CAGcast #80: Rebooting Your Face

Not completely through this week's show, but in the meantime...

--CheapyD, a.k.a. "TopCAG"??

--While you were doing the Topcat impression, Cheapy, I'm sorry, but I immediately free-associated your voice with the one and only (thankfully) "Elegant" Elliot Offen. That made me laugh again, just thinking about it.

--As others have said elsewhere, the need for the seemingly pointless "AO" rating is that the rating spectrum needs somewhere to go for games that truly 'cross the line'. Suffice to say, what happens in a Halo or Resident Evil is violent, but not nearly what Manhunt 2 seems/seemed to promise. If we went straight from "T" to "AO", it would be like going from "PG-13" to "NC-17". Again, I'm not the first one to point out that analogy, but I think it's very valid and merits reiteration here.

Now whether Manhunt 2 specifically deserved the "AO", well, insufficient data, but I'm betting that it did.

EDIT: Concerning someone trying to correlate a retail-priced Wii Jenga to a five-dollar Live Arcade Uno just shows you how cheap and low 'loyalists' will go to 'save face' for their own consoles. Sadly, these ridiculous analogies not only often go unchecked, but they're almost as frequently uttered by well-paid spokespeople.

Also, Wombat seems to contradict himself on the Oblivion graphical discrepancies. He initially and somewhat emphatically says that it's "noticeably better" and then seems to quickly temper and qualify his claim. "The graphical difference is so slight..." C'mon, man, take a side! Incite some bile! Trigger knee-jerk animosity and pettiness from man-children!!

And your high-def claims Wombat, well, you've got good points, but your premise about neither format surviving is ridiculous, unless you qualify it with both being a stopgap measure until HD download-only services become feasible in the next 3-5 years. Which I don't see happening that soon, not for two-hour films.
 
As a stupid microsoft fanboy that you are, you stated that oblivion on Ps3 had a year more for development.
you nitwit, do u even use your idiotic brain to think that :

  • they (Bethesda) did not start developing both versions at the same time
  • they probably got the dev kits of the 360 a year earlier than the Ps3
  • they didnt just take the 360 assets of the game and used a 360-Ps3 converter to make the Ps3 version (i know thats how the level of your brain works, but not in the real world)
  • they had to program it to the specification of the Ps3
it has always been that u find every possible way to spin any Ps3 news negatively; seeing that you quickly brought up achievements. what useless value does achievements add to the game.

so use that sausage eating brain of yours before u say something stupid next time. And stop with the foolish snickering every time you read a Ps3 new

Wombat is the only one with common sense on that show. keep it up.
 
^^^

jagged (or is it lspear?), i hope you get banned.

please dont be disrespectful. if you dont agree, explain, but dont disrespect them. and if you dont like them, dont listen. its very simple.

:shame:
 
These live casts have got to go!! I enjoy the regular show but the live ones do nothing to further the CAGcast, and a lot of the support for it are by people who just want to be on the fake air, and this gives them an avenue of doing so. I think the callers contribute to the killing of the momentum, and I think Cheapy needs to re-think how to do his contests, because the Ask A Retailer segment took a whole lot longer than it should have, and had me itching to fast-forward to some action. The biggest problem is that there's really no way to improve the live show much to where it'll be enjoyable. The people who call into the CAGbag and don't have a question need to be abused for contributing to fucking up your show. Bad callers, lag, pacing stutters--this stuff has got to go! I get the feeling if the live ones continue every other week, I'll just pass on them, because it really isn't feeling like it's worth listening to. I'll try as long as I am able, though.
 
What you guys really need to do is have an on-air 'interview' with Beetlejuice. He'd be as accurate as any "analyst", as far as I could tell, and geometrically more entertaining.

