I think Sony has always been more of a marketing company than a premium quality technology company. Look at any of their products, including their game consoles, and you'll find superior products by their competitors. The difference between them and Apple in this respect is Apple delivers: it promises an unparalleled experience at a price, and always delivers. This builds a reputation. Sony on the other hand has built a very contraversial reputation, and left a "buyer beware" mark to their branding. I think consumers have become more and more aware of this over the years.
That's not to say Sony hasn't had some good products and good wins, just that they are a company that doesn't live up to the hype.
That and a lack of the ability to innovate and break new ground, has left them playing catch-up, which isn't enough. In today's market, if you're average for too long, eventually you'll become obselete.
Reach looks much more like Halo 1. The textures and colours used mainly - like the warthog for example, is much more like Halo in it's colouring, with heavy green emphasis, whereas the Halo 3 one looks more camo/brown. I have both games, and overall Reach looks far better, even if these screenshots do a poor job of showing it. Some things in Halo 3 may look a little more "realistic" in terms of real military operations, but Reach has that distinct visual style that helped make Halo 1 stand out from the crowd, and ultimately contributed to its success. Anyway, Reach is awesome! Buy it!! :)
I don't really see the problem with entering a serial number when you first install your game. Even having an online system verify your purchase is fine by me. But rootkits and more extreme measures are not okay. I do prefer to use a no-CD crack though - I hate having the CD in the drive. In the end, if people don't want to pay for the game, they'll find a way to avoid paying for it. I think people are more inclined to pirate games from big development houses such as EA, because of the common perception of some big faceless money-hungry organisation. Whereas with small games and indie developers, people are more inclined to buy out of respect. It's a tough thing to gauge really.
"and direct attention to other characteristics such as ... depression and stress, locus of control (ie, feelings of control one has over one’s environment) and arousal (using games to get excited or to relax)." (Loton) "...We think that this poor self-control, combined with a more impoverished life, leads a subset of players to sink deeply into the game world, and in time to feel an obsessive need to play." (Ryan) I think these two comments hit the nail on the head. I can only speak from my own experience, but those who I've known to get helplessly addicted fit largely into these categories. I also believe age may play a significant factor in findings - some people I've known have grown up playing games from a young age and have been using them as a way to cope with stress and circumstances out of their control for the better part of their lives. Parents too are quite oblivious of the dangers and possibilities (but I think, if ideal parenting had occurred in the first place, the parents would be involved enough in their childs life to know this kind of behaviour is not healthy). Whereas, I think older people that enjoy videogames in moderation, are likely less susceptible to getting heavily addicted. To our younger generation however, games can be an easily accessible, even encouraged, opiate. Of course, what science can do about it is another matter... but I believe awareness is important.
Slagar's comments