I remember how at the 360 launch, MS games were $10 cheaper than 3rd party games. I also remember how this trend was supposed to continue. "We're greedy bastards" indeed.

To a degree I found the same thing with the DS. It seems like in many cases the unique "features" the consoles provide are squeezed into the game where they don't really add much.
The extra processing power that allows for better graphics, sound, and special effects (such as more accurate physics) in the 360 and PS3 currently outweigh the control scheme of the Wii in my opinion.

I hear the PS4 will sell 5 million boxes without them even including the system in it. At least that's what a Sony spokesman told me...

The bottom line is it's usually easier to deal w/ a brick-and-mortar in case of a problem than a net-based company.

In many cases, this is probably true. However, if the glasses really are 1/10th the cost of store glasses, they can screw up 9 times (getting it right on the 10th try) and you'll still break even (assuming the quality is comparable).

And did he jump, or was he pushed? I vote "pushed".

That's the first thing I assumed. I'm guessing the PS3's "success" has a hand in this. That and I'm sure he has enough to retire to a private beach somewhere.

What's the point? I understand if people think E3 was getting too big, but the new conference could fit in a school gym, it sounds like. Why even bother? Just officially kill the event, and let another replace it.

And the world gasps...

as on April the 28th the world is introduced too...

...

wait for it....

...

another WW2 shooter.

It's obvious they posted a clue in the text. The next game is clearly going to be Call of Doctors: Big Yellow Fever. It's a prequel to Call of Duty where your character (a doctor) has to vaccinate as many people as possible before WWII breaks out, to ensure there are enough soldiers to fight the Nazis. Spoiler Text: By the end of the game, your character has armed himself to become a nerd badass ala Gordon Freeman and joins the war, becoming the main character in Call of Duty 1.

Seriously, I'd hope this is something more exciting that COD4: Let's Storm Normandy One More Time.

At the very least I'd like to see the game set during a different time, like the modern version suggested above, or even WWI (when's the last time we had a WWI game?).

Here's a general run-down of what I've been told (as-is, with no guarantees on accuracy):

1. Around 7:15, the shooter goes to a dorm, shoots one person and the police are called.
2. The campus is put into lock down.
3. The police apprehend someone fitting the description of the shooter (Asian, wearing a hat, etc...).
4. The lock down is canceled, as it is believed the shooter has been caught.
5. Within 10 minutes, the actual shooter shows up to a classroom in the engineering building and starts shooting.
6. Every single person in this initial room was shot. The shooter then leaves the room, and those who are able to walk go close the door and barricade themselves against it. At this point the shooter tries to get back in the room, but can't open the door, so he shoots through it. (This was relayed to me by a co-worker who says she talked to someone who was actually in the room.)
7. ? (Haven't heard anything about afterwards)

Interesting Links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6561733.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6561335.stm

As to how a shooter could wander around campus, keep in mind it's a large campus. The college I went to (James Madison University) has 17.4k students, and a campus of ~665 acres . VA Tech has ~28k students, with a campus of ~2600 acres and over 100 buildings. Its student body is 1.6 times bigger than my university, but has a campus 3.9 times bigger. I doubt it's terribly hard to not stand out, considering the shooter was supposed to have had 2 semi-automatic 9mm's and a 22.

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 17:58.

My understanding is that the police arrested someone fitting the description of the shooter after the first shooting. It was after this that the lock down was lifted, and then the second batch of shootings occurred within minutes.

I'll post again if I hear anything additional locally that isn't already plastered all over the news. Interestingly, one of my co-worker's friends was actually shot, but is apparently doing ok (the bullet grazed their arm), and a second co-worker's brother goes there and is unharmed.

Tango:

Yeah, there was a recent update for the system that lets you run folding@home on it. I don't have a PS3 to tell you if it's worth anything, but I know it's possible.

Count me as shocked; I thought they were going to sell 5 million without any games.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6151631.html

I can see the marketing slogans now...

"Now everyone can be a great writer!"
"Your loved ones will die to write this well!"
"Show your loved ones they had the 'write' stuff!"
"Cremation: The write thing to do!"

... but $180 is way too much, so I'll just wait until my current 360 breaks down and get it as part of the elite system.

I've never understood the love of Halo. To me, the Halo games are just terribly generic shooters. The enemies were bland and repetitive (I can't even tell you their names) much like the levels. Halo 2 did a better job of avoiding this, but the first one was terrible in this respect(I especially liked the previous comment about needing the arrows to show you where to go because it all looks the same). I'm always stunned with the people who think Halo levels compare favorably to HL2 levels... to me it's as absurd as saying a tricycle is a better ride than a Ferrari.

