode that should be included in more games.

The multiplayer is greatly expanded from Goldeneye, and is still has more option then many games today. Some of the game modes from Goldeneye, such as one-shot kills, are now actual options. Some new game modes include King of the Hill and Hacker, both which make great team games. You also get to choose a custom set of weapons, rather then preset. This includes the ability to remove the shield (YES!).
There are now bots (called Simulants in this game) to put in. This makes it so then you can now play without any friends to hone your skill. They are decent for the most part, although higher-difficulty simulants do cheat (I have radar off you bastards).
The levels are hit and miss, mostly hits. Some levels like the Facility (now Felicity) from Goldeneye return. Some levels are good for team games (Grid) and others are overall well designed levels (G5 Building). While some do have good ideas, they just fall flat (Car Park). While most of the new levels are good, the classics from Goldeneye do seem to be the best of the bunch.
The overall idea behind the multiplayer is to give players the options they like. If you do try to play four players with eight high-level bots, you will experience framerate problems. But I would rather have it that way, rather then the game putting limits on myself. It gives people the need of experimentation to see what they're most comfortable with.

Goldeneye may have broke the console barrier when it comes to first person shooters, but Perfect Dark just nearly perfects the design behind Goldeneye. Everything was improved in this game, and it still stands as one of the best games ever. It may not have been perfect, but it still stands as the best first person shooter in my book. Some may have problems with the story and framerate problems in multiplayer (when applying too bots), but it still stands as a great game.

Graphics: 9/10
Sound: 10/10
Control: 9/10 (the quick-select command is a little slow)
Personal Game Rating: 9.5/10
Buyability: 5/5: If you have a N64, get this game. It may never appear on a current or next-gen system in any form.

When Politics Meet Gaming: Blizzard Causes Suicide

From Joystiq (here: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000997068547/), a couple parents are suing Blizzard after their son committed suicide. Their claim is that the videogame World of Warcraft was an addiction for him. I'm not sure if their claim was that the addiction caused their son's suicide, but it does leave that impression.
This is another case of people who either can't face the fact that they either could do something or nobody could do anything. Someone has to be blamed, and too often it's someone else. While it would be nice to know why he jumped, I doubt Blizzard had anything to do with it, and I also doubt the parents could do much about it.
Trying to put blame on a blameless crime isn't the way to go. If they want their son's death to mean anything, learn why he killed himself. Then find ways of solving this problem, so others won't have to experience the same tragady.

Using the Jack Thompson Defense, Then Becoming Worst Person in the World

Remember how Jack Thompson said he would give a charity his own money if someone made his game, then backed off calling the remark "satire".
Well, Bill O'Reilly not only used the same defense, but one-uped Thompson in how much of a ***hat you can be at the same time. He not only called his previous comments "satire", but made the following comment as well:

(taken from the Countdown Nov. 15 transcript)
"What did the citizens of San Francisco think was going to happen after they voted to oppose military recruitment? We‘re in the middle of a war on terror, and these loopy voters did something like this and I‘m not supposed to call them on it? Come on. Can you imagine this happening during World War II?

So I‘m glad the smear site‘s made a big deal out of it, because now we can all know who was with the anti-military Internet crowd. We‘ll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com."

Yes, not only did he try to cover his butt with a pathetic excuse, but also put one of the worst forms of attacks on decent ever made. As Media Matter points out (here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511160016), that was only the tip of his attacks on decenters.
Then today, he furthered his "satire" by saying, "No, no, but that's good. You can have a militia that's a rainbow coalition, armed with spatulas." (another Media Matters post: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150011).

Is anything that comes out of his mouth isn't some form of insult? Even when trying to back down a bit, he just can't stop not being an ***. He not only said that anyone said that his statements went too far only consist of "far left Democrats".
If he only came out and disagreed with this initiative, then I wouldn't mind as much. He has his own opinions. But to say that the military should abandon San Francisco for it, or event to practicly invite terrorists to blow it up? Demogogic isn't even the word.
My advise to O'Reilly would be to just be quiet on the matter. It would be best if he would apologize, but I doubt he could without saying something just as bad, or possibly worse. This is a guy who gets hot-headed faster then water boils on the Sun.

But for something a little lighter on O'Reilly, see his Daily Show interview that happened a while ago(here: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?playVideo=24091). I should note that since the video is old, you may have to search for it, then it may not automaticly pop up.

