|
Valve - "We'll make hardware if we have to."
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 22 2012 At 02:33:50, 0 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1219072p1.html
Speaking in a long interview with Penny Arcade, Valve co-founder and MD Gabe Newell has said that Valve's technological experimentation could extend to making hardware if that became necessary.
"If we have to sell hardware we will," Newell says. "We have no reason to believe we're any good at it; it's more we think that we need to continue to have innovation, and if the only way to get these kind of projects started is by us going and developing and selling the hardware directly then that's what we'll do."
This isn't something that the company is currently involved with, although Newell also talks in detail about the experimental innovations that he's interested in - including wearable computing. "It's definitely not the first thought that crosses our mind; we'd rather hardware people that are good at manufacturing and distributing hardware do that. We think it's important enough that if that's what we end up having to do, then that's what we end up having to do."
Newell feels that the current method of hardware production needs to change as technology moves forward. "We're thinking of trying to figure out how to do the equivalent of the [Team Fortress] incremental approach in software design and try to figure out how would you get something similar to that in the hardware space as well," he says.
"[...] We just need to figure out how we can start giving these to customers and iterating on the design quickly enough without having to go off and buy ten million of them and then find out we did something mildly stupid and then having to throw them all away and start over."
He also expressed a desire to see consoles become more open, now that proprietary technology is less of an issue than it used to be.
"Internally developed proprietary graphics solutions on the consoles, they're all gone - everything in the console space is coming from the PC now, and I think that we really need to see the same thing in terms of just general attitudes about platforms," Newell states. "I would push them very hard to stop thinking of themselves as being a platform for everything that already exists and start betting on the inventiveness and the benefits that you would get by embracing a more open approach to the internet and game delivery and game business models and things like that."
"I think that you either embrace the new approaches or you go away. I mean, Sega and Atari and lots of others - Vectrex, Commodore... you either figure out how to move forward or you get left behind."
Newell also talks at length about Steam, figuring out when to reveal its new projects, unwittingly annoying the fans and the philosphy of pricing. You can check out the full interview right here.
FULL INTERVIEW: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/valves-gabe-newell-talks-wearable-computers-rewarding-players-and-whether-w/1 |
|
|
The dangers of "Gamer Entitlement"
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 22 2012 At 01:56:44, 0 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-dangers-of-gamer-entitlement-6350732/
This week, a small subset of the gaming community humiliated, defiled, and verbally attacked a female BioWare employee for the suggestion that video games should place more importance on narrative.
The attack on Jennifer Hepler, which continues with a consistent, unrelenting, and deep-set conviction not unlike religious fervor, points to an escalating manifestation of gamer entitlement, the idea that gamers have the right to do and say without suffering the consequences of their actions.
Hepler, a senior writer at BioWare with credits on titles including Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II, and Star Wars: The Old Republic, was the subject of a Reddit post earlier this month referencing an interview she gave in 2006 in which she says a fast-forward button could be used to make games more appealing to a broader audience, including women.
"Games almost always include a way to 'button-through' dialogue without paying attention because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun," Hepler said in the interview. "Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combat even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue. In a game with sufficient story to be interesting without the fighting, there is no reason on earth that you can't have a little button at the corner of the screen that you can click to skip to the end of the fighting."
The original Reddit post--titled "This women(sic) is the cancer that is killing BioWare"--was later removed by Reddit's moderators for violating the site's code of conduct and directly targeting an individual.
Hepler, unaware of the escalating undercurrent of rage mounting over a point she made six years ago, joined Twitter on February 2. In the 10 days since, Hepler has been called "cunt", "slut", and "whore". She's been criticized for her gender, her appearance, and her religion. Attacks on her have referenced Hitler, bestiality, rape, murder, cannibalism, and prostitution.
And for what?
For suggesting that maybe video games should have skippable combat sequences, just the way they have skippable story sequences? For suggesting that players who are more interested in story than gameplay should be given more choice? There's hardly any point in trying to defend her original argument, whose validity should be immediately clear to anyone who understands that video games, like other forms of media, constantly strive to evolve and attract a growing audience. (It's even been put into practice before--L.A. Noire allowed players to skip action sequences after three failed attempts.)