I should also mention I own both Halo and Halo 2, and I've beaten them both. They're a fun distraction, but after you've killed the same 4-5 enemy types over levels that look the same (more of a problem with the original Halo) it just gets repetitive.

Also, I game on both PC and console, and with the current prices of consoles and accessories, it really doesn't come out to be significantly cheaper than PCs. Keep in mind you can recycle parts from old systems, so once you have a working setup, you can slowly upgrade it, you don't have to throw thousands at a PC per year.

For example, I recently upgraded the guts of my PC (CPU, RAM, mobo, video card) for about $1000 and recycled the case, drives, etc. I paid $400 for my 360, another $100 for two more wireless controllers, $40 for a wired controller, $20 for a play & charge kit, $14 for a third battery, and then $300 to replace the first 360 that died. That's $874 right there. Of course, had the first 360 actually been built to last, the total would have been $574, but then again had it been a PC the parts would have been covered longer than 90 days and I could have replaced the affected part(s) without buying a whole new system. Let's also not forget that the next gen console games are $10 more than the same PC game, with PC games frequently even cheaper than that. PC systems cost more initially, but consoles make up for it with more expensive games and accessories.

This comment was edited on Mar 18, 12:32.

If you guys want to get a copy of Universal Combat, you can get it at Amazon.com for a price that reflects the value of this game: $2.21.

As an owner of that game, I can assure you it is still quite overpriced. Looking at the screenshots of the game is more entertaining, and they are free.

It seems to me there are a two kinds of pirates: one that is legitimately trying to test out a game before buying, and one that will use any excuse to justify why they aren't paying for games.

For those of you who download a game and try it for a little while, I sympathize with you. There are some crappy, poorly made games that aren't worthy of the budget bin (any game made by Derek Smart, for example). If you download a game, play it a couple hours (or less) and then delete it (or run out and buy it). Fine, you've taken the equivalent of a test drive before you buy a new car. You either hated it and removed all association with it, or decided it was worth your money and supported it.

Then there's the other kind of pirate. They too justify their actions as a way to ensure they don't waste money on bad games; however this group needs a much longer test drive.

Let's take C&C 3 for example. Of course the demo isn't a good enough test run for you because, of course, a tutorial mission, 2 campaign missions and a skirmish mode aren't enough of a test drive to see if the game's worth picking up. You enjoy the demo enough to hunt down a torrent for the full version though, because you suspect it's worthy of your play time. As a result, you pirate C&C 3 and play through the entire GDI campaign and enjoy it. But wait! Maybe the Nod campaign is different! You have to try that too (wouldn't want to waste your money, after all). So you play through the Nod campaign and enjoy it as well, but what you really enjoy is a good multiplayer game, so you play every available multiplayer mode and have a lot of fun. However, the single player "was just too short" and multiplayer mode doesn't offer 25 different game types and doesn't support enough players, so it's just not worth your money (however you will keep it on your hard drive "just in case you change your mind"). Good thing you tried the game out before you bought it!

The bottom line for me is that if you "test" a game for more than a few hours, you should buy it if it's good enough for you to keep "testing." On a side note, I don't know where you people buy your games, because the vast majority of mine were bought for under $50. Supreme Commander, for example, I just bought last week at Circuit City for $38. It's certainly not uncommon for new PC games to go on sale at Best Buy, Circuit City, Frys, etc. for a good chunk less than $50.

"Playing with LEGO bricks and developing online worlds are both creative activities. To bring them together is deeply professionally satisfying and we look forward to working with the LEGO team," said Scott Brown, president of NetDevil.

Peanut butter and ketchup are both foods; doesn't mean they should be put together.

Why?

I tend to agree that I'd prefer turn based to RTS (which is saying a lot, as I generally prefer RTS). I could probably be content with a baldur's gate type system, i.e. a real time turn based hybrid where you could have the game be real time, turn based, or any combination of the two you liked.

Sadly, the pessimist in me says this game will likely be bad to average, but I'd love to be wrong.

Oh I agree it's dumb for MS to make all the gaming claims they have about Vista. I think it's clear that XP is currently the better gaming OS, I just have a problem with looking at those particular benchmarks and claiming that gaming performance in Vista is terrible.