Microsoft and Sony have market researchers, predictive analysis, and lots of money that goes into determining what features will turn a net profit.
What do you have?
What I have beyond common sense is irrelevant on the internet.
The main question is who are the market researchers performing the research on and who are they trying to attract?
If you look at what Microsoft produced you'll see a more expensive console than has been released before which has a focus on pay-for internet pay and micro-transactions; it also has media-center functionality which is huge to the small portion of people who modded their Xbox to get that functionality. Now, how many 'casual' or 'typical' gamers are looking to pay-to-play games online or buy extra content? (Hint: not that many)
Sony, on the other hand, has created the most expensive console in modern videogaming by attempting to produce graphics at 1080p and include Blu-Ray playback; at the current time 15% of households have HDTVs, few of which support the HDMI or 1080p needed to take advantage of the PS3, and HDTV adoption is slowing down with the American economy. Now, how many 'casual' or 'typical' gamers are looking for the greatest High-Definition gaming platform? (Hint: not that many)
What people forget when they talk about gamers on the internet is that the 'typical' gamer buys his gaming system after it is under $200, will probably be playing it on a Standard Definition Television (possibly a television in his Den because his wife/mother doesn't want a videogame system in the living room), has internet access but doesn't play many games online, and has very little desire to have a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player (or media center extender) because of lack of content.
Am I the only person who really hates the labels Hardcore and Casual?
They seem to be used in every article or blog when they reference gaming yet there is no real standard to their use; there are so many variations that they have very little meaning. Think of their use in MMORPGs as an example, how many people have heard the Hardcore vs Casual debates when it comes to raiding content, PVP rewards, Player Looting, and even Role Playing? In every one of these it has a different meaning an references a different group of people with a completely different perspective.
As for the article, the "Face of Gaming" is always in flux and what people view gamers as largely depends on their personal experience. In 2001/2002 videogame playing (probably) hit a peak as far as mainstream acceptance because of the massive marketing push from Sony and Microsoft to sell their new consoles, and because of how many (seemingly normal) people were playing videogames. From what I have seen, the XBox 360 and PS3 are currently working against this by focusing all of their effort on attracting the most dedicated 10% of gamers with features that don't matter to most of the population; this drives the price up and makes the only visible gamers among these super dedicated gamers (the dedicated population of any activity are pretty lame, just look at "super sports fans").
Online gaming is obviously not a mainstream gaming activity at the current time. When you consider that 100 Million PS2s were, 20 Million XBoxes and 20 Million Gamecubes were sold in the last generation (with tens of millions of gaming PCs available) which means there are probably (at least) 100 Million distinct gamers in the western world and the most popular online game in history has 5 Million subscribers.
and the bottom line is it's much easier for a female to find a suitable partner
Define 'suitable'?
The problem is that most men and women have completely different views on what is 'suitable' and what should be 'suitable' for the opposite sex. The fact is that neither sex has a particularly 'easier' time because the odds of getting who you want works out pretty even; there are (pretty much) the same number of men and women in the world, and they all are (pretty much) looking to find a partner who is as highly desireable as possible. The highly attractive woman may have a high selection of potential partners but she is not looking for simply a partner she is looking for a man who is interesting, confident and has his life together; the average woman has difficulty finding a man who is not a loser and is interested in her because they're all drooling over the pretty woman.
Think of it this way, if you're an average guy you could probably pick up a 300 pound woman with little difficulty, but she is not the partner you want (you want the fun, smart, sensitive and attractive woman that every guy fights over).
"For a site where no one claims to be using Microsoft products, there sure is an obsession over Vista!"
I rarely talk to someone who claims that they do not use any Microsoft products, but I know of a ton of people who use Unix/Linux/BSD or MacOS if they can. The fact is that whether people choose to or not, most people here will be using (or at least evaluating) Windows Vista within 18 months of its release. Personally, I'm going to hold out as long as I can but I'm willing to bet that I'll start dealing with a company who wants a product developed that is ready to run on Windows Vista and I'll be forced to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Sony have market researchers, predictive analysis, and lots of money that goes into determining what features will turn a net profit.
