"
Asked whether he was cautious of comparisons with PS4 by our editor Jon Hicks, Penello pointed out that few players really buy consoles for the specs alone. "The problem is that Sony decided to go out and publish a bunch of numbers, which are in some ways meaningless," he told us. "Because this isn't like 1990, when it was 16-bit versus 32-bit.
For me, I'd rather not even have the conversation, because it's not going to matter," Penello went on. "The box is going to be awesome. The games are going to be awesome. I heard this exact same argument last generation and it's a pointless argument, because people are debating things which they don't know about. They're not [head silicon engineer] Nick Baker or [corporate vice president of IEB hardware Todd Holmdahl], and I'm not [lead PS4 architect] Mark Cerny, so why are we having this discussion?"
Penello feels consumers will pick a console for the games it offers, rather than for its capabilities on paper. "Here's what you care about," he said. "You bought a system to play great games and have great experiences. I feel like our games and experiences are going to be every bit as good, if not better, technically - on top of all the magic we're going to add with the instant switching, and the power of the cloud.
Albert Penello is MS's Xbox product planning boss. Link via gaf..
This is exactly the kind of cloud bullshit that I hate. If MS cared about how many CPU cycles they had for games then they should have worked out a way for their TV stuff to take less than 3 of the 8 cores.
That said, games are much more important than hardware specs. Then again, maybe the XBO being weaker wouldn't be as big a deal if it wan't more expensive.
In the long run, I can't see the difference in hardware specs between the two machines making much of a difference. Games on both of these platforms will look amazing. Heck, games on the Xbox 360 and PS3 already look amazing. I don't mind them mentioning the "power of the cloud". They think they have something that will add value to the system. That being said, I also don't think it will end up making that much of a difference in how games will look and play, but I hope it does.
Curious to see how these consoles will perform in real world situations once we have our hands on them.
that's ultimately the real test and proof of concept for both. how the feel and play on release and evolve over their life span, as well as what developers are able to squeeze out of the hardware.
its going to be an interesting holiday season for gamers this year.
Can someone clear up a bit of confusion me and a friend were having?
So, when PSN+ became a thing, and people ranted about how the free game aspect alone made it worth it, I had a minor caveat: they weren't giving you a free game, you're buying a subscription to a pool of free games, Netflix style. If you drop PSN+, you no longer access those games. I completely understand if people don't care about the distinction, I do (I've always made a point of following the exact details of licensing and rights to the best of my ability).
I think this is still the case. Now, XBL Gold has started doing the same (most recently, Fable 3 was free for Gold members). Now, I assumed this was like PSN+: 'free' game, sure, but if I canceled Gold, then I don't have access to those games (I don't expect I would, but the point is still valid). As such, it's not like the free games posted on Live, which are free regardless of your account standing.
My friend said this isn't true, and so long as you actually acquired a license to the game, its yours, gold or not--in effect, it's no different from any game purchased on XBL (including free ones), where licenses don't care if you have gold or not.
Does anyone what the case is?
The Xbox free games do not require you to maintain a subscription to play them. Once you download them, they are yours for good.
From what I understand with the Games for Gold stuff - once you get it as part of your Gold subscription and apply it to your account, it is yours even if your gold subscription lapses. They are giving you the game, it's not just a rental or whatever like PSN+.
Do we even know if they'll allow your Gold account to go away? I mean if you need it to activate a title you just bought then I suspect Gold is a requirement.
You are required to have gold in order to get the games for free, but after that the game is yours. I'm not sure what you are talking about in "activating" a title.
And do we actually have confirmation that they are free forever? I get that Fable 3 is free, but that wasn't mentioned in their "Free games" spiel during E3. It was Assassin's Creed 2 and something else.
Do we even know if they'll allow your Gold account to go away? I mean if you need it to activate a title you just bought then I suspect Gold is a requirement.
Are you referring to activating a title that you bought? I don't think that requires Gold to do, just a Live account to ping to their services that you've bought the game. And you can probably still play it forever offline on whatever version is on-disc if you don't go online.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
And do we actually have confirmation that they are free forever? I get that Fable 3 is free, but that wasn't mentioned in their "Free games" spiel during E3. It was Assassin's Creed 2 and something else.