Analysis: Nintendo's 3rd Party Failure

It's something that nobody can dispute, not even fanboys. Nintendo's Gamecube just is sucking when it comes to 3rd party support. So how did this happen, and will it happen with the Revolution?
What started it all was the Nintendo 64. The reason the 64 was a failure in 3rd party support was actually a good thing (at least at the time) for end consumers: carts. Cartridges simply were great for players: no loading screens and (if the developer wasn't cheap) no need to worry about memory cards. But carts was costly for publishers and more work for developers (who had to compress all the information in the game).
So going in this generation, the PS2 had two advantages: it had a year ahead in launch and (more importantly) it was the king of the consoles during the 32/64 bit generation. Every developer knew that people would flock to the PS2 even if it started out as crap. Gamecube had the problem that it had to prove itself as a new start for Nintendo, with plenty of baggage.
So why is the X-Box more developed then Gamecube? Simple: the differences in their launch. The Gamecube had a pretty poor launch, especially for Nintendo. The killer-app that was Smash Bros. Melee barely made the X-mas season (Dec. 3 it was released). The actual launch titles were mediocre, with the rental-worthy Luigi's Mansion as the flagship title.
Microsoft could have had a complete failure with the X-Box if one thing didn't happen: Halo was their launch title. In terms of game per system penetration, Halo is the best selling game since Tetris, a game that was packed in with the original Gameboy. With the success of Halo, 3rd parties noticed the X-Box and knew they had to at least port games over to it.
From there, companies had a certain set up for multiplatform games: PS2 was the main version, X-Box secondary and Gamecube came last. If it wasn't a Gamecube original, 3rd parties just didn't give the system the attention it deserved. Plus, the Gamecube was wedged between the two systems; players either chose the populous PS2 version or the graphicly bettered X-Box version (later, it became the online system of choice).
Nintendo knew that there was only one way for their version of games to sell better: more features. With the GBA selling like hotcakes, they attempted something very unique: GC-GBA connectivity.
That failed. Developers either didn't know what to do with it or just didn't care to do much with it. In its entire lifespan, only two games used it to its fullest, both exclusives. Other titles used it to unlock features that really didn't need the connection in the first place (see Metroid Prime).
Then the fanboys started screwing things up. The Gamecube was becoming the system of Nintendo, you only really played it for Nintendo games. Even 2nd parties started to suffer because they just weren't Nintendo games. Eternal Darkness was the first to suffer that fate.The fanboys just started buying only Nintendo titles, screwing 2nd and 3rd party games. Only one didn't suffer that fate, because it became a Nintendo title.
Soul Calibur 2 did something that Nintendo failed at: making a compelling, exclusive feature. By including Link in the package, fanboys flocked to the game and because the version of choice for anyone who owned a Gamecube (mostly because Spawn and Heihachi sucked).
Nintendo attempted to duplicate this achievement (see: SSX4 and NBA Street 3). I haven't seen the numbers, but I doubt it succeeded.
Then online started to be important. Nintendo took a gamble that online wasn't going to be important enough to make a difference, and they lost. By having the Broadband Adapter cost $40 and only available at their online store, it was impossible to find games that used it, thus people didn't buy it, thus developers didn't make use of it...
Without sales and online functionality to back up the Cube, developers just took their games off the small, purple (luckily, Nintendo put out black by the time I bought the system) box. Game like Burnout 3, Mortal Kombat: Deception (later cracked and was released on the Gamecube, without online) and Starcraft Ghost had online gameplay that the developers just didn't want to remove.

So where does this leave the Revolution. First, the Revolution solves the online problem, making a service that rivals (in terms of total quality) to that of Microsoft's. But the main question is: will developers accept the new controller? Without any games to see, Nintendo put a huge question mark on whether this new system will succeed or not.
What Nintendo needs to do is put a huge launch. They need to show developers and publishers that not only their system is worthy of 3rd party games, but it is a must. If Nintendo can push as many Revolutions into houses as possible, then 3rd parties will have to make something on the system.
But one thing is out of Nintendo's direct control: the fanboys. Nintendo maybe aiming at casual or even non-gamers, but if they only buy Nintendo titles, then it would be all for nought. 3rd parties need their games to be sold. Even if their games are not up to the same quality as the average Nintendo title, they need to see that their efforts aren't in vein. If anything, fanboys need to realize that not prefering Nintendo titles over others is actually what is best for Nintendo.

Even with the revelation of the new controller, the Revolution remains a wild card in this next generation. It has all the potential to succeed, but also the potential to bring Nintendo down. Both Nintendo and its fanboys need to look into the past to make sure mistakes aren't repeated, and then succeed.

A New Wave of Asinine Talk

Election season, a time in which people partake the act of democracy. A time in which people tell their representatives what needs to be done and what not to do.
But it also is a time in which one debates. Unfortunatly, as with any game or game-like event, there are sore losers.
Enter Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly.