No, the torrent of abuse that Hepler has endured has had little to do with skippable combat in games. The savagery displayed this week flows not from specifics but from the sense of ownership that makes some gamers believe that they own the games they play. That's a common mistake; gamers buy games, so naturally they feel entitled to them. But games are, and have always been, the property of the people who made them. People like Jennifer Hepler.
While an increasing number of publishers and developers seek to establish an ongoing relationship with players through fan sites, communities, forums, and social networks, the creation of this two-way communication channel brings with it the illusion that players are entitled to affect the decisions directly related to them. So, when a company like BioWare--whose relationship with its players and community has, for the most part, relied on mutual respect--makes the decision to delay a game due to any number of reasons, gamers who have actively invested in "loving" BioWare and its games feel it's their every right to lash out.
Gamers who feel this sense of entitlement fail to view the player-developer relationship as the multifaceted construct that it is. They fail to see that a relationship between an individual and a company requires a different set of guidelines, emotions, and responses to a relationship between two separate individuals. Jennifer Hepler is the consequence of that misconstrued connection. She is an individual whose attackers, angered by her suggestion that games should focus less on combat, acted on the belief that they are the only ones who can, and should, dictate how games are made and played.
How much respect should a company show to a group of gamers who launch a personal attack on one of its employees? BioWare Edmonton studio general manager Aaryn Flynn gave up any hope of a civilized conversation earlier this week, retorting with "Whatever, f***ing moron" in reply to a tweet about Hepler's "pig disgusting fetishes." The backlash was immediate: tweets filed in calling BioWare unfaithful to its community, arguing that the company "treated its loyal fans like crap" after they offered "genuine criticism."
But BioWare has the right to do so much more. It has the right to pursue legal action against Hepler's attackers. It has the right to shut them out of its community, to refuse them any kind of service in the future. It has the right to tell them that this behavior has no place in the gaming community, to show them that every sexist, racist, comment only serves to undo years of growth and progress in changing outdated attitudes in the industry.
Like us, BioWare has the right to stand up to each and every gamer who brutalized, harassed, and dehumanized Jennifer Hepler, a game developer who to date has dedicated her working life to making games better for the very same people who turned on her.
UPDATE: BioWare CEO and cofounder Dr. Ray Muzyka responded to the attacks on Hepler overnight, donating US$1000 to Bullying Canada in her name. |
|
|
MassEffect: Take Earth Back Extended Trailer
|
|
Posted by JCORPS on Feb 21 2012 At 12:16:17, 0 Comments
|
|
|
|
rFactor 2 hits Build 60
|
|
Posted by Gumby8888 on Feb 18 2012 At 16:03:11, 0 Comments
|
|
|
Recently rFator2 has been updated to Build 60 of the Beta
Source: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/3883-The-first-update-Build-60
If you wish to enter the Beta you must pre purchase the game. There are two ways you can go with this.
If you want to test the Beta the cost of the game is..
$43.99, allowing unlimited access to single player & mod development mode. The price also includes the first 18 months of online account membership, an additional year of account membership can be purchased for $12.99.
Or
$84.99 USD for lifetime membership.
If you wait tile the game comes out.
It'll be $43.99 and renewal fee of $12.99 every 12 months
Or
$84.99 USD for lifetime membership.
So buying now only gains you 6 months extra if you so choose the $43.99 option & early access to beta.
**Personal note**
I have not made this purchase and not a big fan of the membership purchasing, and the lifetime fee is a lil more that I want to spend on a game I've seen very little of.
|
|
|
Possible BF3 Patch info
|
|
Posted by Gumby8888 on Feb 18 2012 At 14:29:35, 0 Comments
|
|
|
|
Activision blacklists site over CoD:BO2 leak
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 18 2012 At 11:33:09, 0 Comments
|
|
|
Source: http://kotaku.com/5886237/reporter-activision-blacklisted-us-because-i-refused-to-pull-call-of-duty-sequel-story
Yesterday, reports that a sequel to Call of Duty: Black Ops would hit this year circulated all over the internet, sourced to a product page that went live on Amazon. Gameblog.fr reported on this apparent slip-up, as did other French websites, but they refused to pull the story when asked by Activision.
That refusal resulted in Activision apparently cutting off Gameblog.fr's access to their titles and media events, effectively killing the site's ability to cover the biggest games publisher around.
Kotaku reached out to Gameblog editor Grégory Szriftgiser (known on the site by the nom de plume RaHaN) to get his account of how this story and its repercussions happened. What follows are Szriftgiser's answers to questions sent via e-mail.