I think I understand what you are referring to. I think they stated the Xbox One would need to connect to the Internet once to get a patch when the system launches so you can play your games offline. I do not think you need to activate Xbox One games and after you patch the system you can play all of your games offline (provided they are not multiplayer games).
And do we actually have confirmation that they are free forever? I get that Fable 3 is free, but that wasn't mentioned in their "Free games" spiel during E3. It was Assassin's Creed 2 and something else.
The current program is only touted as games for the 360 up until the launch of the XOne. They haven't said whether or not a similar system will exist on the XOne or any details of such a program. Though I don't think it's crazy to assume they'll continue to do things more like PS+ does in order to stay competitive.
Do we even know if they'll allow your Gold account to go away? I mean if you need it to activate a title you just bought then I suspect Gold is a requirement.
Are you referring to activating a title that you bought? I don't think that requires Gold to do, just a Live account to ping to their services that you've bought the game. And you can probably still play it forever offline on whatever version is on-disc if you don't go online.
Sorry I'm crossing my wires here. Let me see if I can fix this.
It does seem like you do need the Internet for the game to activate, right? But what if you don't have Gold. Can you still activate a game? Have they mentioned Silver accounts?
And do we actually have confirmation that they are free forever? I get that Fable 3 is free, but that wasn't mentioned in their "Free games" spiel during E3. It was Assassin's Creed 2 and something else.
The current program is only touted as games for the 360 up until the launch of the XOne. They haven't said whether or not a similar system will exist on the XOne or any details of such a program. Though I don't think it's crazy to assume they'll continue to do things more like PS+ does in order to stay competitive.
Oh sure. No doubt. My concern here is the "free forever, even without Gold". I mean are we HOPING that will happen, or do we KNOW that will happen?
As far as I know the 360 marketplace has no way to "rent" you content in the way PS+ works, perhaps it will in the future. In the current system which has only applied to Fable 3 so far but I don't think it's crazy to assume future titles will work the same way, I can look at my account and see that I own Fable 3 according to MS.
It's just as if I bought it on the Marketplace, it was just free to me. There is no special distinction, no flags. Here is wording from MS's Games for Gold page:
As our way of saying thanks for being part of this community, we’re giving all qualifying Gold members two free Xbox 360 games each month for the rest of the year. Each specially selected, fan-favorite game will be available to download only for a limited time, so grab them before they’re gone and keep them no matter what. Tell a friend about this offer so they can go Gold and get free games too.
I also think the term "giving" rather than "allow access to" or something like that helps solidify that fact that they are actually giving you ownership (digitally) of the content.
For comparison here is the wording on Playstation Plus's free games:
Instant Game Collection Access - Popular titles such as Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, inFamous 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Saints Row 2, Virtua Fighter 5, are just a few examples of the many PlayStation 3 and PS Vita games, that have been available on demand and to play as long as you are a PlayStation Plus subscriber.
Cloud doesn’t seem to actually mean anything anymore, or it has so many meanings that it’s useless as a marketing word.
Let me explain this simply: when companies talk about their cloud, all they are saying is that they have a huge amount of servers ready to run whatever you need them to run. That’s all.
Thank you. I'm tempted to get an XBone just so I can buy Titanfall and support this man's company now.
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Cloud doesn’t seem to actually mean anything anymore, or it has so many meanings that it’s useless as a marketing word.
Let me explain this simply: when companies talk about their cloud, all they are saying is that they have a huge amount of servers ready to run whatever you need them to run. That’s all.
Thank you. I'm tempted to get an XBone just so I can buy Titanfall and support this man's company now.
And nobody in here thinks otherwise.
The thing is, these servers are virtually spawned from configurations and software deployments that the developer gives Microsoft, who puts it into azure.
These servers can do anything from running dedicated server for matches, to executing custom code that benefits the client (Forza 5 is using it to heuristically analyze your driving over time, and build an AI that drives like you, competes for you when you are offline, and earns money for you to spend when you log back on).