"Yeah, I makes the games, dude. Like fo'ty-fo' in like two hours, dude. I gots like a thousand hundred tirdy-eight in two more years. I makes 'em all for dese bitches. I punch Mario in tha nuts for ya."
 
good live cagcast . the funniest part was when snoop dogg's cousin called up and cheapie laughed at him then hung up. it was great .So anyways keep up the good work and try out ninja gaiden sigma i bought the korean version and the game is great.:hot:
 
Duuuuuuuude...Cheapy, you need a soundboard. Any time someone calls and mentions Pokemon, you gotta have Cosby sayin', "POKEMANS!!!!".
 
Hey Wombat
Question for you regarding Blu-ray/HD-DVD: You have said many times that the winner will be neither but DVD will continue to reign supreme. Don't you think the next obvious evolution should have been 720P/1080i DVD's? Think about it, the games on Xbox 360 come on standard 9 GB DVD's but can display the games in 720P, 1080i, and even 480P. High definition versions of movies don't take up as much room as Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps want you to think. When you download a high definition movie on Xbox live they are usually no larger than 4-5 GB which could easily fit on a 9 GB DVD with room to spare. And they would display on all tvs from 480i all the way to 1080i or maybe even 1080P (Lost Planet is a 1080P Xbox 360 game on a DVD). This would allow everyone to play the same movie in either high definition or standard definition. The only upgrade would be to get one of the HDMI equipped DVD players which are only $100 or less now. The movies could still be cheap and we could have high def. Even if extra space was needed they can always make those flipper discs and put the movie on one side, flip it over and put the extras on the other side. Those DVD's hold about 18GB!
 
[quote name='Purkeynator']Hey Wombat
Question for you regarding Blu-ray/HD-DVD: You have said many times that the winner will be neither but DVD will continue to reign supreme. Don't you think the next obvious evolution should have been 720P/1080i DVD's? Think about it, the games on Xbox 360 come on standard 9 GB DVD's but can display the games in 720P, 1080i, and even 480P. High definition versions of movies don't take up as much room as Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps want you to think. When you download a high definition movie on Xbox live they are usually no larger than 4-5 GB which could easily fit on a 9 GB DVD with room to spare. And they would display on all tvs from 480i all the way to 1080i or maybe even 1080P (Lost Planet is a 1080P Xbox 360 game on a DVD). This would allow everyone to play the same movie in either high definition or standard definition. The only upgrade would be to get one of the HDMI equipped DVD players which are only $100 or less now. The movies could still be cheap and we could have high def. Even if extra space was needed they can always make those flipper discs and put the movie on one side, flip it over and put the extras on the other side. Those DVD's hold about 18GB![/quote]

I would think that those Hi-Def movies on Xbox Live are compressed a lot, and I am sure don't have the same sound as Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
 
[quote name='Zimmy']If I could request a subject for a future show...
Maybe someone from the ESRB could be interviewed (if they even allow that).
I would love to know how games get rated.
For instance, did someone sit down and actually play through the entire Manhunt 2 game?
Did Rockstar have to supply a list of everything in the game that meets certain criteria?
It is amazing that one thing could have sent the game to an AO rating and basically killed it dead, so to speak.

Thanks.[/quote]

No offense, it's not that hard to find that info. It's right in ESRB's FAQ page:

About the Rating Process

Who decides which rating a game should get?
Each ESRB rating is based on the consensus of at least three specially trained raters who view content independently of one another. ESRB raters work on a part-time basis and are recruited from one of the most culturally diverse populations - the New York metropolitan area. They must be adults, and typically have experience with children through their profession, education or by being parents or caregivers themselves. They are not required to have advanced skills as computer and video game players since their job is to review content and determine its age-appropriateness, not to assess how challenging or entertaining a particular game is to play. To ensure their objectivity ESRB raters are kept anonymous, and they are not permitted to have any ties to or connections with any individuals or entities in the computer/video game industry.

