Strategy NG dying as well

On Jan 21, 12:30 pm, John Doe <j... DeleteThis @usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> That's worse than an assumption. No one forces you to listen here on
> USENET, unless you are unable to use filters. This is the nearly
> ideal place for freedom of and freedom from speech. The exception is
> a news server like your Google Groups, a hive of spammers,
> nym-shifters, and technically inept users (think "the masses and
> those who feed on the masses"). Nym-shifters, like those who post
> through Google Groups, are the reason freedom of/from speech doesn't
> always happen here on USENET. Some authors just filter the entire
> Google Groups user base, but there are a few Google Groups users who
> actually contribute something here.

You need to make up your mind. And take a course on logical thinking,
and probably one on understanding basic freedoms.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

WDS <Bill seurer.net> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 4:47 am, Baldrick the Foul <ba... here.invalid> wrote:
>> Jonah Falcon wrote:
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > I think people tend to prefer message boards to usenet boards
>> > now.
>>
>> Yea, I guess most people don't want freedom of speech and prefer
>> to be controlled like sheep. People like me just get banned from
>> web forums because I refuse to allow pathetic hall monitors to
>> tell me what I can say.
>
> Thank you for providing a fine example of why people DO prefer
> moderated forums.

The masses prefer moderated forums because they don't require user
skill.

> Far too many people assume that because they have "freedom of
> speech" they should say anything that they like and that everyone
> else should listen to them.

That's worse than an assumption. No one forces you to listen here on
USENET, unless you are unable to use filters. This is the nearly
ideal place for freedom of and freedom from speech. The exception is
a news server like your Google Groups, a hive of spammers,
nym-shifters, and technically inept users (think "the masses and
those who feed on the masses"). Nym-shifters, like those who post
through Google Groups, are the reason freedom of/from speech doesn't
always happen here on USENET. Some authors just filter the entire
Google Groups user base, but there are a few Google Groups users who
actually contribute something here.

People who don't believe in freedom of speech, people who prefer
moderated forums, more likely would have everyone else forced to
listen, either to them or to their masters. They are the fan boys
(and girls).




















>
>
> Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: WDS <Bill seurer.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
> Subject: Re: Strategy NG dying as well
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:06:05 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <84b67c6c-11fb-4349-8cc5-88940f16950d s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> References: <072ebc14-ae5b-48f5-bfc8-63b6ac0439fa k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <iYShj.35597$lD6.24703 newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <bf8de590-b974-4f9f-b39d-1e7d4dccaa56 e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <Cciij.7238$se5.1884 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <c243eb8c-99cb-4849-86c5-a2eb5a55ecc3 s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <478a4c85$0$18460$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <lSAij.33149$4V6.9560 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> <461c81fc-17d5-4ec3-88a4-0d8028f64e37 f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <EEFkj.51431$wx.21840 pd7urf1no>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.42.161.36
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1200935165 29601 127.0.0.1 (21 Jan 2008 17:06:05 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:06:05 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=129.42.161.36; posting-account=DtvpYAkAAAAxGNmH9ygLTmY6d9ZK7Er6
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:877578
>
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

WDS <Bill.TakeThisOut@seurer.net> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:47 am, Baldrick the Foul <ba....TakeThisOut@here.invalid> wrote:
>> Jonah Falcon wrote:
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > I think people tend to prefer message boards to usenet boards now.
>>
>> Yea, I guess most people don't want freedom of speech and prefer to be
>> controlled like sheep. People like me just get banned from web forums
>> because I refuse to allow pathetic hall monitors to tell me what I can say.
>
> Thank you for providing a fine example of why people DO prefer
> moderated forums. Far too many people assume that because they have
> "freedom of speech" they should say anything that they like and that
> everyone else should listen to them. Alas, neither is true.

if you don't like what someone has to say on usenet you can killfile
them, and a lot of web forums i visit have "ignore poster" functions as
well. so why would you need some moderator deciding for you which posts
you should or shouldn't see when you can decide for yourself?

--
"(HL2) Ep2 is non linear .... multiple ways to achieve the same goals"
-Walter Mitty
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

WDS <Bill RemoveThis @seurer.net> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 12:30 pm, John Doe <j... RemoveThis @usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>> That's worse than an assumption. No one forces you to listen here
>> on USENET, unless you are unable to use filters. This is the
>> nearly ideal place for freedom of and freedom from speech. The
>> exception is a news server like your Google Groups, a hive of
>> spammers, nym-shifters, and technically inept users (think "the
>> masses and those who feed on the masses"). Nym-shifters, like
>> those who post through Google Groups, are the reason freedom
>> of/from speech doesn't always happen here on USENET. Some authors
>> just filter the entire Google Groups user base, but there are a
>> few Google Groups users who actually contribute something here.
>
> You need to make up your mind.