There was a rather neat demo in which a massive asteroid field was rendered in the cloud, and as the ship navigated through it, the console "took over" for the physics calculations of all asteroids it was interacting with in that moment, while the rest of the field is responding to positional commands being sent compressed from the server. This guarantees a unique field for every player based on pure physics, but only requires a small slice of the "real" physics to be rendered on the machine itself, as only the stuff you could possibly need to directly interact with has to be real time.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I've been kicking around the idea of starting a self publishing thread in order to talk about what it actually is, what it's not, the ways it's worked on various devices, and all that. Would anyone be interested in a thread like that? If so, I'll see if the mods would be into it.
could be interesting, maybe see if anyone from the Indie Games sub-forum wants to weigh in on the subject with personal insight into the matter. obviously terms and conditions will vary between platforms, but it'd be nice to get an idea of the pros and cons as they're seen from developers.
i think we could all benefit from a better understanding of just what it takes for an indie to stay indie.
I've been kicking around the idea of starting a self publishing thread in order to talk about what it actually is, what it's not, the ways it's worked on various devices, and all that. Would anyone be interested in a thread like that? If so, I'll see if the mods would be into it.
IDK, I'm kind of burned out on the concept of indie, so you probably won't see my lovely avatars in there. :P IDK... I mean I don't even care about or know what the term means anymore. It's just marketing to me... kind of like the cloud for others. Especially when it's a group of professionals doing it as a business, etc, etc.
It's a game. Does it really need a label like "indie" to sell it?
hipster-donuts is hipster.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
indie isn't a label. It's, in fact, the exact opposite of a label. Indie means you don't have a label. Quite the paradox, no?
Except for the indie games that are sold under the traditional publishing model (such as Bastion)
But those, literally, aren't indie. They're just calling themselves indie. So I guess there is indie, and then there is "indie." Indie, as a publishing model, is pretty cool. "Indie," as an identity, is pretty stupid.
EDIT: A more accurate term for Bastion's developers wouldn't be independent developer, it'd be contract developer. Or 3rd party developer... to a 3rd party publisher. But not really indie.
the term indie can be used in a somewhat vague fashion at times, mostly due its use in the music industry i'd say, but at its core its exactly what it implies. independent. its a group/person/studio that isn't tied into a deal with a larger, dominant body. so a developer without a without a publisher(or at least no long term deal with one).
Double Fine, SuperGiant Games - indies.
BioWare, Bungie - semi-indie. they have deals with publishers but seem to have enough autonomy to keep creative control.
indie isn't a label. It's, in fact, the exact opposite of a label. Indie means you don't have a label. Quite the paradox, no?
Except for the indie games that are sold under the traditional publishing model (such as Bastion)
But those, literally, aren't indie. They're just calling themselves indie. So I guess there is indie, and then there is "indie." Indie, as a publishing model, is pretty cool. "Indie," as an identity, is pretty stupid.
EDIT: A more accurate term for Bastion's developers wouldn't be independent developer, it'd be contract developer. Or 3rd party developer... to a 3rd party publisher. But not really indie.
Yeah, but you've always needed a publisher for live arcade games, and that puts them moreso into the framework that TSR mentioned in his edit.
But the whole identity thing is more what I'm talking about.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
see this is were the self publishing discussion comes in, Bastion may have been published by WB Games, but Transistor will be self published by SuperGiant Games. so if they weren't indie before, they are now.
the term indie can be used in a somewhat vague fashion at times, mostly due its use in the music industry i'd say, but at its core its exactly what it implies. independent. its a group/person/studio that isn't tied into a deal with a larger, dominant body. so a developer without a without a publisher(or at least no long term deal with one).
Double Fine, SuperGiant Games - indies.
BioWare, Bungie - semi-indie. they have deals with publishers but seem to have enough autonomy to keep creative control.
Belonging to a publishing model means they're inherently NOT independent. They're under contract. They might be individually owned, but they're not independent. They're dependent on the publisher for funding, be it for the development of the game or, in cases like The Conduit, for putting the game on store shelves. 3rd party developer or contract developer works better than indie.
Incidentally, it's a game by game thing. You shouldn't blanket a developer as indie, but rather their projects. Double Fine is just a developer. So like Amnesia Fortnight 2012 by Double Fine was an Indie game. Double Fine Happy Action Theater was not an indie game. Double Fine sometimes develops indie games.