What are the criteria for rating video games?
ESRB raters are trained to consider a wide range of pertinent content and other elements in assigning a rating. Pertinent content is any content that accurately reflects both:
  • the most extreme content of the final product - in terms of relevant rating criteria such as violence, language, sexuality, gambling, and alcohol, tobacco and drug reference or use; and
  • the final product as a whole - demonstrating the game’s context (such as setting, storyline and objectives) and relative frequency of extreme content.
Due to the unique interactive characteristics of games, the ESRB rating system goes beyond other entertainment systems by also taking into account elements such as the reward system and the degree of player control.

How does the rating process work?
Prior to a game being released to the public, game publishers submit responses to a detailed, written questionnaire (often supplementing responses with lyric sheets, scripts, etc.) specifying exactly what pertinent content will be in their game. Along with the written submission materials, publishers must provide a videotape or DVD which captures all pertinent content (as defined by ESRB), including the most extreme instances, across all relevant categories, including but not limited to violence, language, sex, controlled substances and gambling. Pertinent content that is not playable but will exist in the code on the final game disc must also be disclosed. Once the submission is checked by ESRB for completeness, which may also involve ESRB staff members playing a beta or alpha version of the game, the video footage is reviewed by at least three (and oftentimes more) specially trained game raters.

Upon reviewing the video or DVD of all pertinent content in a particular game, the raters use their own judgment to independently recommend appropriate rating categories and content descriptors for the specific scenes and depictions reviewed as well as the game overall. ESRB staff checks the raters’ recommendations for consensus, conducts a parity examination where appropriate to maintain consistency in rating assignments, and issues a certificate with the official rating assignment to the game publisher. The publisher can either accept the rating as final or revise the game's content and resubmit it to the ESRB, at which time the process starts anew. Publishers also have the ability to appeal an ESRB rating assignment to an Appeals Board, which is made up of publishers, retailers and other professionals.

When the game is ready for release to the public, publishers must send copies of the final product to the ESRB. The game packaging is reviewed to make sure the rating information is displayed accurately and in accordance with ESRB requirements. Additionally, ESRB's in-house game experts play the final version of both a random sample of games as well as a number of hand-selected titles to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were accurate and complete. For more information on how ESRB enforces its rating system, click here.

Why don’t the ESRB raters actually play the games they rate?
ESRB raters do not actually play the games they rate for many reasons. First, many games have upwards of 50 hours of gameplay, and requiring a minimum of three raters to play through each of the more than 1,000 games rated by ESRB each year would not only be inefficient given the high degree of repetition in video games, but would fail to ensure that they found and had the opportunity to consider all of the pertinent content in their assignment of a rating.

Additionally, because games are player-controlled, there are many different permutations of gameplay depending on the choices the player makes. Therefore, one player may see very different types of content than another depending on the choices he or she makes while playing the game. As such, engaging in only an hour or two of gameplay as a supplement to the current rating process would offer no greater assurance that all pertinent content was disclosed and considered in the assignment of a rating. That is why it is essential that publishers be required to disclose on videotape or DVD all pertinent content in the game they submit for rating, including the most extreme elements, so that raters can thoroughly assess the game and assign an appropriate rating.

Moreover, given the manufacturing and print advertising deadlines to which publishers must adhere (which can occur 60-90 days before a game ships), games must oftentimes be submitted to ESRB for rating before they have been completed or fully tested. As a consequence, these games may be “buggy,” making it difficult, if not impossible, for a rater to play the game from start to finish.

Finally, ESRB ratings are based on the consensus of independent raters whose values and judgments resemble those of the mainstream American public, particularly parents (see consumer research). Requiring all ESRB raters to be expert gamers (which they would need to be if required to play each game assigned to them for rating) would undoubtedly hinder ESRB’s ability to recruit a diverse rater pool reflective of mainstream public opinion.

Though the raters do not play the games themselves, ESRB staff may play beta or alpha versions of games submitted for rating when the content disclosed in submission materials requires further clarification. Once a game has been released, ESRB’s in-house game experts play the final version of both a random sample of games as well as a number of hand-selected titles to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were complete and the rating is appropriate.
Click to expand...
 