Kotaku: How long has Gameblog been around? How long have you been covering video games?
Szriftgiser: Gameblog.fr is has been live for 5 years now. We created and funded the company ourselves a little before launch. "We", here, stands for several journalists including myself, who have been covering video games professionally for 15 years or more, first in print magazines like Joypad, Joystick, the French PlayStation Magazine Officiel or later Gaming. Some did TV and Radio as well, and some of us have been writing about games professionally for up to 20 years now.
Kotaku: Can you describe the sequence of events as they happened? How did you find out about Amazon's product page? When did your article go up?
Szriftgiser: The journalist who wrote the first newspiece—"Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 confirmed by Amazon "—Julien Chièze (who is one of the co-founders of the company with others and myself), originally spotted the info on Twitter.
He then proceeded with verifying it, by witnessing it first-hand on Amazon.fr and getting a screenshot their product webpage. The French website Jeuxvideo.com also had done a piece of its own, with their own screenshots, by the time our article was posted, and this was included as another reference in our own piece. We also had confirmation later that several people had received the Amazon France newsletter in the meantime, with a reference to Call of Duty : Black Ops 2 in it.
Our article was posted at 1:05 p.m. French time (that's CET). Activision first tried to call me at 2:16 p.m., but I couldn't answer, then sent an email (subject : "Pulling of a newspiece - URGENT") to both Julien and myself at 2:24 p.m., asking to "please take down the newspiece now", that "Activision didn't make any announcement", that "Amazon took upon themselves to publish this information without consulting [Activision]" and that it was "asked as a favor". I returned the phone call at 2:30 p.m., during which Activision asked the same thing, as a favor, insisting that this was a very serious matter to them for internal reasons they couldn't elaborate on and that the other major web outlets had already taken down their piece.
They also made clear that the relationship was to be severed, all advertisement plans cancelled, games not sent, and invitations to later events cancelled.
I explained that I couldn't do this and why (mainly, that Activision didn't have any right to intervene in our editorial, that it was newsworthy to us, that our job was first and foremost to inform our readers, that the newspiece didn't argue that it was anything official on Activision's end, and was correctly phrased to reflect it, notably, with the question mark), at which point Activision argued that they were disappointed - they asked that we please consider it "with all the consequences this could lead to". I agreed to do so, told them I would get back to them later to give them my final decision. They were unreachable for the rest of the afternoon. After business hours, I had a short text conversation in which I re-stated that we wouldn't pull the article, and asked if we should consider ourselves blacklisted as a result. It was around 8:30 p.m., and Activision answered we would resume the conversation by phone the next morning.
The newspiece stayed online untouched during the night.
The next morning, we talked on the phone. They tried again to explain they needed us to pull the article, I refused again. They insisted again that it would seriously deteriorate the professional relationship we had, that we weren't fully aware of the consequences this could have, and that they had already contacted their Advertising Agency (which buys ad space for them). I asked them again if we should consider ourselves blacklisted, and more precisely if my journalist (another one) was still to attend the preview event of Transformers: Fall of Cybertron that was planned next week and to which we were already invited. Activision said no. They also made clear that the relationship was to be severed, all advertisement plans cancelled, games not sent, and invitations to later events cancelled as well. I explained that if this was their decision indeed, we had to inform our readers of it, and would do so later in the day.
We then proceeded with writing the article stating we were blacklisted, and we published it at 3:01 p.m.
Kotaku: Was there any other additional detail on the Amazon page about Black Ops 2?
Szriftgiser: There was no additional detail on the Amazon page other than the title "Call of Duty : Black Ops 2" and a pre-order price at 69,99 euros.
Kotaku: What was the tone of the call from Activision?
Szriftgiser: The call(s) from Activision were professional, as we've been working together for 15 years. It was several phone calls as explained above. At no point did those calls sound "angry" on either side of the conversation, but I would say that Activision's spokesperson was rather agitated and preoccupied, obviously.
Kotaku: What did they say to you? Were you calm in your reactions? What was their justification for making these demands of you?
We made it clear that such pressures were unacceptable.
Szriftgiser: See above. Again, there were no insults or angry talk or anything at any point, the conversation was obviously tense, but professional. Their justification for making these demands remains unclear, other than it was a serious issue for them, and that it was, it seems, putting people in difficult positions (though I don't know at this point if they were meaning people at Activision or Amazon).