Right. Except that it's not really treated like a game by game thing, or viewed as such. Which makes it even muddier. the air of elitism that some enthusiasts put off on it also doesn't help (nobody here, just in general).
Also to clarify I'm not down on independent games and such. the fact that a game was done independent just doesn't measure as a selling factor for me. I think that games should stand on their individual merits, imo.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Either way, it wouldn't be about indie vs not indie, it'd be about the various methods of self publishing available, and the downsides of them.
The main thing people seem to be confused about with self publishing is there are very few marketplaces where self published titles aren't curated beyond technical issues. Just about the only two I can think of are the Google Marketplace, and Xbox Indie games and possibly the PSN. And we all know just how well that works out. Then look at Steam Greenlight, and how broken that system is. There just doesn't seem to be a good way to do this yet, and I think it might be an interesting topic to discuss.
is the corporate marketing understanding of "gamer culture"
Too true. For instance you can find me eating fine cheese and crackers and drinking craft beers while gaming. I mean come on, Doritos and Mountain Dew. I'm a grown man. Microsoft research your customer base.
i listed Double Fine simple because they seem to be moving further and further from dealing with publishers. they've kickstarted 2 games now and have a couple of iOS/Android titles too. by virtue of the types of games they (prefer to)make this move is pretty essential to the longevity of the company and i think will see them branding as being largely independent as the move forward.
beyond that, i don't think a studio should lose its indie status just because it deals with a publisher. sometimes you need someone to help with that side of things, or would just rather they deal with it on your behalf. that's why i mentioned BioWare and Bungie. like Double Fine i'd imagine they are in a position to begin moving towards a self publishing model but as it is they have no desire to do so. they've proven that they can make high selling AAA titles so they're in a great position to sign a deal that lets them create what they want without interference while having someone to handle the marketing/distribution side of things.
as has been mentioned, you need to work with a publisher to get on XBLA, but Fez is still considered a quintessential indie title. its not just about being free from a publisher, its about being free from interference from a publisher.
EDIT: yeah i think this one is getting away from us. its not what Death of Rats had in mind and its not really on topic for this thread either.
Wraith260 on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
is the corporate marketing understanding of "gamer culture"
Too true. For instance you can find me eating fine cheese and crackers and drinking craft beers while gaming. I mean come on, Doritos and Mountain Dew. I'm a grown man. Microsoft research your customer base.
I still eat Doritos from time to time. They are delicious, but terrible for you.
I haven't had a Mountain Dew, aside from a cup of baja blast at Taco Bell, in years. But I,know they still sell a shitload of it, so maybe they aren't the worst sponsors in the world?
It is comically stereotypical, but its not altogether wrong either. Snack food and gaming kind of go hand in hand.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Either way, it wouldn't be about indie vs not indie, it'd be about the various methods of self publishing available, and the downsides of them.
The main thing people seem to be confused about with self publishing is there are very few marketplaces where self published titles aren't curated beyond technical issues. Just about the only two I can think of are the Google Marketplace, and Xbox Indie games and possibly the PSN. And we all know just how well that works out. Then look at Steam Greenlight, and how broken that system is. There just doesn't seem to be a good way to do this yet, and I think it might be an interesting topic to discuss.
It might be controversial to talk about, but I am convinced that megaupload's mega box model is the future off software publishing. It's super controversial because it blurs the line between piracy and self publishing, but the industry would be much healthier for developers if it were embraced. It would essentially be the death of the middleman publisher, though. It would also negate the need for drm entirely. It's probably too radical to ever catch on, though. At least four several decades. It'd be decried as socialism and slavery to advertising.
is the corporate marketing understanding of "gamer culture"
Too true. For instance you can find me eating fine cheese and crackers and drinking craft beers while gaming. I mean come on, Doritos and Mountain Dew. I'm a grown man. Microsoft research your customer base.
I still eat Doritos from time to time. They are delicious, but terrible for you.
I haven't had a Mountain Dew, aside from a cup of baja blast at Taco Bell, in years. But I,know they still sell a shitload of it, so maybe they aren't the worst sponsors in the world?