Damn, the lag made it into the final version of this week's CAGcast. I guess Cheapy isn't a god at editing. :lol:

I found Wombat's response to not having achievements funny since it reminded me of a scene from The Office. Jim trains Dwight to unknowingly ask for a mint every time he heard a Windows chime, but when Jim stops doing it purposefully, Dwight happens to cause the chime sound and then begs for a mint, to which Jim acts like he's clueless about the joke. Sounds like Microsoft made a fool out of Wombat. ;) :lol:

I have to say I'm disappointed by Cheay's response to the whole VGC fiasco. It seems like Cheapy doesn't care about what the CAGs wanted and expected once the thread was closed, but instead it seems like you just cares about the affiliate money you'll get while ignoring the problem. I'd like to hear a better explanation because the one in this episode just raised further questions. That's just how it appeared to me with the decision you made.

If you still haven't gotten the hint that you need to figure out a way to screen calls, you're doomed and might as well just give up on the whole idea of live shows while you're ahead.

Overall, it was a solid show, but the lag is becoming a bigger problem than the callers. It was fine for me for the first hour or so of the show, then the barrage of callers seemed to bring the show down to a crashing halt. It seems like this beta should be moved back to alpha testing to find a fix for the lag first. I look forward to seeing what the new site you choose to hopefully fix the problem.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']
I have to say I'm disappointed by Cheay's response to the whole VGC fiasco. It seems like Cheapy doesn't care about what the CAGs wanted and expected once the thread was closed, but instead it seems like you just cares about the affiliate money you'll get while ignoring the problem. I'd like to hear a better explanation because the one in this episode just raised further questions. That's just how it appeared to me with the decision you made[/quote]

I'm pretty sure people are tired of hearing me talk about this on the show, so perhaps I can shed some light on this matter here.

What did the CAGs want/expect?
It sounded like the CAGs wanted me to eject them from an affiliate program that does not exist. Am I supposed to ban their URL from ever appearing in the forums?
 
[quote name='Purkeynator']Hey Wombat
Question for you regarding Blu-ray/HD-DVD: You have said many times that the winner will be neither but DVD will continue to reign supreme. Don't you think the next obvious evolution should have been 720P/1080i DVD's? Think about it, the games on Xbox 360 come on standard 9 GB DVD's but can display the games in 720P, 1080i, and even 480P. High definition versions of movies don't take up as much room as Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps want you to think. When you download a high definition movie on Xbox live they are usually no larger than 4-5 GB which could easily fit on a 9 GB DVD with room to spare. And they would display on all tvs from 480i all the way to 1080i or maybe even 1080P (Lost Planet is a 1080P Xbox 360 game on a DVD). This would allow everyone to play the same movie in either high definition or standard definition. The only upgrade would be to get one of the HDMI equipped DVD players which are only $100 or less now. The movies could still be cheap and we could have high def. Even if extra space was needed they can always make those flipper discs and put the movie on one side, flip it over and put the extras on the other side. Those DVD's hold about 18GB![/quote]

Your correct HD content can be put on a DVD 9 and played by most DVD players. The reason for a new format(s) is two fold 1) lets not underestimate that more disc space is better one of the tech demos HD-DVD showed was the complete Lord Of the rings trilogy HD video on 1 duel layer disc the MPEG 4 AVC-1 compression format is a damn nice codac. 2) Security granted HD-DVD and Blu Ray both can be "backed up", however the main reason and push is because they want to curb piracy. Both camps added in more layers of security and both have been cracked now so its a push.

