Posted 09/25/08 at 07:45:11 PM by Nathan Grayson

For a man supposedly on an anti-videogame "crusade," Jack Thompson hasn't really accomplished much. He attempted to give Bully the legal equivalent of a swirly -- and lost. He tangoed with The Sims 2 -- and lost. And most famously, he mustered every last bit of his legal prowess against the Grand Theft Auto series -- and, well, you know where we're going with this.
So, today, we'd like you to join us in congratulating Jack Thompson for taking a definitive step toward his goal. See, now that he's been permanently disbarred with no hope of reinstatement, maybe a real lawyer can finally hog the anti-gaming limelight. Hip-hip hooray!
Said the press release:
"Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, [Thompson] has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes. He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him."
The proceedings, which began in June, brought 31 counts against the man fondly referred to by gamers as "Whacko Jacko." He was found guilty of 27.
In addition to a cushy new spot in the unemployment line, Thompson has also been granted the mandatory privilege of paying $43,675.35 in legal fees to the Florida Bar.
The disbarrment will be official 30 days from now, assuming Thompson doesn't nab a retrial. Regardless, however, we doubt Thompson's questionably-sane ramblings are at an end. With the Internet at his fingertips, we're actually kind of looking forward to seeing what Thompson will do next. You know, in the same way we're looking forward to the inevitable day when our doctor diagnoses us with a nice infertility-cancer double-whammy.
Posted 09/15/08 at 05:49:45 PM by Paul Lilly
It doesn't matter that you rarely, if ever, saw Scrappy-Doo get into a fight, because you always knew that given the chance, he'd be ready to throw down no matter who the opponent was. Apparently that same spunkiness doesn't translate into the tech industry. How many times did we hear about Microsoft promising a hostile takeover of Yahoo its demands weren't met? Skip ahead a few months and Microsoft is still Microsoft, while Yahoo is still Yahoo.
Now it's Electronic Arts who is backing down in its hostile takeover bid, who earlier this year took it unsolicited $2 billion bid public for rival game maker Take-Two Interactive, best known for the Grand Theft Auto series. EA tried unsuccessfully to buy Take-Two back in February for $26 per share, and after the offer was refused, EA tried its hand at strong-arming Take-Two with threats of a hostile bid, only to extend the deadline multiple times.
The hostile bid official ended in August, and now one month later, so too has EA's interest in the company. Perhaps Spore is doing better than the Amazon customer reviews would indicate?
Posted 08/18/08 at 10:17:57 PM by Nathan Grayson
Each year, we ask, "Was this the best year ever for games?" A good deal of the time, our answer tends toward "Yes," with a few nostalgia-maniacs vehemently worshipping 1998 instead. "Oh, they're just raving fanboys," I've always thought of those stuck in '98. "Their opinions are rooted in so much misguided subjectivism that even a bulldozer couldn't budge them."
However, a recent post at the always-interesting Sexy Videogameland gave me some insight into another, altogether more-acceptable reason for gamers' unyielding grip on the past. The post, by Leigh Alexander, of course, took a look at our tendency to play a game once, shove it into a nice, dusty shelf corner, and leave it there with no hope of excavation. Why do we do this? Especially when, as Leigh pointed out, many of us were happy to bury months of our lives in a single game back in the day.
But the answer's simple, really: You're reading this column.
As a bleeding-edge gamer, when you're not playing a game, you're probably reading about other games -- basking in the ever-brightening glow of a new title's hype -- and getting yourself psyched to play them. This column, with its daily dose of the latest gaming news, only helps propagate this trend.
Really though, does it matter? As Leigh pointed out, our consumer-focused society breeds hit-driven industries. Movies, TV, sports -- you name it. "15 seconds of fame" is an apt phrase. So we're just like other media. Big deal. But I think it does matter. I think games, by virtue of their interactivity, are meant to break the typical, rapid-fire hype cycle. And that's why so many gamers love 1998. The year was chock-full of top-notch titles, but gamers still spent hundreds of hours with their favorites -- testing boundaries and pushing limits. Why? The hype train as we know it hadn't quite picked up steam. Print was still strong and the Internet wasn't the all-knowing force that it is today.
And therein lies the problem. As the gaming industry grows -- as the press expands and the hype train takes on new carts -- it defies its own potential. Someday, games will shrug off the shackles of linearity, but will gamers stick around to experience those trailblazers in different ways? Or will our own anticipation for The Next Big Thing get the best of us?
Today's Roundup details a couple of initiatives that could grab at gamers' ankles and never let go, but will they work? Can't say. But for now, my commentary will have to suffice. It's all past the break.

Posted 07/29/08 at 10:37:00 PM by Nathan Grayson
What are you playing right now? FPS? RTS? Peggle? Who developed it? Do you even care?
I imagine you do; as a presumably-hardcore gamer, you've likely cultivated a few brand alliances here and there. But what happens when we change the question up a little? Do you think your favorite developer cares about you?
No, I don't mean on an individual, person-to-person basis. What I'm asking is: do you think those oh-so-dreamy devs slave over games for their fans, or for themselves? Yes, yes, gaming is a business, and there's certainly money involved. But at the end of the day, do you think the aforementioned designers look at themselves in the mirror and nod in satisfaction because they created a game for you, or because they calmed the cries of their wild inner artist? Sound off in the comments section. Let's start a discussion that doesn't involve sarcasm and commas (though both are certainly allowed)!
Anyway, today's Roundup shines the spotlight on developers of both breeds, though some trumpet their allegiance louder than others. If you'd like to find out who's who, what's what, and which of them might soon end up in the pit of Microsoft's belly, read on.

Posted 06/25/08 at 12:29:24 PM by Paul Lilly
With all the crowing over Rockstar's hidden sexual content unlocked through the now infamous Hot Coffee mod, you'd have thought it was Vivid Entertainment and not Take-Two Interactive who published Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. As it turns out, most gamers weren't so offended after all, and it appears the lawyers were the ones looking to cash in more than anyone else. Why? Keep reading to find out.
Posted 03/14/08 at 12:15:17 PM by The Maximum PC Staff
![]()
Today, Dave, Will, Gordon, and Andy give you the second Maximum PC podcast for this week! We're eschewing the reader questions this time around and opening up the floor for a general discussion of a few big issues: EA's attempt at a hostile takeover of Take-Two Interactive, how we acquire movies and music nowadays, big technology purchaes we've got our collective eyes on, and the various bits of daily life that make Gordon so gosh-darn angry.
Subscribe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/maximumpc/1337