It is comically stereotypical, but its not altogether wrong either. Snack food and gaming kind of go hand in hand.
You should probably think back on your life and decide how you ended up bothering to post this defense of Doritos and Dew.
Not that they need defending. But still, why?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
is the corporate marketing understanding of "gamer culture"
Too true. For instance you can find me eating fine cheese and crackers and drinking craft beers while gaming. I mean come on, Doritos and Mountain Dew. I'm a grown man. Microsoft research your customer base.
I still eat Doritos from time to time. They are delicious, but terrible for you.
I haven't had a Mountain Dew, aside from a cup of baja blast at Taco Bell, in years. But I,know they still sell a shitload of it, so maybe they aren't the worst sponsors in the world?
It is comically stereotypical, but its not altogether wrong either. Snack food and gaming kind of go hand in hand.
You should probably think back on your life and decide how you ended up bothering to post this defense of Doritos and Dew.
Not that they need defending. But still, why?
I see you're doing an outstanding job of keepin it real.
That was probably laying on the snark a bit thick. Still, I think some people might listen to syndalis' defense of cloud computing with a more open mind if he didn't feel the need to defend MS on even the most inane shit.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Posts
Curious to see how these consoles will perform in real world situations once we have our hands on them.
In the long run, I can't see the difference in hardware specs between the two machines making much of a difference. Games on both of these platforms will look amazing. Heck, games on the Xbox 360 and PS3 already look amazing. I don't mind them mentioning the "power of the cloud". They think they have something that will add value to the system. That being said, I also don't think it will end up making that much of a difference in how games will look and play, but I hope it does.
that's ultimately the real test and proof of concept for both. how the feel and play on release and evolve over their life span, as well as what developers are able to squeeze out of the hardware.
its going to be an interesting holiday season for gamers this year.
Thank you, that answers my question--and I'm happy to be incorrect.
And do we actually have confirmation that they are free forever? I get that Fable 3 is free, but that wasn't mentioned in their "Free games" spiel during E3. It was Assassin's Creed 2 and something else.
Are you referring to activating a title that you bought? I don't think that requires Gold to do, just a Live account to ping to their services that you've bought the game. And you can probably still play it forever offline on whatever version is on-disc if you don't go online.
I think I understand what you are referring to. I think they stated the Xbox One would need to connect to the Internet once to get a patch when the system launches so you can play your games offline. I do not think you need to activate Xbox One games and after you patch the system you can play all of your games offline (provided they are not multiplayer games).
The current program is only touted as games for the 360 up until the launch of the XOne. They haven't said whether or not a similar system will exist on the XOne or any details of such a program. Though I don't think it's crazy to assume they'll continue to do things more like PS+ does in order to stay competitive.
Sorry I'm crossing my wires here. Let me see if I can fix this.
It does seem like you do need the Internet for the game to activate, right? But what if you don't have Gold. Can you still activate a game? Have they mentioned Silver accounts?
Oh sure. No doubt. My concern here is the "free forever, even without Gold". I mean are we HOPING that will happen, or do we KNOW that will happen?
It's just as if I bought it on the Marketplace, it was just free to me. There is no special distinction, no flags. Here is wording from MS's Games for Gold page:
I also think the term "giving" rather than "allow access to" or something like that helps solidify that fact that they are actually giving you ownership (digitally) of the content.
For comparison here is the wording on Playstation Plus's free games:
Thank you. I'm tempted to get an XBone just so I can buy Titanfall and support this man's company now.
And nobody in here thinks otherwise.
The thing is, these servers are virtually spawned from configurations and software deployments that the developer gives Microsoft, who puts it into azure.
These servers can do anything from running dedicated server for matches, to executing custom code that benefits the client (Forza 5 is using it to heuristically analyze your driving over time, and build an AI that drives like you, competes for you when you are offline, and earns money for you to spend when you log back on).
There was a rather neat demo in which a massive asteroid field was rendered in the cloud, and as the ship navigated through it, the console "took over" for the physics calculations of all asteroids it was interacting with in that moment, while the rest of the field is responding to positional commands being sent compressed from the server. This guarantees a unique field for every player based on pure physics, but only requires a small slice of the "real" physics to be rendered on the machine itself, as only the stuff you could possibly need to directly interact with has to be real time.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
i think we could all benefit from a better understanding of just what it takes for an indie to stay indie.