I don't agree with Wombat on the HD video comment. I don't think BR will win or HD-DVD the market has room for both, and both can survive if a majority of studios support both. And before people talk about BR and how the majority of studios support it lets not forget studios like FOX have pulled back the A titles until this works it's self out. But the first player with a stand alone under 200.00 will take a big jump just look at how fast crutchfield sold out of the Toshiba player when it was selling for 299.99 plus the MIR of 100.00 same with Amazon After rebate was 250.00. If Wal Mart can get the 199.99 player in then Joe Consumer will take notice but at this point its still early adopter stuff.

I think the HD-DVD stand alone will be the first to under 200.00 then at that point the studios that only support BR will have to support both.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I'm pretty sure people are tired of hearing me talk about this on the show, so perhaps I can shed some light on this matter here.

What did the CAGs want/expect?
It sounded like the CAGs wanted me to eject them from an affiliate program that does not exist. Am I supposed to ban their URL from ever appearing in the forums?[/quote]
I would say that it seemed like the easiest decision to make after all the crap that went on with the thread that you'd disassociate CAG from VGC by doing whatever was needed so that the two sites were not affiliates anymore. Plus, there are a few CAGs that have mentioned that they're not going to be using affiliate links for any site they buy from for as long as we're still affiliated with VGC.

The confusing thing was that you mentioned that CAG doesn't have an affiliate program, but that CAG is on VGC affiliate program and you made it seem like we have no say in the matter after the affiliation and that we're simply stuck with the decision. That's why I asked if we were essentially being held hostage, since it seemed like you weren't going to take the initiative to get CAG out of their affiliate program.

I also think you should've made a post about the matter somewhere in the forums, as not all CAGs listen to the CAGcast and they probably wouldn't listen just to hear if you've made any kind of decision about the situation. It seemed like there was a large disconnect between you and the CAGs about this subject if you were only going to talk about it on the CAGcast and ignore it elsewhere

The thing with the whole situation is that it seems like it was poorly handled on both sides, with VGC guy being an ass and you seemed to be hiding behind the CAGcast, seemingly refusing to acknowledge the situation in the forums after closing the thread. He could put the whole issue to rest for me by acknowledging how badly he handled the situation and promising that he's going to put a hell of a lot more research into future affiliations. I don't want to sound like an ass, but that's just how I see it.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I'm pretty sure people are tired of hearing me talk about this on the show, so perhaps I can shed some light on this matter here.

What did the CAGs want/expect?
It sounded like the CAGs wanted me to eject them from an affiliate program that does not exist. Am I supposed to ban their URL from ever appearing in the forums?[/quote]

Personally, I think you did everything correctly. I think people forget how an affiliate program works. It's something like this:
1. Company sees that you have a popular website related to some product they sell.
2. Company asks if you would like to enter their affiliate program.
3. You post link to company's website (sometimes via banner or button)
4. People see link on your site and click-through and purchase something from company.
5. Company gets money from making a sale, you get money for "referring" somebody to the company.

What happened in this case was a little sad, since the company in question posted here and "made fun" of some users via coupon codes and such, but that's not the norm. Cheapy talked with them, suggested they didn't post, etc.

What else can he do? He can ask to be removed from their affiliate program, but at the end of the day, what does that really accomplish? It helps both the company and the site to enter an affiliate program (and don't forget, it costs money to keep CAG running). As other users have pointed out, these "mod" tools can be found at a ton of places. It'd be one thing (and quite a different story) if Cheapy were posting links for great deals on mod tools or something, but he's not. He is providing a link to a place to get stuff that you might want, and will help out the site. If you're going to be outraged that stores sell these things, you might soon find you've got a long list of places you are outraged with.

And, ultimately, if CAGs are truly upset by it, they can always "boycott" the site. If people don't click-through and don't buy, it does the company no good to have CAG as an affiliate, and may drop him.

Or perhaps we just all need to do more drugs/drinking.

