User information for Tom Kidd

Real Name
Tom Kidd
Nickname
Schnapple
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description

Supporter

Signed On
April 1, 2000
Total Posts
861 (Graduate)
User ID
3675
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
861 Comments. 44 pages. Viewing page 14.
Newer [  1    9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24    44  ] Older
10.
 
Re: Big Mac Attack
Mar 31, 2003, 22:09
10.
Re: Big Mac Attack Mar 31, 2003, 22:09
Mar 31, 2003, 22:09
 
civ3- don't know or care, its just the editor the game was released ages ago.
Apparently the mac version of Civ3 was contracted out to someone (like MacPlay or something) but the pace of patches to the PC version of the game proved a bit much for the Mac porters. They got to a point with 1.29 (I think) where they realized it would take WAY too long to do the editor changes. If they updated the game the editor wouldn't be able to make levels for the game anymore, but if they didn't update the game then it would be different from the PC version. I don't recall how that came out in the short run.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
3.
 
Re: Blech!
Mar 31, 2003, 10:43
3.
Re: Blech! Mar 31, 2003, 10:43
Mar 31, 2003, 10:43
 
OK, pretend for a second that they weren't treating the demo-downloading and potitely-purchasing public as beta testers (i.e., dozens of releases etc.) and pretend for a second that the graphics weren't lackluster.

Now, what's wrong with the game? Pretend it's got its last patch and graphics don't matter.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
3.
 
Re: TX bill
Mar 28, 2003, 09:10
3.
Re: TX bill Mar 28, 2003, 09:10
Mar 28, 2003, 09:10
 
yeah, next thing you know they'll be telling us it's illegal to pirate MP3's, so there goes that.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
6.
 
Re: Ehh
Mar 25, 2003, 18:40
6.
Re: Ehh Mar 25, 2003, 18:40
Mar 25, 2003, 18:40
 
I don't think EA would publish it - it doesn't go with the WWII theme and it would be hard to match the strength of the BF1942 XP's. My guess is either these publishers have a pre-existing arrangement with EA, are publishers willing to work with EA, or are value publishers willing to take on EA.

In any event these guys found one hell of a way into the industry (be luck enough to make a timely mod)

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
2.
 
Have Guns, Will Rock
Mar 25, 2003, 13:50
2.
Have Guns, Will Rock Mar 25, 2003, 13:50
Mar 25, 2003, 13:50
 
Yup, another game title for Blue to pun-to-death

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
1.
 
Wow!
Mar 20, 2003, 19:06
1.
Wow! Mar 20, 2003, 19:06
Mar 20, 2003, 19:06
 
Somehow I thought this would never come out...

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
6.
 
Re: So...
Mar 20, 2003, 10:30
6.
Re: So... Mar 20, 2003, 10:30
Mar 20, 2003, 10:30
 
Actually at one point at least they were offering a 14 day trial, and when you go to the signup page they say something about not being charged "until your trial period is over". If they're still offering the trial they could stand to advertise it a bit better.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
1.
 
So...
Mar 20, 2003, 09:57
1.
So... Mar 20, 2003, 09:57
Mar 20, 2003, 09:57
 
...since they've both been out a while, how does this game compare to Batlefield 1942? I know one's an MMORPG and one's a FPS-type game, but since the basic jist is a good online WWII game, is the persistent nature of WWII Online worth it?

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
4.
 
Re: Well Devster...
Mar 20, 2003, 08:03
4.
Re: Well Devster... Mar 20, 2003, 08:03
Mar 20, 2003, 08:03
 
so this isn't some sort of political statement?

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
8.
 
Re: Movie games
Mar 19, 2003, 17:20
8.
Re: Movie games Mar 19, 2003, 17:20
Mar 19, 2003, 17:20
 
Goldeneye comes to mind as well.

Plus Star Wars games used to be (consistently) good.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
3.
 