IDK, I'm kind of burned out on the concept of indie, so you probably won't see my lovely avatars in there. :P IDK... I mean I don't even care about or know what the term means anymore. It's just marketing to me... kind of like the cloud for others. Especially when it's a group of professionals doing it as a business, etc, etc.
It's a game. Does it really need a label like "indie" to sell it?
hipster-donuts is hipster.
Except for the indie games that are sold under the traditional publishing model (such as Bastion)
But those, literally, aren't indie. They're just calling themselves indie. So I guess there is indie, and then there is "indie." Indie, as a publishing model, is pretty cool. "Indie," as an identity, is pretty stupid.
EDIT: A more accurate term for Bastion's developers wouldn't be independent developer, it'd be contract developer. Or 3rd party developer... to a 3rd party publisher. But not really indie.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Double Fine, SuperGiant Games - indies.
BioWare, Bungie - semi-indie. they have deals with publishers but seem to have enough autonomy to keep creative control.
Yeah, but you've always needed a publisher for live arcade games, and that puts them moreso into the framework that TSR mentioned in his edit.
But the whole identity thing is more what I'm talking about.
Belonging to a publishing model means they're inherently NOT independent. They're under contract. They might be individually owned, but they're not independent. They're dependent on the publisher for funding, be it for the development of the game or, in cases like The Conduit, for putting the game on store shelves. 3rd party developer or contract developer works better than indie.
Incidentally, it's a game by game thing. You shouldn't blanket a developer as indie, but rather their projects. Double Fine is just a developer. So like Amnesia Fortnight 2012 by Double Fine was an Indie game. Double Fine Happy Action Theater was not an indie game. Double Fine sometimes develops indie games.
Also to clarify I'm not down on independent games and such. the fact that a game was done independent just doesn't measure as a selling factor for me. I think that games should stand on their individual merits, imo.
The main thing people seem to be confused about with self publishing is there are very few marketplaces where self published titles aren't curated beyond technical issues. Just about the only two I can think of are the Google Marketplace, and Xbox Indie games and possibly the PSN. And we all know just how well that works out. Then look at Steam Greenlight, and how broken that system is. There just doesn't seem to be a good way to do this yet, and I think it might be an interesting topic to discuss.
LOL: pewpewlsrbeams
beyond that, i don't think a studio should lose its indie status just because it deals with a publisher. sometimes you need someone to help with that side of things, or would just rather they deal with it on your behalf. that's why i mentioned BioWare and Bungie. like Double Fine i'd imagine they are in a position to begin moving towards a self publishing model but as it is they have no desire to do so. they've proven that they can make high selling AAA titles so they're in a great position to sign a deal that lets them create what they want without interference while having someone to handle the marketing/distribution side of things.
as has been mentioned, you need to work with a publisher to get on XBLA, but Fez is still considered a quintessential indie title. its not just about being free from a publisher, its about being free from interference from a publisher.
EDIT: yeah i think this one is getting away from us. its not what Death of Rats had in mind and its not really on topic for this thread either.
I still eat Doritos from time to time. They are delicious, but terrible for you.
I haven't had a Mountain Dew, aside from a cup of baja blast at Taco Bell, in years. But I,know they still sell a shitload of it, so maybe they aren't the worst sponsors in the world?
It is comically stereotypical, but its not altogether wrong either. Snack food and gaming kind of go hand in hand.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It might be controversial to talk about, but I am convinced that megaupload's mega box model is the future off software publishing. It's super controversial because it blurs the line between piracy and self publishing, but the industry would be much healthier for developers if it were embraced. It would essentially be the death of the middleman publisher, though. It would also negate the need for drm entirely. It's probably too radical to ever catch on, though. At least four several decades. It'd be decried as socialism and slavery to advertising.
You should probably think back on your life and decide how you ended up bothering to post this defense of Doritos and Dew.
Not that they need defending. But still, why?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I see you're doing an outstanding job of keepin it real.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)