/tk
 
We are discussing it in the forums...right here.
I'm thinking "out loud" here, so feel free to correct me or play devil's advocate, but the way I see the situation, there are 2 possible outcomes:

1) VGC's URL is banned from CAG
2) VGC's URL is not banned from CAG

I think it's safe to say, that option #1 is not practical. Even though it might seem unlikely to some, it is entirely possible that VGC has some decent offers in the future. Even if it is only one decent deal a year, if a CAG wants to share something he finds at VGC, shouldn't he be allowed to post it?

So, if we are not banning their URL, and "the unthinkable" happens and VGC has a decent deal, shouldn't CAG receive its due commission? Is it better that the deal is posted and CAG doesn't receive their commission?

Speaking frankly, this has more with me making a logical decision than actual dollars and cents. CAG will probably generate more revenue from Amazon on a random week, the with a lifetime "affiliation" with VGC.
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with the live show format you are using every other week Cheapy. It seems to me that most of the complaints are coming from long time listeners who don't want change. The live shows do have there rough spots but I like the fact the Cheapy and Wombat are trying something different. I listen to a few podcasts a day because my job is so boring and the cagcast is always the one i look forward to. To all the listeners that call themselves fans get over yourself and allow Cheapy and Wombat to do bigger things with the cagcast.
 
Cheapy is making the RIGHT decision about VGC and if you dont like it, deal with it. People are making it a bigger deal then it should be.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']We are discussing it in the forums...right here.
I'm thinking "out loud" here, so feel free to correct me or play devil's advocate, but the way I see the situation, there are 2 possible outcomes:

1) VGC's URL is banned from CAG
2) VGC's URL is not banned from CAG

I think it's safe to say, that option #1 is not practical. Even though it might seem unlikely to some, it is entirely possible that VGC has some decent offers in the future. Even if it is only one decent deal a year, if a CAG wants to share something he finds at VGC, shouldn't he be allowed to post it?

So, if we are not banning their URL, and "the unthinkable" happens and VGC has a decent deal, shouldn't CAG receive its due commission? Is it better that the deal is posted and CAG doesn't receive their commission?

Speaking frankly, this has more with me making a logical decision than actual dollars and cents. CAG will probably generate more revenue from Amazon on a random week, the with a lifetime "affiliation" with VGC.[/QUOTE]

You did make the right decision under the circumstances. There's not really a whole lot of options really. However, I do agree with Frisky above that you should make your presence and the outcome of the situation better known. Talking about it on the CAGcast only reaches certain members, whereas a specific thread discussing the issue would reach most of the others who are interested. It's an issue that seems to have inspired a great deal of interest among the forum community, so it seems that using the forums to address the concerns of the community is an apt response.
 
hey just finished listening to the podcast, great show

I have one comment to make about your thoughts on why a web browser for the 360 was not made. Maybe this has something to do with the vulnerabilites of the IE platfom.

Just food for thought

Anyway great show and keep up the good work Cheapy and the Wombats!
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']The thing with the whole situation is that it seems like it was poorly handled on both sides, with VGC guy being an ass and you seemed to be hiding behind the CAGcast, seemingly refusing to acknowledge the situation in the forums after closing the thread. He could put the whole issue to rest for me by acknowledging how badly he handled the situation and promising that he's going to put a hell of a lot more research into future affiliations. I don't want to sound like an ass, but that's just how I see it.[/quote]
"Hiding behind the CAGcast"? We have approximately 6,000 listeners per show. Do you think 6,000 people would have read my explanation in the forums? I sure don't.

I believe my big mistake was not closing that thread sooner. I definitely gave the VGC owner enough rope to hang himself and my inability to act quicker caused several people (CAGs & VGC) aggravation.

How much research I should be doing on a store that has invited CAG to join their affiliate program? I looked them up on BBB and spoke to one of their principals on the phone. I did not delve deep into their entire product catalog, and as you can see, their mod device section is not exactly the easiest thing to find on their website.