Kotaku: Did you speak to anyone from the sites who took down their coverage? Why do you think they capitulated, if that's what happened?
Szriftgiser: Regarding Jeuxvideo.com, with whom I haven't had any contacts regarding this whatsoever, I don't know what their exact position is. All I know, from my discussions with Activision, is that they were contacted in the same way we were, and agreed to take down their piece.
Regarding JVN.com, I also know from the discussions with Activision that they were contacted and subsequently took down their article. I didn't speak with JVN.com until after we posted the article "Activision blacklists Gameblog". I then had a written conversation on a wider angle about our views on the work, in which JVN argued they pulled the piece, after being asked to do so, because they couldn't verify the info first-hand, and additionally that they didn't consider the info to be important.
It is important to understand that we talked about those sites pulling up their articles (and proved it with screenshots) in order to clearly establish that there was pressure put on several outlets by Activision, and not just us ; that we were not making this story up. It was important to us, as well, that we made it clear that such pressures were unacceptable, and we hope that this event will help everyone in refusing those pressures. Obviously, we regret this course of events, but we had no other choice than to proceed as I explained.
Kotaku: Were you a fan of Call of Duty? Are you still? If Black Ops 2 winds up being this year's CoD game, will you buy it?
Szriftgiser: I am a fan of Call of Duty (as my reviews of the previous games in the series show). I remain a fan of Call of Duty. I will buy Black Ops 2 if it turns out to be this year's CoD (but at this point, I think we're all pretty sure it's going to be), and would buy it as well if it was something else. Most definitely, we will buy it in order to be able to review it, as we know we will not be invited to any official event related to this game, or any other Activision game for that matter. |
|
|
Blizzard vs Valve over DOTA trademark application
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 18 2012 At 11:11:05, 0 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://kotaku.com/5883938/blizzard-and-valve-go-to-war-over-dota-name
Blizzard once made a game called WarCraft III. Then someone made an awesome mod for it called DOTA. Then Valve decided to make a game called DOTA 2. Then Blizzard decided to make something called Blizzard DOTA.
And now Blizzard is fighting a legal battle with Valve over the whole thing. What a mess.
Two of the most successful and popular PC developers of all time are squaring off in court over the use of the term DOTA, which stands for Defence of the Ancients.
In 2010, Valve - who is working on a successor to the original called DOTA 2 - began attempts to trademark the word "DOTA", despite the fact it had no historical connection to the property or the genre. At the time, Blizzard said some unkind things publicly about the move, but didn't seem to take things any further.
It has now.
Arguing before the US Patent and Trademark Office's Trial and Appeal Board in an attempt to have Valve's trademark application blocked, Blizzard says that, because the term DOTA has been used by the company's games and fans for seven years, "the DOTA mark has become firmly associated in the mind of consumers with Blizzard".
Valve, on the other hand, well...here's what Blizzard has to say about Valve's upcoming DOTA 2:
In contrast to Blizzard, Applicant Valve Corporation ("Valve") has never used the mark DOTA in connection with any product or service that currently is available to the public. By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and in
its Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III. Valve has no right to the registration it seeks. If such registration is issued, it not only will damage Blizzard, but also the legions of Blizzard fans that have worked for years
with Blizzard and its products, including by causing consumers to falsely believe that Valve's products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard and are related or connected to Warcraft III.
Getting into the fine print, Blizzard says that, because the original DOTA required WarCraft III to play - and because it's been using and licensing the term to other companies - that while it doesn't have a trademark on the term, it's got a better case for one than Valve.
In a filing dated November 16, 2011, Blizzard wrote that it "respectfully requests that this Opposition be granted" to Valve's attempts to trademark DOTA (and "Defense of the Ancients", and "DotA", and "Dota"). |
|
|
EA says Origin needs two years to "catch fire"
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 18 2012 At 10:50:14, 0 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Says-Origin-Needs-Two-Years-Catch-Fire-39637.html
Electronic Arts' COO, Peter Moore, recently revealed in an interview that despite all the criticism, hate and naysaying, EA's Origin service is just getting started and that in two years time they will be rocking and rolling.
The interview comes courtesy of Kotaku, where Moore explicitly states...
