Debate
Latest
Presidential flamewars, er, debates start tonight at 9PM ET on YouTube
Web video sites and civilized discourse have never been particularly compatible concepts, but that's not stopping YouTube from giving it a shot. Roughly a month ahead of the next US presidential election, YouTube be the host to the first of three presidential debates. You can tune into the first tonight at 9PM ET via the site's Elections Hub, courtesy of the folks at ABC news. Further debates can be streamed on the site on the 11th and 22nd at the same time, with then Vice Presidents getting their moment in the web video spotlight on the 11th. Click on the source link to tune in, but stay away from the comments if you're interested in retaining any faith in the political process, and or humankind.
US presidential campaign trail winds its way to Xbox Live on August 27th with Election 2012 Hub
Can't get enough coverage of the US presidential race even with YouTube in the mix? Microsoft's Election 2012 Hub for Xbox Live may be able to satisfy your inner political junkie. Redmond's initiative will provide video of town hall events at both the Democratic and Republican national conventions, daily content from NBC and full coverage of results as ballots are cast and counted on November 6th. Throughout live streams of the debates, users will be able to rate the performances of public office hopefuls and see what marks other viewers give them in real-time. Information on voter registration, politicians and their take on issues will also be included. According to Microsoft, roughly 40 percent of Xbox-owning voters surveyed aren't concretely committed to a candidate running for the Oval Office, placing them in the highly-prized swing voter category. The service won't launch until the Grand Old Party's pow-wow kicks off on August 27th, but we hear there's plenty of relevant reading to keep you busy until then.
The Daily Grind: Do you buy in to the MMO hype and hate cycle?
If you listened only to the more heated debates in Massively's comments and around the blogosphere, it'd be easy to get lost amid polarizing hyperbole and scathing vitriol about MMOs and the drama enveloping them. The way some people tell it, a game like Guild Wars 2 is either the second coming or a complete failure even before it's launched. World of Warcraft is tanking with "only" nine million subscriptions. Star Wars: The Old Republic's path to free-to-play is the last gasp of a dying game, never mind that it surpassed expectations for profitability long ago. It's a challenge indeed to find a nuanced middle ground and understand how real players (not just vocal commenters) perceive the games. So does a game have to be the best or worst ever to be worthy of discussion? Can't a game just be decent or good enough? How do you avoid being swept away by the latest MMO storm surge of hype and hate? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
Choose My Adventure: Preparing for TERA
The initial Choose My Adventure poll always goes to the game that gets its community moving. This time around, it was TERA, and that means that I'll be spending the next six weeks knee-deep in huge monsters and active combat. And per tradition, this week will be an overview of the game for those who know nothing about it; the polls to determine how I start out. Fun for all! I'm hard-pressed to think of a game that I've had a more back-and-forth relationship with than TERA. When I first heard about the game, it didn't make an impression on me. Then I started seeing the screenshots, and I was interested. Then I saw more, and I was suddenly less interested... and then I started hearing about the game's actual gameplay, and I swung back around in the other direction. It's a polarizing game for a lot of people, but it's a game that deserves a little more love past those elements.
EVE Evolved: The benefits of a subscription
In last week's EVE Evolved opinion piece, I tackled the question of whether it would be possible to make EVE Online free-to-play and then devised a viable hybrid freemium business model based on other apparently successful free-to-play conversions. While this was largely a thought experiment exploring the viability of a conversion, the fact that other subscription games have made the change recently makes it more than just theoretical. The possibility that executives at CCP Games have investigated the same options makes this debate an important one to hash out in a public forum. We've established that a free-to-play EVE could potentially be viable, but this week I'd like to take the debate one step further and ask whether EVE is actually doing the right thing with its current subscription model. Subscriptions may no longer appear to be the dominant business model in the MMO landscape, but they have some major advantages that are rapidly becoming apparent as more and more games drop their monthly fees. The sale of cosmetic enhancements will only net so much money, and if a game expands into selling convenience items that circumvent grind, there's a strong financial incentive to develop grindy gameplay and then sell shortcuts. This produces a conflict of interest between developing fun games and making money that isn't present with the subscription model. In this week's EVE Evolved, I look at the benefits of the subscription model, the unique position CCP is in with its PLEX system, and the hidden dangers of convenience-based microtransactions.