What do you have?
What I have beyond common sense is irrelevant on the internet.
The main question is who are the market researchers performing the research on and who are they trying to attract?
If you look at what Microsoft produced you'll see a more expensive console than has been released before which has a focus on pay-for internet pay and micro-transactions; it also has media-center functionality which is huge to the small portion of people who modded their Xbox to get that functionality. Now, how many 'casual' or 'typical' gamers are looking to pay-to-play games online or buy extra content? (Hint: not that many)
Sony, on the other hand, has created the most expensive console in modern videogaming by attempting to produce graphics at 1080p and include Blu-Ray playback; at the current time 15% of households have HDTVs, few of which support the HDMI or 1080p needed to take advantage of the PS3, and HDTV adoption is slowing down with the American economy. Now, how many 'casual' or 'typical' gamers are looking for the greatest High-Definition gaming platform? (Hint: not that many)
What people forget when they talk about gamers on the internet is that the 'typical' gamer buys his gaming system after it is under $200, will probably be playing it on a Standard Definition Television (possibly a television in his Den because his wife/mother doesn't want a videogame system in the living room), has internet access but doesn't play many games online, and has very little desire to have a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player (or media center extender) because of lack of content.
Am I the only person who really hates the labels Hardcore and Casual?
They seem to be used in every article or blog when they reference gaming yet there is no real standard to their use; there are so many variations that they have very little meaning. Think of their use in MMORPGs as an example, how many people have heard the Hardcore vs Casual debates when it comes to raiding content, PVP rewards, Player Looting, and even Role Playing? In every one of these it has a different meaning an references a different group of people with a completely different perspective.
As for the article, the "Face of Gaming" is always in flux and what people view gamers as largely depends on their personal experience. In 2001/2002 videogame playing (probably) hit a peak as far as mainstream acceptance because of the massive marketing push from Sony and Microsoft to sell their new consoles, and because of how many (seemingly normal) people were playing videogames. From what I have seen, the XBox 360 and PS3 are currently working against this by focusing all of their effort on attracting the most dedicated 10% of gamers with features that don't matter to most of the population; this drives the price up and makes the only visible gamers among these super dedicated gamers (the dedicated population of any activity are pretty lame, just look at "super sports fans").
Online gaming is obviously not a mainstream gaming activity at the current time. When you consider that 100 Million PS2s were, 20 Million XBoxes and 20 Million Gamecubes were sold in the last generation (with tens of millions of gaming PCs available) which means there are probably (at least) 100 Million distinct gamers in the western world and the most popular online game in history has 5 Million subscribers.
and the bottom line is it's much easier for a female to find a suitable partner Define 'suitable'? The problem is that most men and women have completely different views on what is 'suitable' and what should be 'suitable' for the opposite sex. The fact is that neither sex has a particularly 'easier' time because the odds of getting who you want works out pretty even; there are (pretty much) the same number of men and women in the world, and they all are (pretty much) looking to find a partner who is as highly desireable as possible. The highly attractive woman may have a high selection of potential partners but she is not looking for simply a partner she is looking for a man who is interesting, confident and has his life together; the average woman has difficulty finding a man who is not a loser and is interested in her because they're all drooling over the pretty woman. Think of it this way, if you're an average guy you could probably pick up a 300 pound woman with little difficulty, but she is not the partner you want (you want the fun, smart, sensitive and attractive woman that every guy fights over).
"For a site where no one claims to be using Microsoft products, there sure is an obsession over Vista!" I rarely talk to someone who claims that they do not use any Microsoft products, but I know of a ton of people who use Unix/Linux/BSD or MacOS if they can. The fact is that whether people choose to or not, most people here will be using (or at least evaluating) Windows Vista within 18 months of its release. Personally, I'm going to hold out as long as I can but I'm willing to bet that I'll start dealing with a company who wants a product developed that is ready to run on Windows Vista and I'll be forced to use it.