"I don't think you see the initial level of vitriol," ... "And I've been in gaming long enough [that I know that] if you try to add something that's different, and particularly if you add the layer that it's EA and everything that goes with it."
"It's one of those things where I would ask give us 18 months to two years. And if we sit here two years from now, start looking at it then. I think the ability to have your own direct platform with the consumer is going to be very important in the digital world going forward."
What Moore doesn't state is that the hate for Origin wasn't that it was new (digital distribution has been around for a long while now) and what Origin offers isn't anything us gamers can't already get from Impulse, Direct2Drive, GamersGate or Steam, it's that there was a lot of hidden language that works against consumers, such as losing entitlements with two years of inactivity, or the fact that Origin really is spyware by every definition of the word, or that you can lose access to paid content from forum bans, or the fact that Origin isn't even a new service to begin with.
And yes, Origin is not new. EA has been using a digital distributor for a while just under different names, it originated with the EA Downloader in 2005 and then eventually it became the EA Link back in 2006, after a lot of consumer dissatisfaction EA changed the name to the EA Store and from there it became Origin. In other words, Peter Moore is wrong, EA has had seven years to get the vitriol tempered.
One thing that hasn't changed in those seven years is EA's treatment of their consumers...they still see gamers as cash cows and unlike Valve, gamers begrudgingly support EA because they publish good games not because they appreciate what the company does for the industry or gamers.
Moore tried to further support his argument, saying...
"If you go back and dust off the transcripts of when Steam first came out, it had the same reaction. People didn't like it. You were obligated."
"[Valve] provided, over the years - to Gabe and the team's credit - value to the gamer. Those first 12 months were very rocky."
"We need to continue to add social layers so there is value to the consumer,"..."so it doesn't feel like, in their words, 'something that is mandatory that I don't want.'"
Yes well, there is a huge difference between 12 months and seven years. Any savvy PC user knows EA's track record and there in lies the problem.
Also, a lot of people still don't like Steam (myself included) for the mandatory presence it has on the end-user's PC. However, I do respect Valve for offering a service that isn't just about making it easy and convenient for gamers to purchase the games they want, Steam also works as an excellent platform to promote, and develop the independent community, something EA hasn't even bothered doing during the seven years of operating their digital distribution platform.
In fact, if you look on Origin right now, there isn't a host of cheap indie titles that most gamers don't already know about. The indie titles that are there seem to either be published by EA or are already top sellers elsewhere. Games like Sol: Exodus, Pinapple Smash Crew or Brawl Busters are no where to be seen.
Again, EA has had seven years to get ahead of the trend (or at least buck trends) but that doesn't really seem to be their goal. In fact, they plan to branch Origin out to become a Social Network of sorts, following in the footsteps of Facebook and MySpace.
If Origin doesn't catch fire in that two year time span Moore outlined, I'm curious what EA's excuse will be then? |
|
|
Mojang to make a Humble Bundle game in 60 hrs
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 18 2012 At 10:45:12, 0 Comments
|
|
|
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/40321/Mojang_Humble_Indie_Bundle_team_up_to_make_charity_game.php
Minecraft creator Mojang today announced a partnership with the Humble Indie Bundle, that will have the studio create a game over the coming weekend, with all proceeds from purchases going to charity.
Starting at 10am CET on February 17, the Mojang team will develop a new game over the space of 60 hours, with all the work live-streamed via the Humble Indie Bundle website, under the name "Humble Bundle Mojam."
This type of partnership is a first for the Humble Indie Bundle, and also is indicative of the close relationship to the video game community that Mojang has become known for.
Users who donate money via the HIB website will be given access to the game once it is complete, along with a number of "fun and silly incentives," said Mojang on its official blog.
It also plans to do a variety of question and answer sessions with members of the team during the 60 hour run.
The team is also looking for users to help it choose the genre and theme of the game, with possibilities ranging from "Dating Simulator" to "Peter Molyneux." |
|
|
Activision's Bobby Kotick named a Director at Coke
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 18 2012 At 10:42:18, 2 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/dynamic/press_center/2012/02/board-elects-robert-a-kotick-as-director.html
The Board of Directors of The Coca-Cola Company today elected Robert "Bobby" Kotick as a Director of the Company, effective immediately.
Kotick, 48, is President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Activision Blizzard, Inc., a global interactive entertainment software leader and the world's largest independent video game publisher. An entrepreneur in the interactive industry, Kotick purchased a stake in Activision in 1990, became CEO in 1991 and grew the company to its industry-leading position.