About what?

> And take a course on logical thinking,

What is the meaning of life?

If everything is relative, what is everything relative to?

> and probably one on understanding basic freedoms.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote?
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

On Jan 12, 5:37 am, Jonah Falcon <jonahny... RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sports NG is dead, the Strategy NG is dying. (sigh)

Is that Sports NewsGroup and Strategy NewsGroup please?
Thanks: tag22.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Olaf <olaf.TakeThisOut@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> When you do not take into account MMOs (WoW), then yeah. Otherwise, no. PC
> gaming is kicking ass.

Doug Jacobs <djacobs.TakeThisOut@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
>Not according to this article:
>http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939
>
>This reports that NPD shows that in North America, out of the nearly $19
>billion dollars generated in video games in retailers, only about 14% of
>it was attributed to the PC.

As Olaf said, that doesn't take into account MMO subscription fees,
like World of Warcraft's.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge.TakeThisOut@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Jonah Falcon <jonahnynla.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Not trolling, just disappointed. I remember this NG way back in
> 1998-2001. Man, it rocked.

WTF? That was a troll? And yeah, I can remember the PC groups were VERY
active back in the early/mid-90s. Compared to then, this is a veritable
ghost town.

And yes, partially because web-based message boards are more popular,
though I can't figure out why. No one's managed to make a message board
that's as powerful or flexible as usenet.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc RemoveThis @your-pants.playnaked.com> wrote:
> In what way are there "too many sub-groups"? Who among us uses a
> newsreader that can't subscribe to multiple groups? How hard is it to
> ignore the empty ones and post in the ones with posts?

> I don't see what the problem is.

The problem is traffic, specifically, useful traffic. Sure, you can
subscribe to 100s, if not 1000s of groups, but really now, what's the point
if those 1000s of groups only get 1 or 2 legit posts a day? Newer folks
looking around will see a group like that as "dead" and won't stick
around. Consolidating all related groups back together would help gather
all the traffic in one place, at least making it look more lively and
inviting for new posters.

Used to be there was plenty of traffic about PC games that it made sense
to split that single group into .action, .strategic, .flight-sim, etc.
But now? How many active games across all groups are being discussed?
Less than a dozen, I bet.

Talk of (re-)consolidation isn't unique to PC Games, either. There's some
discussion over on the various anime groups about re-combining them back
into a single group (again).

In both situations, traffic has dropped off over the past decade due to
changes in the fandoms, as well as usenet in general being less and less
popular with the rise of web-based forums.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Olaf <olaf.RemoveThis@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> When you do not take into account MMOs (WoW), then yeah. Otherwise, no. PC
> gaming is kicking ass.

Not according to this article:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

This reports that NPD shows that in North America, out of the nearly $19
billion dollars generated in video games in retailers, only about 14% of
it was attributed to the PC.

In software sales, about 268 million games were sold, with 36.4 million
being PC titles - that's about 7.4%. Consoles sold about 154 million
games, or about 57.5%, and the rest was for handheld units like the
Nintendo DS or Sony PSP.

Granted, this only counts retailer sales, and not things like Steam or
other digital distribution channels. However, even if you take that into
account, I really can't it affecting the numbers by too much, especially
since all of the current consoles also have digital distribution channels
for games.

I'm also pretty sure that if you were to look at these numbers over the
course of the past decade, the PC would show a strong downward trend -
especially once the PS2 and Xbox came out.

PC gaming will never fully die - there'll always be major companies
producing a few expected titles here and there. The next Sims expansion,
another Deer Hunter, 5001 puzzles involving Mah Jong titles (except for
the actual game!), etc. Not to mention the ever growing popularity of
small online companies like Pop Cap, and the resurgence of the
underground/indie game developers. If anything, PC gaming will always
have the edge over console gaming in that PC developers have a lot more
freedom to create without always having a hardware vendor breathing down
their neck about what sorts of games they were "allowed" to develop. For
instance, do you think Nintendo circa 1993-4 would have allowed something
like DOOM to be developed, much less released, for the SNES (ignore the
technical details for a second)?

Technology is changing, and so is the market. Used to be, the gap between
a console and even a low-end PC was much much larger. Now a days, it's a lot
closer. Sure, a high-end hot-rod of a PC will always blow away a
console. However, not everyone needs the high end in order to just have
some fun. Furthermore, with HDTV becoming more commonplace, consoles are
begining to encroach upon the high resolution graphics that were once the
sole territory of a PC with a powerful graphics card. Slowly but surely,
consoles have tackled the once mouse&keyboard centric world of the FPS and
have made it their own - winning over even more gamers from the PC to the
cheaper, more casual and user-friendly world of consoles.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Doug Jacobs <djacobs DeleteThis @shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> Olaf <olaf DeleteThis @satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> When you do not take into account MMOs (WoW), then yeah.
>> Otherwise, no. PC gaming is kicking ass.