Apple awarded multitouch patent, debate over implications ensues
Apple has recently been awarded a patent for a "Portable multifunction device, method, and graphical user interface for translating displayed content," and much debate has ensued over the implications of this patent. Some, such as intellectual property analyst Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, claim the content of the patent is excessively broad. Mueller told PCMag that the patent "covers a kind of functionality without which it will be hard to build a competitive smartphone," and could "allow Apple to stifle innovation and bully competitors." Others, such as Nilay Patel of This is my next, disagree and claim the patent is in fact very narrowly focused. Classifying the reaction of outlets like PCMag and Macworld as a "media firestorm," Patel claims the patent's contents only apply to a very narrow range of behaviors. "The main idea is always the same: you interact with a main interface display using N fingers, and you interact with a frame within that display using M fingers, in a way that doesn't alter the main display." As one example, Patel notes that you're able to use the pinch-to-zoom gesture on an embedded map in Mobile Safari without causing the content around that map to zoom as well. Patently Apple's analysis of the patent asserts that Patel's interpretation is incorrect, and the patent may well be as far-reaching as initial reports suggested. The site claims this newly-awarded patent applies not only to the main claim, but also several other incorporated patents that read like a litany of basic multitouch device functionality: Multipoint Touch Surface Controller Multipoint Touchscreen Gestures For Touch Sensitive Input Devices Mode-Based Graphical User Interfaces For Touch Sensitive Input Devices Virtual Input Device Placement On A Touch Screen User Interface Operation Of A Computer With A Touch Screen Interface Activating Virtual Keys Of A Touch-Screen Virtual Keyboard Multi-Functional Hand-Held Device None of us at TUAW are lawyers, so we're not particularly well-qualified to determine who's on the right side of this debate as far as the patents themselves are concerned. In the end, Apple itself will be the sole entity responsible for deciding whether this patent and the others in its portfolio are far-reaching enough to go after competitors who have... let's say re-mixed... some of the innovations brought to market in the original iPhone.
Editorial: It's Apple's 'post-PC' world -- we're all just living in it
On Wednesday, Apple introduced the world to the iPad 2. A beautiful device, to be sure. Feature packed? You bet. Soon to be selling like hotcakes? Absolutely. But the introduction of an iteration on an already existing product wasn't the most notable piece of the event, nor was the surprise appearance of Steve Jobs. No, Wednesday's event was significant because it introduced the world to Apple's real vision for the foreseeable future, a theme the company has hinted at but never fully expressed. This week, Apple showed everyone where it was headed, challenged competitors on that direction, and made it clear that the company not only has staked a claim in that space, but is defining it. This week, Apple stepped into the "post-PC" era of computing -- and there's no looking back, at least not for the folks in Cupertino. By joining the company's ongoing vision of a "different" kind of computing with a soundbite friendly piece of marketing-speak, Apple has changed the rules of the game, and made the competition's efforts not just an uphill battle, but -- at least in the eyes of Steve Jobs and co. -- essentially moot. But what exactly is the "post-PC" world? And why is it significant? Let me explain.
Leland Yee and Activision VP to debate if games should be restricted
Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, March 17! Make your way down to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club to see two titans of the "violent games" debate square off in an argumentative deathmatch. We're speaking, of course, of Activision vice president George Rose and California state legislator Leland Yee, who authored the infamous AB-1179; the mature game ban bill that made its way up to the Supreme Court in November. The two men will be debating the bill alongside Stanford Constitutional Law Center director Michael McConnell, with San Francisco Chronicle editor John Diaz serving as moderator, in a panel appropriately titled "Should Sales of Violent Video Games Be Restricted?" If you're in the Bay area, you can grab your tickets now. You're not going to want to miss it. We hear there's gonna be points and counterpoints.
EVE Evolved: Downtime deployment debate
Earlier this week, an explosive argument broke out in the EVE Online community. Following an extended server downtime, it became known that Reddit-based alliance Test Alliance Please Ignore had used the server downtime to protect the deployment of 14 territorial claim units. Ordinarily, these claim units are vulnerable to attack for eight hours while they start up. The owner may choose to either commit a fleet to defend them for eight hours or leave them unguarded and hope nobody decides to knock them down. This mechanic is designed to ensure that a force can't claim or attack a large number of systems simultaneously against opposition, as an alliance can't reliably defend several TCUs at once. By anchoring the structures just before the extended downtime occurred, Test Alliance made them invulnerable for their entire deployment time. A controversial debate then ensued, as GMs stepped in and Test pilots began making accusations of corruption, collusion and favouritism. In this opinion piece, I weigh in on the latest debate to shake New Eden. I look at whether downtime deployment really is an exploit and whether there's any substance to the accusations made against EVE's Game Masters.