From 2003 to 2008, Kotick also served as a Director of Yahoo!, Inc., one of the most visited internet destinations worldwide. Kotick began his career in 1983 creating software for the Apple II.
"Bobby brings an entrepreneurial mindset and a high level of financial literacy and digital knowledge to our Company," said Muhtar Kent, Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company. "His global brand expertise and insight will be invaluable as we continue to grow our business and invest in enhancing our digital engagement with consumers and customers around the world."
As part of his election, Kotick was appointed to the Company's Management Development Committee. |
|
|
Activision posts profits of $1.1b
|
|
Posted by Torinir on Feb 18 2012 At 10:39:05, 0 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://www.fusters.org/video-game-news/29226-activision-posts-annual-profit-of-11-billion
Activision Blizzard has reported a significant rise in sales and earnings for calendar year 2011.
The publisher's net profit more than doubled year-over-year to $1.09 billion (£688.3m), while revenues grew seven percent to a record $4.76 billion (£3b), with digital sales representing 34 percent of the total.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was the top-selling title in dollars during 2011 and Call of Duty: Black Ops was the fifth best-selling, while CoD: Elite now has seven million registered users and 1.5 million subscribers.
A new Call of Duty game is due for release later this year, with Activision claiming it "already looks fantastic and will bring meaningful innovations to the franchise".
Meanwhile, World of Warcraft subscribers dropped 100,000 to 10.2 million during the quarter, versus a decline of 800,000 in the previous three months.
Elsewhere, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said Skylanders Spyro's Adventure was the top-selling kids' title in dollars for the year and "is on track to become an important and sustainable franchise". |
|
|
The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal
|
|
Posted by JCORPS on Feb 17 2012 At 10:00:47, 0 Comments
|
|
|
A new commemorative medal was created to mark the 2012 celebrations of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the Throne as Queen of Canada. The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal is a tangible way for Canada to honour Her Majesty for her service to this country. At the same time, it serves to honour significant contributions and achievements by Canadians.
During the year of celebrations, 60 000 deserving Canadians will be recognized. The inaugural presentation ceremony of the Diamond Jubilee Medal will take place in February 2012.
Veterans UN - NATO Canada has been allotted 80 medals for the recognition of their deserving members.
The Chancellery of Honours, as part of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, administers the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal program.
Eligibility criteria
To be eligible for this honour, a person must:
• Be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada, but need not
necessarily reside in Canada;
• Have made a significant contribution to a particular province, territory, region
or community within Canada, or an achievement abroad that brings credit to
Canada; and
• Be alive on February 6th, 2012, the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty’s
accession to the Throne. The medal can be awarded posthumously, as long as
the recipient was alive on that date.
Nomination process
To ensure that a variety of fields of activity are recognized, Provincial representative are invited to nominate candidates from their organization for this national honour to the National Selection Committee.
Questions concerning the Diamond Jubilee Medal program should be addressed to the Provincial Representative. In order to alleviate the workload on the Selection Committee, only the Provincial Representative should contact the National Selection Committee.
|
|
|
Afghanistan: A Soldier's Story
|
|
Posted by JCORPS on Feb 17 2012 At 09:57:46, 0 Comments
|
|
|
*http://afghanistanacanadianstory.ca/
This project is a legacy album that will tell the story of
the
Canadian mission in Afghanistan. I am trying to pass this
information
on to as many people as I can in hopes of having as many
soliders and
civilians, who served our country in Afghanistan, tell
their stories
so Canadians can appreciate and have insight to the
hardships,
triumphs and bonds that were formed while over seas.
It would be appreciated if you would pass this on to anyone
you feel
this may be of interest to.
Thank you for taking time to browse this site and pass it
on!
There is also a link on Facebook. Please "like" this page
and help us
get the word out to make this project a success of
documenting a
significant part of our Canadain history.
*This is not a DND project, but is the work of serving and
retired
Canadian Forces volunteers.