Re: No Surprise Here
Mar 19, 2003, 10:13
3.
Re: No Surprise Here Mar 19, 2003, 10:13
Mar 19, 2003, 10:13
 
Naw man, it's gonna be "Super Gamecube"

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
2.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 18, 2003, 13:58
2.
Re: No subject Mar 18, 2003, 13:58
Mar 18, 2003, 13:58
 
Am I the only one befuddled by NVIDIA's version numbering schemes?

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
3.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 18, 2003, 10:25
3.
Re: No subject Mar 18, 2003, 10:25
Mar 18, 2003, 10:25
 
12.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 16:07
12.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 16:07
Mar 16, 2003, 16:07
 
How's this for incentive. People won't buy your games if someone else is making them in the same genre that does support xbox live.

You're absolutely right - that's the incentive. So if EA makes all their titles XBL-less, and Sega does all theirs XBL-enabled, and they sell more than EA, then EA gives in and does XBL. However, if EA still sells more then they're proven right.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
6.
 
As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
6.
As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
 
I don't own an Xbox. Neither my PS2 or GameCube system have network adapters. And I never even played Chu Chu Rocket on my Dreamcast, so this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't own or use an online console.

That being said, what it looks like is happening is this - PC Gamers are very tolerant of the pains of getting online. You have to find a good server. You need to use something dedicated like All-Seeing Eye. People even devote spare systems to being game servers. Sure, the games have built-in server browsers and there's master servers to be had, but for the most part people don't like the integrated browser.

Joe Console on the other hand doesn't want a part of any of this. He just wants to go play. The problem of course is that there has to be somewhere to go. For various reasons I won't debate or dispute here, the servers need to be on dedicated computers, not other people's consoles. So someone has to have those servers, maintain said servers, and allow access to them. Since PC's are scalable and can do their own servers, even dedicated machines, PC Game Makers have a fire and forget attitude - they sell the game in box for like $50 and let people do their own. This won't work for consoles so someone on the non-consumer end has to do it.

With PS2 and GameCube, the technology is there, the hardware is there, and the ability is there. But SCEA doesn't want to do it themselves. So Eidos or EA come out with an online game, then do their own servers for the game. The game knows to look for these servers. Since the publisher/developer does this service, then they can set the price for the service - like an annual or monthly charge.

Microsoft on the other hand decided to do this service themselves. Their Xbox live is a kit that for $50 lets you play online for a year (I've heard conflicting reports as to if there's an annual or monthly renewal charge). And they handle the servers themselves. This means if a publisher goes out of business their online game doesn't have to die with them. It also keeps a consistent look and feel to joining a game. Finally it means you don't have to negotiate game play on a publisher-by-publisher basis. The downside of it is that if your game maker then wants to charge their own price (like for revolving MMORPG content) then that's an additional fee. Depending on your take on this, this is either a tactic from Microsoft to keep the money to themselves, or a favor Microsoft does for gamers to keep greedy publishers away.

The other side of this coin could be that Microsoft is either not allowing publishers to charge any additional fees or limiting them pretty badly (the "couldn't agree on terms" part). Plus Xbox Live I'm told only has a certian number of titles online at a time. Maybe EA didn't like the idea that no one can play Madden 2003 online on XBL after August.

So let's say Nintendo did Mario Kart Online. They'd either have to charge people to play it (beyond just buying the game), or come out with an elaborate system ala XBL. Now remember this is Nintendo that has found out that they can live just fine on first party titles and still sold truckloads of N64 systems despite few titles. They've found what works and will make them money - so they may be right that its difficult to make money with online games (witness how despite hundreds of thousands of EverQuest players, the price goes up and service personnel get fired). Microsoft on the other hand has less of a care of making money (they reportedly lose money on everything but Windows and Office). Microsoft mostly wants their hands in everything.

So not every move by every company is a "greedy bastard" play - some are good business sense. And just because you don't agree with a decision doesn't mean its wrong.

I still want Mario Kart Online though.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
6.
 