EVE Evolved: EVE players debate microtransactions
Sometimes it seems as though the entire MMO industry is moving toward microtransaction-based pricing schemes. With the success of free-to-play titles like Runes of Magic and Free Realms, it's clear that microtransactions are becoming a popular alternative to the standard subscription model. Famously, Dungeons and Dragons Online also proved that a hybrid model with both subscription and microtransaction options could be a great success. Even World of Warcraft has hopped on the microtransaction bandwagon with its infamous sparkle pony and cosmetic pets. With the industry moving firmly in one direction, questions have been raised over whether EVE Online will ever implement any kind of microtransactions. Believe it or not, the first steps toward doing just that have already been taken. It was discovered some time ago that the Incursion expansion this winter would give players the ability to buy extra neural remaps with PLEX. Neural remapping allows players to re-assign a character's attributes using a points-based system. As attributes are only used to determine the speed with which skills train, remaps allow players to max out the stats required to train a particular branch of skills. In this opinion piece, I look at the microtransaction debate currently raging in the EVE community and weigh in with my opinions on this controversial issue.
7 anti-Apple cliches that need to die
PC vs. Mac flamewars are older than the web itself, but it seems like the more popular/successful Apple gets, the more heated the argument gets on both sides. Almost any debate about the relative merits of one platform or another is guaranteed to degenerate into an all-out shouting match. In the midst of all the fighting and name calling, the oddest thing happens: almost every time, you'll see a lot of the same points being raised by both sides again and again. Some of these points are so tired and worn out, they've reached cliche status. In online debates, there's an informal rule known as Godwin's Law, whereby if you invoke references or comparisons to Nazis or Hitler, you've automatically lost the debate. I say the items on this list have become so worn out they've reached automatic rhetorical failure status on their own. I know that every time I see one of these points appear, I immediately stop any serious consideration of any other arguments from the person who brought it up. I'm focusing on Apple haters and their cliches for this article, but don't get the idea that Apple users aren't just as guilty of cliche-ridden arguments when they argue against using Windows. If, for example, you're an Apple user and you do any of these things: -- Cite the Blue Screen of Death (or BSOD, as he's known to his closest friends) as a point against Windows -- Insert a dollar sign into Microsoft's name (Micro$oft, M$) -- Use "clever" alternate spellings of Windows (Windoze and other less family-friendly revisions) -- Call Internet Explorer "Internet Exploder" you're employing a heavily-cliched, Godwin-esque talking point, too. Read on for the seven deadly cliches of anti-Mac attacks.
Violent game-opposing UK politician ditches gaming debate
[Image: Flickr user Steve Punter] Keith Vaz, a member of British parliament whose anti-mature game stance is well-known by his fellow politicians, recently backed out of a debate on violence in video games during the Westminster eForum without any explanation for his absence. According to MCVUK, Vaz was scheduled to square off against Ed Vaizey and Gamers' Voice founder Tom Watson, along with Electronic Arts' Keith Ramsdale, TIGA CEO Richard Wilson, and Eidos' Ian Livingstone. With no antagonist to debate with, the other parties turned to mocking the no-show politician. "Tell him that the Parliament website has a videogame on its front page," Vaizey remarked, "and no one has been killed yet." We're sure wherever Mr. Vaz might have been at the time of the debate, he felt that burn remotely. [Via GamePolitics]
Jack Thompson vs. Mark Methenitis debate: The whole shebang
After dropping a clip from the surprisingly civil debate between ex-Florida attorney Jack Thompson and Joystiq LGJ author Mark Methenitis last week, the fine folks at Screw Attack nabbed the entirety for all to see. Okay, okay, we didn't watch the whole thing -- it's an hour long and we have to work! You think this Internet's going to write itself, people? For those of you pressed for time like us, SA's got you covered too. They've cut down the whole thing into a more easily digestible 15-minute clip (found after the break). And yes, that is the clip that we watched. Sorry, Internet!