While I admit I did not handle the situation perfectly, I don't know what else I could have done differently, other than close the flaming thread sooner. I understand that some CAGs are unhappy with how I handled the situation and I'm certainly open to hear suggestions on what I could have done or should do in the future.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']"Hiding behind the CAGcast"? We have approximately 6,000 listeners per show. Do you think 6,000 people would have read my explanation in the forums? I sure don't.[/quote]
Do you think those 6k included everyone that was even aware of or cared about the situation? Only talking about the situation on the CAGcast leaves the folks involved, like Roufuss and many others, clueless about what happened without any idea what you had decided. You can't just expect that everything you talk about will be the final word for everyone involved because not everyone listens to the CAGcast or cares about it enough to listen just to hope you discuss the topic and address the big issues.

[quote name='CheapyD']I believe my big mistake was not closing that thread sooner. I definitely gave the VGC owner enough rope to hang himself and my inability to act quicker caused several people (CAGs & VGC) aggravation.

How much research I should be doing on a store that has invited CAG to join their affiliate program? I looked them up on BBB and spoke to one of their principals on the phone. I did not delve deep into their entire product catalog, and as you can see, their mod device section is not exactly the easiest thing to find on their website.[/quote]
No kidding, especially when he started removing the pirated stuff that CAGs were posting because he was still reading the thread after he said he was done with the thread.

[quote name='CheapyD']While I admit I did not handle the situation perfectly, I don't know what else I could have done differently, other than close the flaming thread sooner. I understand that some CAGs are unhappy with how I handled the situation and I'm certainly open to hear suggestions on what I could have done or should do in the future.[/quote]
You didn't really have the ability to tell that the VGC guy was a nutbar, but definitely force psychiatric evaluations on any future affiliation partners. ;)

Seriously, how about a trial run for affiliates? I don't know how feasible this is, but how about a trial run so you can see if it's something CAGs are happy about and works for everyone?
 
I'm not sure this really qualifies as a big issue. I literally received a grand total of two complaints (both via PM). I replied to one of the complaints directly via PM (not sure why I neglected the other). Rather than create another forum thread which would just create more useless drama, I chose to speak about it on the CAGcast, where I thought i would be able to discuss it freely and in greater detail. I also believed it would be interesting for the audience to learn how affiliate programs work.

CAGs who are really interested on what goes on behind the scenes here, probably listen to the CAGcast. If they don't, they should. ;)

Apparently, the guy spoke to at VGC was not the same person posting in the thread. Also, as I explained before, it is the retailers who run the affiliate programs, so if anything, it would be up to them to give CAG a trial run, not the other way around. Sure, I guess CAG could leave a retailer's affiliate program, but as mentioned earlier, that doesn't really make much sense.

Ok, I think we've officially beat this dead horse into the ground. I'm going to reboot my face now.
 
It's a two way street, though. Yeah, they're aligning themselves with CAG and therefore putting themselves out there a bit, but by officially endorsing the site, you gave the impression that we were totally aligned with them. The issue wasn't that their deals sucked but that they sold things that were against our own ToS. Either keep the official link between us and change the ToS to allow flash carts, mod chips, etc., or break it off and keep things the way they are. I'd vote for the latter.

Whether you intended this implied endorsement or not is immaterial. It happened. In the future, even if you don't search the site, grill the reps for what items they might sell from our verboten list.
 
It's a big issue if it deals with the integrity of your business, I'd think - and that's what we're talking about here.

You run this site to make money. To that end, you sign on with affiliate programs so you get paid. And I imagine with how many users CAG has, you get paid very well.

One of your affiliates seemed to be selling goods that violate your own TOS. Seems like it's be a problem to a few people here.

One thing I wondered - it was inferred that the affiliates sought you out for relationships. Is that correct? Who courted who? Just wondering.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Who courted who? Just wondering.[/quote]

who cares? dont buy there and he doesnt make money. ill buy there if i see a good deal and ill be happy to make cheapy some money.

and i truly doubt cheapy runs this site just to make money. he does have a love for games ya know.

freakin dream job if u ask me. ;)
 
All the talk about lag should have been edited out, and the call-in segments were still a disjointed mess. After suffering through it long enough, I finally turned it off around the 75 minute mark. Sorry guys, the live shows just aren't doing it for me.