Re: Hey whatever happened to...
Mar 14, 2003, 11:51
6.
Re: Hey whatever happened to... Mar 14, 2003, 11:51
Mar 14, 2003, 11:51
 
Does anyone know if the re-release version is different from that last patch? I seem to recall the "last final" patch done by GarageGames still had some bugs so there was going to be a "last last final" patch and then I heard nothing. Maybe they gave up again?

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
3.
 
Hey whatever happened to...
Mar 14, 2003, 10:49
3.
Hey whatever happened to... Mar 14, 2003, 10:49
Mar 14, 2003, 10:49
 
...that Tribes 2 re-release?

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
71.
 
Re: Edit message #59
Mar 11, 2003, 14:15
71.
Re: Edit message #59 Mar 11, 2003, 14:15
Mar 11, 2003, 14:15
 
Methinks that this is fredrickson. If you're gonna be a troll might as well be skitzophrenic as well.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
52.
 
Re: Longhorn
Mar 11, 2003, 09:34
52.
Re: Longhorn Mar 11, 2003, 09:34
Mar 11, 2003, 09:34
 
did you forget about the part where .NET was how we are supposed to be running MS apps in the future? No more CDs to buy or install (didn't I read that somewhere?)

I think you're confusing the concept of the Application Service Provicer (ASPs) with .NET.

.NET, which is more control by MS of the user's computing and internet experience through their bevy of helpful and "seamless" applications.

Once again you're misunderstanding .NET, which is itself understandable since due to lots of Microsoft marketing muckups, most of the public doesn't get what .NET is - and the ones that do get it (i.e., Programmers) have a hell of a time explaining it to others.

So to recap, .NET is first and foremost a marketing term for a number of Microsoft technologies. The #1 thing .NET is is a framework consisting of a platform (the CLR, think a Virtual Machine) and a set of class libraries (the framework itself). The framework covers everything from methods of doing businesses within Windows itself (nearly everything you want to do has a well fleshed out series of classes), to web services (having machines talk to each other over the web regardless of what they're running - .NET and J2EE apps can coverse), to XML parsing.

On top of this is a series of programming languages targeting the CLR (like the Java compilers target the Java VM). Microsoft makes three such languages: C#, Visual Basic.NET, and J#, and other vendors are making their own languages - everything from Fortran.NET to COBOL.NET. And on top of that, Microsoft makes their own command line compilers free, but they also sell an advanced tool, Visual Studio .NET, to work them from within an IDE. The other vendors make their languages work with this IDE as well.

The #2 thing .NET is is a marketing concept applied to the aforementioned web services (which many are predicting will be a huge market and one in which - surprise! - Microsoft makes more money if they don't make everyone use Microsoft software exclusively), the "Passport" (which has next to nothing to do with .NET #1 above, they just want a universal login option and they wanted to make people aware of .NET when they logged in - which mainly just confused people), a series of centralized web services (the now-shelved Hailstorm), and a Server (the now-renamed Windows.NET server - named such so that it also made people think in terms of .NET but once again confused people - it will now be called Windows Sever 2003).

So what does .NET have to do with gaming? Well save for the fact that DirectX 9 allows for C# and VB.net to natively create DirectX applications (something Microsoft themselves admits will never happen - C++ will almost always be the game design language of choice), pretty much nothing. They may make it an option to log in to Microsoft's version of GameSpy with your .NET Passport to play games, but that will always be an option. Microsoft may enforce it on its own games (like Asheron's Call) but they're foolhardy if they think they can enforce others to do it as well.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
26.
 
Legal Mirrors?
Mar 7, 2003, 16:24
26.
Legal Mirrors? Mar 7, 2003, 16:24
Mar 7, 2003, 16:24
 
I can't get to the page at the moment - is there a rule against mirroring it? Seems like there would be since it's behind a data collecting form, but why wouldn't they want mirror help? Oh well.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
861 Comments. 44 pages. Viewing page 14.
Newer [  1    9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24    44  ] Older