Thompson vs. Methenitis: 'Because history happens'
And now, a word from Jack Thompson: "Frankly, folks, I'm the pro-liberty, pro-personal choice person here because history happens." Eh, maybe not quite the rhetoric to spare him federal disbarment, but by many accounts, Thompson was actually articulate and well-spoken during last weekend's "Debate of the Century" at the ScrewAttack Gaming Convention. His opponent and Joystiq legal columnist, Mark Methenitis (pictured right), described the subdued, silver-haired crusader (not dude on left) as "largely misunderstood" in a post-debate interview on this week's Late Nite JengaJam [audio link].Sporting a gentle grandpa look, Thompson certainly appears (see clip after the break) as an entirely different character than the "internet bogeyman" who has haunted, well ... his own career. While it's a pleasant surprise to see Thompson show up in human form, he's gonna have to do better than forewarn the coming of "the 9/11 event for this industry" (sensational much?) to do any convincing around these parts. Now, excuse us while we take a break to go commit horrific acts of depravity (virtually, of course), and then go back to our ordinary, good-natured lives.[Image credit: 4Player]
The pros and cons of free to play Dungeons and Dragons Online
Dungeons and Dragons Online going free to play is undoubtedly an awesome announcement. But exactly how awesome of an announcement is it?Yesterday we were all over the announcement, covering the basics of what can be expected with this changeover from subscription based to free to play. But now, I'd like to break that down even further, and really look at the changes in an in-depth manner.Certainly not everything about the new version of DDO has been defined by Turbine, but we're going to take a look at the basics of what this new version offers and compare the ups and downs of what's being offered. By the time we're done looking over the new system, you'll be able to answer that one burning question that's plaguing your mind.Is free to play DDO worth it for you?
The pros and cons of free to play Dungeons and Dragons Online pt. 2
The cons of the whole switchover Item malls that offer players the ability to purchase items or item upgrades degrade the gaming experience. We've been over this before -- letting Mr. Moneybags deck out his character at level 1 so he's 10x more awesome than everybody else is a major downer to people who don't have the money. While I've pored over the text that Turbine is released, it doesn't appear that they will be offering items like weaponry or armor. They will be offering "items of convenience" to the players. My best guess is things like potions, perhaps portals, resurrection scrolls, things such as these. Even though these are low powered items, they can still annoy you when Moneybags can teleport all over the place and you're left walking and taking the slow route. This con is, however, offset by the fact that points can be earned by actually playing the game. It sounds like they are attempting to make the cash shop available for everyone, not just the Moneybags of the world. This will be interesting to watch, as no other developer as truly tried this in the American market. "I could easily see some players offering up items in the auction house above the amount that a free player's wallet could hold." The big con to this is the limited play that free players get. Limited auctions and limited mail are two nasty inconveniences in their own right, but limited gold storage and limited chat seem to be the features that take the cake. How would you like it if you couldn't chat in all of the chat channels, or were restricted to how much you can say in game? Even worse, limited gold storage may mean that you might not be able to purchase the best items from the auction house simply because your wallet just doesn't hold enough. I could easily see some players offering up items in the auction house above the amount that a free player's wallet could hold. This is going to inconvenience the player further because it's going to restrict how the player can interact with the auction house and interact with the vendors in the world. Another two bites out of the pro pile are the fact that free players rank lower than DDO VIP subscription players in the login queue and free players don't get access to customer support. This means that a constant influx of DDO VIP players could easily keep bumping free players back in the login queue, should the server become overpopulated. While I don't exactly see this happening, it could become problem should the lines really get backed up. I know I wouldn't like to see that my place in line as number 27 get jacked backward to 30 or 35 just because a few subscribers chose to log in. Lastly is the fact that free players are stuck with the online knowledge base and the forums as their source of aid should they encounter problems. I can foresee some free players attempting to play the game, getting stuck on some odd technical problem, and then becoming unable to solve it simply because the knowledge base doesn't have their problem on file. You're going to inevitably lose some people over this, just because they don't want to deal with the frustration of attempting to make a free game work. It's a free game, so if it doesn't work, just move onto the next game. The bottom line? The final thoughts for all of this is you should weigh it for yourself. If you want to save some cash and you like Dungeons and Dragons, then this might just be the experience for you. If you're looking for a second quality MMO to have as a side-game, then this might also be what you want to pick up. If you're someone who's easily frustrated by limitations, however, then you might not enjoy this experience. Some of the stuff, like decreased auctions, gold storage, and chatting capabilities might hamper gameplay just enough to turn off some people. But, don't take my word for it. Judge the game for yourself when it hits free to play status later this summer. Turbine has just announced that Dungeons and Dragons Online will be moving to a free-to-play business model, and we have the inside scoop. Be sure to read our complete coverage of the changeover, and look for more info as DDO Unlimited approaches launch.