EDIT: Okay, I'll offer some constructive criticism too. I think for a couple of CAGcasts you had a segment where you would showcase certain threads in the forum (other than Video Game deals). I think this deserves to be a semi-regular segment because, obviously, the forums are CAGs biggest asset. For example: BriansRareGames has been running a contest for the past three weeks, and plans on running it until October where he gives out prizes every week, and a 150 dollars in gift certificate at the end. I believe a shout-out is deserved to drum up awareness to the contest, but also to commemorate this type of CAG philanthropy.
 
Wombat, While I agree with you on the whole Joe Consumer not giving a damn right now I have to disagree with you on the Picture quality. I know DVD to HD is not the same jump from VHS to DVD but the upgrade in quality is there. Take a look at this site http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

I think there is a big difference in the two or maybe it's just placebo and I want to see it. Also if the site they got the Video from is say TNThd or Any cable source the bitrate is a lot lower than the 20+ mb a sec. that you get from a HD-dvd or Bluray, so from a disc the quality should be even higher in theory.
 
[quote name='Kfoster1979']Wombat, While I agree with you on the whole Joe Consumer not giving a damn right now I have to disagree with you on the Picture quality. I know DVD to HD is not the same jump from VHS to DVD but the upgrade in quality is there. Take a look at this site http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

I think there is a big difference in the two or maybe it just placebo and I want to see it. Moreover if the site got the Video from sat TNThd or Any cable source the bitrate is a lot lower than the 20+ mb a sec. from a HD-dvd or Bluray so from a disc the quality would be even higher.[/quote]

Oooh...Thanks for that link. As I said before, the day LotR is released on HD DVD or Blu-Ray is the day I jump on board.
 
[quote name='Tybee']Oooh...Thanks for that link. As I said before, the day LotR is released on HD DVD or Blu-Ray is the day I jump on board.[/quote]

If I remember correctly it will be one of the first HD-DVD/BR Combo disc. I will bet it's going to be this holiday season.
 
[quote name='Kfoster1979']If I remember correctly it will be one of the first HD-DVD/BR Combo disc. I will bet it's going to be this holiday season.[/quote]

See, that just seems silly to me. That's valuable space that could be used for bonus features or a higher bitrate.
 
[quote name='pop311']Where is the new CAGcast, I can't remember if Cheapy and Wombat said there would or wouldn't be one this week.[/QUOTE]

They record on Wednesday nights, so it should be up by tomorrow morning.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']They record on Wednesday nights, so it should be up by tomorrow morning.[/quote]Oh, thank you. BTW Nice podcast this week, ship and Mrs. Ship.:D
 
[quote name='tsg2005']so im still curious, is this weeks cagcast going to be live?[/QUOTE]

Nope, Wombies gave me the 411 and it was already recorded and put up.

I think it would be funny if they taped a show but during the show they pretended it was live.
 
Just when I thought we were out, they pulled us back in.

Here we are, 10 episodes after someone finally called for an end to Oblivion comments, and now there is another version to discuss endlessly. Do Cheapy and Wombat talk about Oblivion too much or not enough? You be the judge! I've collected every mention of the game between episode 69(when someone complained) and now. Only time will tell if the list grows:

[media]http://minorcrisis.net/files/cagcast%20oblivion.mp3[/media]

Click here if that server goes down.
 
That was pretty humorous, johnnyflash. But just wait until Fallout 3 is released, which is practically Oblivion but just in a different setting.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Thats great...I'll thow that on the end of cagcast 81...which im about to encode now.[/quote]

Looking forward to the next cagcast.

If you can, for those of us who aren't familiar with the Fallout franchise, can you give us a brief synopsis of what's going on. thx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top