Betty Jo Dawson
Bar Supervisor
Edmonton Garrison Officers Mess
Bldg 200, PO Box 10500
Edmonton, AB
T5J 4J5
Phone: 780-973-4011 Ext. 4749
Fax: 780-973-4074
Email:
bettyjo.dawson@forces.gc.ca
Check out our website; *www.cfcommunitygateway.com
|
|
|
Skyrim DLC Will Feel More Like Expansion Packs
|
|
Posted by JCORPS on Feb 17 2012 At 09:54:03, 0 Comments
|
|
|
SOURCE: http://kotaku.com/5885983/bethesda-skyrim-dlc-will-feel-more-like-expansion-packs?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
We've been promised
substantial downloadable content for last year's blockbuster Skyrim,
but it sounds like Bethesda is thinking really big.
"For Fallout 3 we did five DLCs," Howard told me during an interview
last week at the DICE Summit. "That was a very aggressive path for us. Our plan
now is to take more time, to have more meat on them [for Skyrim].
They'll feel closer to an expansion pack."
Some of Fallout 3's expansions, such as Operation Anchorage
were slender, linear mission sequences that lasted a few hours, but others, such
as Point Lookout were entire new regions filled with quests.
It does sound like there will be fewer than five of these expansion-pack
additions to Skyrim.
"With Fallout 3, it was, 'Ten dollars is the sweet spot for us and
we know we want to put out five of them. And we had overlapping teams. We were
coming off Fallout 3 and right back in." He describes that development
cycle as "a real hardcore loop," but adds, "we just think we can do better
content if we approach it a different way."
In between those expansions, Howard is committed to releasing smaller pieces
of content for the game.
"Because that gap is going to be bigger, we want to put litle things out for
free in between. We've already done that for PC with
the high-res pack. We're trying to figure out what those things are."
Even if you don't factor in the DLC, Bethesda has bigger plans for
tweaking and enhancing Skyrim post-release than they have had
for other big games they've released. The game was destined to be more organic.
"We knew before release that we were going to support it in a larger way, with
lots of updates every month," Howard said. "We knew we wanted to do more stuff
to bring mods to people." (They have, through the recently-released
Skyrim Creation Kit.)
"So I think we had more of a plan and thought process of 'We want to make the
game better after it's out.' We don't know what that means yet. People will tell
us. But maybe we want to rebalance it. Maybe we want to add some features and
patch them in, whereas in previous games, like Oblvivion or Fallout
3, our thinking was just to patch it, fix the big problems. Our bandwidth
at that time was that we needed to work on Skyrim. But now, with the
game's popularity, we really want to do all that stuff."
Shortly before Howard and I talked last week, he showed
a video featuring all sorts of wonderful additions to Skyrim that
his developers had cooked up in one week after the game shipped. They had
characters riding dragons, guards re-lighting torches, water arrows, fat giants,
players as vampire lords and so much more.
Some of that—Howard would stress the "some"—could be coming as part of all of
this expanded content.
"There are definitely things in there that we are planning on exploring," he
said.
"It looks like a ton of stuff that could ship right now," he
admitted, "but it's in a sizzle video. It's, you know, it's not
bug-tested, polished, balanced." He thinks it shows off the creativity of his
team and says that some of it is being worked on, but don't take that as the
blueprint for the expansions.
Of course, he couldn't resist teasing more: "That wasn't all of it. It's
probably 60% of it. The other 40% doesn't show as well in a video or we didn't
have good footage."
We have no actual release dates for the Skyrim expansions. No
specific plans. But we do have what sounds like a long-term commitment to
beefing up this game. Howard says his team is "very early" into the development
of the DLC, but it's happening. Skyrim will be getting bigger—much
bigger, it sounds like.
How big should a Bethesda role-playing game be? All this
talk of Skyrim expansions shouldn't distract from the fact that
Skyrim is already gargantuan. How do they know how long to make these
games, in terms of play time? Howard explained: "It was similar with Fallout
3 and Oblivion. We want it to be around 20 hours. That's where we
start. I want to feel like I finished the main thing in 20ish hours. That's us
day one saying that. After that, we rarely look at the target. It's just more of
a gut for: 'it should be about this long.' After that, it's purely: 'Does it
feel too fast right here?', 'Does it feel too slow?' It's purely a gut thing for
us. After the initial point, it's purely: 'How does the momentum feel? '" He
says Skyrim got longer. He thinks it takes the average player about 30
hours to get through, if they're trying to reach the end and not necessarily
exploring all the side stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Total Members: 181 | 
Newest Allied Force Member: 
Feb 22 2012 15:55:01 