Thompson vs. Methenitis: 'Debate of the Century'
Hear ye! Hear ye! Joystiq's own legal counsel, Mark "Minister of Mandate" Methenitis, has announced his 1-on-1 verbal brawl debut (that's a certified professional sport, you know) against -- none other than -- Jack "Attorney at Lawl" Thompson during the ScrewAttack Gaming Convention (pre-registration now open) at the Westin Dallas Fort Worth Airport arena on a sure-to-be-historic July the Fourth, 2009. The topic: video game restrictions. So place your bets in the comments section below -- and be sure to check out the pre-fight hype reel posted after the break! [Via Law of the Game]
The WoW vs. WAR debate makes Top 10 list of video game rage
Alec Meer of Rock, Paper, Shotgun recently put a new twist on the 'top 10' lists that are cropping up at year's end -- a sort of top ten of gaming rage as expressed on the intertubes. Much of this list is focused on single-player titles and the industry itself, but Meer's 'Orc vs Orc' (#8 on the list) caught our attention. Meer writes, "We've already talked today about the absurd, insane fanboy fallout from our own comparisons between Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft, but in truth it was a torrent of poison that briefly gripped MMO sites the world over. Notably, MUDfather Richard Bartle endured character assassination by a raft of WAR fansites after an interview in which he apparently stated the two games were very similar." That interview in question was actually Dr. Bartle's talk with our own (master) Michael Zenke back in June. One of Azeroth's millions of citizens? Check out our ongoing coverage of the World of Warcraft, and be sure to touch base with our sister site WoW Insider for all your Lich King needs!
Raph Koster on whether torture in videogames is evil
Debate over what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of behavior in a videogame has become commonplace in recent years. Virtually any mass media commentary on the myriad evils of Grand Theft Auto or the 'Debbie Does Dallas in Space' view of Mass Effect drives this point home -- everyone has a different mindset in terms of what's acceptable to them. While gamers easily dismiss many of these notions as being uninformed and taken out of context, now and again something comes to light within the gaming community itself that sparks debate. A good example has been the recent (and heated) discussion of torture in games, stemming from the views expressed by Dr. Richard Bartle. He argued his points on the questionable existence of torture in "The Art of Persuasion" quest in World of Warcraft, which set off a flurry of responses from gamers and peers. MMO industry luminary Raph Koster weighs in with his own views on the matter in a post titled "Are games about torture evil?". Specifically, Koster addresses this comment at his website: "... please explain to me again why killing NPCs in games is fine but sticking them with a cattle prod is evil." However, Koster seems less concerned with arbitrary notions of right and wrong as he is with the game design that leads us down this path in the first place. One of Azeroth's millions of citizens? Check out our ongoing coverage of the World of Warcraft, and be sure to touch base with our sister site WoW Insider for all your Lich King needs!
Top 5: Statements That Will Get You Punched in the Face By a Nintendo Fanboy
var digg_url = 'http://digg.com/nintendo/5_Statements_That_Will_Get_You_Punched_By_a_Nintendo_Fanboy'; "To each their own." It's a simple rule that, if universally followed, could result in world peace. On the other hand, if people didn't go online to bitch at each other about video games, then many bloggers would be collecting unemployment. I can't speak for every other hobby that exists, but I imagine that fly-fishing and glass-blowing message boards are considerably more pleasant than gaming forums. So as it is, the gaming world is chock full of debate. Hrmm, scratch that. The word "debate" conjures impressions of two well-groomed individuals standing behind podiums and taking turns eloquently addressing issues presented to them by a moderator. For every one of these moments, you get a couple thousand boring ones. But when the forum is switched to the Internet, the dialogue transforms into a partisan torrent of vitriol. While political campaigning may be viewed as a chess match between experts, an appropriate metaphor for gaming and Internet debate in general can be found in the gigantic brawl at the end of 1977's Slap Shot. In particular, Nintendo fanboys seem to simultaneously be a large source of and recipients to such slander. Perhaps it's due to Nintendo's extensive gaming history (especially when compared to Sony and Microsoft). Similarly, many of these Fanboys grew up with Nintendo, with the NES and SNES occasionally acting as a babysitter. For some, an attack on Nintendo is equal to or worse than an attack on one's family. To such individuals, I say take it easy. I'm certainly not above the label of "Nintendo Fanboy" (look at the name of this site for crying out loud), but I do try my best to apply sound reason and understanding to such hostility. I now present to you a look at 5 common weapons used in battle against Nintendo, an analysis of each argument, and how best a supporter of Nintendo should respond. NEXT >> #ninbutton { border-style: solid; border-color: #000; border-width: 2px; background-color: #BBB; color: #000; text-decoration: none; width: 100px; text-align: center; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; margin: 2px 2px 2px 2px; } .buttontext { color: #000; text-decoration: none; font: bold 14pt Helvetica; } #ninbutton:hover { text-decoration: none; color: #BBB; background-color: #000; } The Top 5 is a weekly feature that provides us with a forum to share our opinions on various aspects of the video game culture, and provides you with a forum to tell us how wrong we are. To further voice your opinions, submit a vote in the Wii Fanboy Poll, and take part in the daily discussions of Wii Warm Up.