After an election in Dover, PA, in which all of the school board members up for reelection were defeated, Robertson wasn't pleased. All eight were thrown out after trying to introduce "intellegent design" into science classrooms.
So Robertson went on the air on the 700 Club, and proclamed Dover that "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city."
Of course, he just couldn't keep his mouth shut. He later said, "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them." (story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9997292/)
I just seem to remember something about using God's name in vein, but I doubt Robertson knows the real meaning behind it. So often Robertson seems to believe that God does so much, he always asking him to do stuff for him. Robertson needs to know that he has two hands, two legs and one big mouth. Because the last time I checked, God wasn't spiteful.

O'Reilly gets the real ***hat award for the week by a hair. Whereas Robertson is relying on God, O'Reilly is invoking a corporial threat. Talking about a ballot measure that would ban military recruiters in schools, O'Reilly went straight to the worst he can say: "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead,"
Later, he said, "And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." (story: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/)

The fun part was that apearently, even the producers attempted to expunge these quotes from the record, specificly the transcript. But it has already been said.
Now, I only though Rush Limbaugh would say such a thing. Is this the point we're at, to where one issue, one disagreement would basicly mean economic war, taking a resource away.
This is a minor issue. Even under federal guidelines, only the schools would be hurt by refusing recruiters, even then it's just financially. We don't need to go into chaos, into a place where we are basicly at war for minor disagreements. And we certainly don't want to say people are free game for terrorists.

My prediction: Robertson will not issue an appology, but will disapear for a while. Which is good, because he needs to learn to think before speaking.
O'Reilly will appologize in a few days (I give three max). Then it will be business as usual, which isn't good. I can garentee this won't be the last time O'Reilly has his head up his ***. I just hope he won't go this far again.

Redulous Things Happening at the Capitol

It would seem as though it was 1984. Not the year, the book. The Bush Administration, as reported by MSNBC, attempted to rewrite history. During a press event, Scott McClellan was being pummled by the press as he attempted to stay on message, no matter how contridictory that is. Well, he had a slip of the tounge during one little bit during the October 31 briefing.

(note: the following is from the offical White House website, but is modified based on what the MSNBC tape had, see below why this is altered)
"Q Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's accurate.

Q So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, if I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. And I'm just not going to do that. I know very -- "

Well, the Bush Administration believes that isn't an accurate transcript. They belive it was actually:

(actual White House transcript)
"Q Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's accurate.

Q So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, if I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. And I'm just not going to do that. I know very -- "

Note that "That's Accurate" becomes "I don't think that's accurate". Changes quite a bit.
Congessional Quarterly (I believe, will have to double check) put in the first one, the one in which is accurate to what the video shows. The White House not only tried to get them to change it, but has gone on record to say that their version is the right one.
Is it me, or does rejecting reality just not good for your image.

On a different note, Bill Frist believes that the leak of info on secret prisons is more worrisome then the activity at the prisons (story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1301889).
Wait, a leak about wrong doings is bad? Shouldn't the wrong doings, ones in which was said not to be happening (see above press briefing), be revealed?
It also is confusing since many Republicans were saying that Rove, by revealing Valerie Plame's identity, was actually "telling the truth"? Now by leaking info on secret prisons, that person is breaking the law?
Leaks are bad when they are intended to hurt us or do more damage then they are attempting to solve. Deep Throat isn't considered a wrong-doer by anyone but those who have lost because of the information revealed. We should know if America is torturing anyone, friend or foe. Secrets should only stay secret if they actually help us out. Having undercover agents are there to find out information.
Someone please post if I got this wrong. If I'm not, then Frist has his priorities wrong.

Rumor: DRM on PS3

Well, a week without posting. Missed me? No? I thought so.
Joystick in another rumor that isn't likely to be true, at least with the extend they say. Their claim is that the PS3 will force registration of games, and thus make it so then used or pirated games can't be played on it (here: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000420067137/).
I seriously doubt that Sony will go that far, at least on the used games. I have a feeling that the bit of truth in this rumor is that Sony is including some form of DRM in PS3 games, and will likely have negative consequences (see used games).
Given their parent company's problem with DRM (the CDs that automaticly install rootkits), this would not be a good move to do at the moment. The problem with DRM technology is that it restricts alot of fair uses. If the DRM restricts things like used games, there will be a serious backlash against them.
Considering they are using Blu-ray, I don't think they need anything beyond the hardware encoding that is already in place. One of the reasons Microsoft went with HD-DVD is that consumers can reproduce their own disks, whereas Blu-ray doesn't. Even if the two movie formats combine, I doubt Sony will move games off the technology.
Likelyhood: Sony restricting used games: 10%; Sony including some form of DRM: 25%. Sony has recently been showing that they are not the smartest tech company right now, but recent events will effect the PS3's games and hardware.