> This reports that NPD shows that in North America, out of the
> nearly $19 billion dollars generated in video games in retailers,
> only about 14% of it was attributed to the PC.
>
> In software sales, about 268 million games were sold, with 36.4
> million being PC titles - that's about 7.4%. Consoles sold about
> 154 million games, or about 57.5%, and the rest was for handheld
> units like the Nintendo DS or Sony PSP.
>
> Granted, this only counts retailer sales, and not things like
> Steam or other digital distribution channels. However, even if
> you take that into account, I really can't it affecting the
> numbers by too much, especially since all of the current consoles
> also have digital distribution channels for games.
>
> I'm also pretty sure that if you were to look at these numbers
> over the course of the past decade, the PC would show a strong
> downward trend - especially once the PS2 and Xbox came out.

BZZZT!!!

At least you know what real evidence would be. You are acting like
it's a zero-sum game, but of course it's not. My guess, probably as
good as yours, would be that sales have increased. And without that
data, we just don't know. Shouldn't be difficult to find, if you're
really interested in promoting such arguments.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Doug Jacobs <djacobs RemoveThis @shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc RemoveThis @your-pants.playnaked.com> wrote:
>> In what way are there "too many sub-groups"? Who among us uses a
>> newsreader that can't subscribe to multiple groups? How hard is
>> it to ignore the empty ones and post in the ones with posts?
>
>> I don't see what the problem is.
>
> The problem is traffic, specifically, useful traffic. Sure, you
> can subscribe to 100s, if not 1000s of groups, but really now,
> what's the point if those 1000s of groups only get 1 or 2 legit
> posts a day? Newer folks looking around will see a group like
> that as "dead" and won't stick around. Consolidating all related
> groups back together would help gather all the traffic in one
> place, at least making it look more lively and inviting for new
> posters.
>
> Used to be there was plenty of traffic about PC games that it made
> sense to split that single group into .action, .strategic,
> .flight-sim, etc. But now? How many active games across all
> groups are being discussed? Less than a dozen, I bet.
>
> Talk of (re-)consolidation isn't unique to PC Games, either.
> There's some discussion over on the various anime groups about
> re-combining them back into a single group (again).
>
> In both situations, traffic has dropped off over the past decade
> due to changes in the fandoms, as well as usenet in general being
> less and less popular with the rise of web-based forums.

Consolidating groups by eliminating subgroups is not going to
happen. You can move to the miscellaneous group or you can ask for a
group to be created with nothing in front of (...games). Something I
find it impossible to believe is that users are unable to recognize
a group with more traffic. There is a thing called "message count"
or similar that shows a USENET user how many messages there are in
groups. From there, he (or she) can subscribe to the group with more
posts. If a group has a general title like (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games)
with lots of posts in it, and another group titled
(comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic) looks extinct, he will make the
intelligent decision whether or not to subscribe to the main group
or to the subgroup. And if he makes a mistake, golly, he just
subscribes to the other group.

And again. I think there are other reasons than just web-based
forums for the (probably temporary) demise of some USENET gaming
groups.

Good luck and have fun.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

Ross Ridge <rridge.DeleteThis@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Olaf <olaf.DeleteThis@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Doug Jacobs <djacobs.DeleteThis@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

>>> When you do not take into account MMOs (WoW), then yeah.
>>> Otherwise, no. PC gaming is kicking ass.

>>This reports that NPD shows that in North America, out of the
>>nearly $19 billion dollars generated in video games in retailers,
>>only about 14% of it was attributed to the PC.
>
> As Olaf said, that doesn't take into account MMO subscription
> fees, like World of Warcraft's.

And we all know that is humongous. Last time I checked the Warcraft
group (alt.games.warcraft), it was huge. Just checked, it's still
huge. Maybe MMOGs is where most of the PC gamers have gone. Another
possible theory among many.

Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something.
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well 

"Olaf" <olaf DeleteThis @satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4787f05f$0$5115$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonahnynla DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:072ebc14-ae5b-48f5-bfc8-63b6ac0439fa@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Sports NG is dead, the Strategy NG is dying. (sigh)
>
> Well when this NG was created the 'strategic' in its title implied
> turn-based. That genre is dying, the NG is just following suit.
>

Turn-based isn't dying. It's just getting overshadowed by the latest FPS's.
But turn-based games still do pretty well in the market.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
 >> Stay informed about: Strategy NG dying as well