Category: Gaming
Revisiting “If you want to compete, you have to pay” part 2
Posted by Jeremy S. in Gaming Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:25 No Comments
In part 1, I try to briefly address the idea of “needing” to pay to compete in F2P MMOs. This is a continuation of that post. Beau over at MMO Voices commented that feeling the need to pay usually came with what pace you wanted to play the game at. This is pretty much true. There are some truths that are in any F2P MMO whether it’s Shaiya, RoM, Allods or any other: There are catch-phrases of the day…
Revisiting “If you want to compete, you will have to pay” part 1
Posted by Jeremy S. in Gaming Monday, 30 August 2010 22:21 2 Comments
I’m going to try to keep this to about 3 parts. So, let’s get to it. Laird HexDSL wrote a small post expressing a bit of how he felt over the use of the term “Free-to-play”. I had some comments on it, but I promised I wouldn’t write any more walls of text over on MMO Voices. So, I’ll write it here…
Guild Wars 2 questions
Posted by Jeremy S. in Gaming Wednesday, 25 August 2010 15:36 3 Comments
I’ve been keeping an eye on highlighted videos of Guild Wars 2, but don’t know every ounce of info that’s been released. I’ve most recently watched the Shatterer event video, and walked away with some questions…
Quote of the day
Posted by Jeremy S. in Gaming, Life Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:35 No Comments
“I pulled my back out while mixing potions or dueling.” – A friend while playing Harry Potter on the Wii.
This is the single most important moment for gamers – Vote now!
Posted by Jeremy S. in Feature, Gaming Thursday, 5 August 2010 01:28 4 Comments
[UPDATED]“For nearly two decades, elected officials have tried to regulate which video games you can buy, rent and play. Every single time they’ve passed a law, the federal courts have struck it down as unconstitutional. But this may change this fall.” – ECA
Anyone of any age can sign this petition, to help protect gaming from losing first amendment rights.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Schwarzenegger v. EMA. That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.” – ECA
“It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.” – ECA
“If you’re an American gamer, and you care about gaming and your rights, stand up and be counted; sign the petition today!” – ECA
You can read more info about it on:
Entertainment Consumers Association
[UPDATED Wikipedia- Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) is a United States-based non-partisan, non-government, non-profit organization dedicated to the interests of individuals who play computer and video games in the United States and Canada[1]. Game consumers in the US represent over 30 million Americans and the industry grosses roughly $10 billion annually.
Hal Halpin, a game industry veteran and former president of the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) – now called the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) – founded ECA in July 2006. The concept of the ECA was born following an IEMA board of directors meeting, in which Halpin recognized a need for consumer representation.[3] The association was launched as a means for consumer rights advocacy following a string of anti-games legislation aimed at criminalizing the sale of certain video games. The industry itself was well represented by the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), Entertainment Software Association (ESA), and Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), but those that purchase and play games were virtually unrepresented until the launch of the ECA.
The association distinguished itself early by weighing in publicly on issues that the parallel trade associations did not, including standing in defense of the game Mass Effect and its developer,
BioWare, during the related controversy surrounding supposed sexualization of the product. ECA issued a press statement calling on FOX News to retract the misleading story…
On May 12, 2010 the ECA announced that they would be submitting an amicus curiae (friend of the court) document in support of the gaming industry in the upcoming Schwarzenegger v. EMA First Amendment case. The organization also stated that they intend to amend a consumer petition to their brief to request that the court find that games should continue to enjoy the same First Amendment protections as music and movies and not be legislated and regulated like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
The State of California’s case is an appeal urging the Court to adopt a new constitutional standard that would enable states to ban the sale or rental of violent video games for those under age 18. The Ninth Circuit Court previously found that there was no proof that playing such games would cause physical or psychological harm to minors. The appeals court also said the law was not the least-restrictive approach to protecting children from exposure to such games.]