More Cancellations for Nintendo

Via Gamespot, Starcraft Ghost is now not comming onto the Gamecube (here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6137109.html). Appearently, it's once again due to the lack of online capabilities of the system.
Usually, when one of these titles gets canceled, it doesn't really effect me that much. Games like Mortal Kombat are usually too low on my list to care about it. Only games that were never slated for the Cube I want to get (ie: Burnout 3 and DBZ: Budokai 3). But this game was an exception. I was actually anticpating the game, especially since I own Starcraft on my PC.
Owners of the small box have seen this type of disapointment. Lets face it, almost always the Cube version gets the shaft. Even if the given game lacks online features on all consoles, the Cube version is the last to come out.
I'm still questioning why online is so important to a game. Burnout 3 could do without online, or at least Cube owners could settle with only split-screen multiplayer only (which I find more fun in general anyway). I know I should get a PS2 or X-Box (and would if I could afford it), but why am I being left behind.
More importantly, it just feels like a promise broken. PS2 owners are probably equally disapointed when they heard that Farcry Instincts would become a X-Box exclusive, as opposed to the full multiplatform title it originally was.
I do understand that things change, but this is a huge disapointment on top of previous disapointments this game already has made (delays that make Rare look quick). I just hope this is the last disapointment we'll see out of this game.

Losing the Ownership Society

This is something that has and likely will effect both the political arena and gaming realm. What we are experiencing right now is more and more of control, which previously consumers had, is going to corporations.

Part of the problem is copyright protection. Ever since mass media has been sold, pirates have bootleged its content. Before the broadband Internet, it was only a guy on the street. Now it isn't difficult to distribute because of the Internet. Suddenly, one could distribute digital media either though a website or on a P2P network.
But the Internet has also encouraged the loss of consumers' rights because it eliminate the middleman: the hardware. By not needing to use a disk to play music or a game, companies can now start enforcing certain uses for it's products. While many are actually more of a good thing for consumers (Steam updating its games), others can be very negative to almost all consumers (read: http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html

).
One problem that is comming about in the House is the Broadcast Flag, a means of preventing piracy. Unfortunatly, the Broadcast Flag also breaks many common features the the average consumer knows and love. The new version appearently goes farther then the first version (read: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/01/hollywood_after_the_.html).
Recently, Tivos have put in a switch in which if a network wants to, they could force a recorded program to be deleted from the Tivo after 7 or so days. Also recently, some printer-ink companies are putting a End User Licencing Agreement (EULA) which stipulates that you can't use a refiller for the cartridge; you have to buy a new ink cartridge every time.

One model that is popping up is the subscription model. The newly formed Napster now states that you can only listen to its music IF you pay the subscription fee. This also means that you are limited to what you can do with THEIR music.
ITunes has it so then when you download a song, you buy and own that song. You can put it on a disk or iPod. There's no restriction. The only restriction (that I at least know of) is how many computers your account is tied to. The songs don't have that restriction.

One of the most annoying things that one has to look at now is the EULA. Mostly you will find your generic Dont Pirate type language, but every now and then something bothersome does come along. World of Warcraft was recently discovered to have a type of spyware program on it. At least the initial reason for it was to prevent cheaters.

When President Bush was talking about the "ownership society", he mostly limited it to Social Security and savings in scope. But we are on the verge of losing what we have known, loved, and taken for granted. Just being able to watch a program on a recording has helped ratings, not hindered them. Being able to make backup copies of your CDs will go if the RIAA has anything to do with it. Playing games won't be a one-time fee as it has been, but subscription along with the regular fee-even for non-MMOs. That Video iPod you have-the MPAA won't let use put your DVD movies onto it. And the computer will be most effected, since open programs will now be closed-as in closed down.
There are two enemies in breaking you rights, the ones you have when you own something. The first is lobbists like the RIAA and the MPAA. Those are the people who don't care about improving technology or your experience, as long as they get more money in the end. In the name of preventing piracy, they not only would limit and break your rights, but squelch any newcommers into the business.
The second are those who force subscription services. One thing my parents did was get a DVR without the need of a Tivo subscription. Judging by recent events, that was a good move on their part.
One speculation is that Microsoft would love to go into the anti-spyware business, since that would basicly mean you now have to pay for Windows updates. On a similar note, anti-virus programs do another sneaky thing: make the program only half work. Without updates, you're screwed.
I want to keep it so then I don't have to pay continual fees to have my programs. I want to have my World of Warcraft work on all servers, not just the official servers.

Overall, I just want to own things. I want the ability to copy them, to watch them, to use it the way I have always been using it. I am not avocating piracy, but I don't want to turn on my computer tomarrow and find Steam won't work unless I pay Valve, or my MP3 player can't upload new songs. I want to watch my shows on my Tivo anytime I want to, not within a certain time limit. And most of all, I want new technologies to emerge, for new mediums to better our experience.

Message to media corporations: STOP BREAKING MY RIGHTS.