DVD players aren't SO cheap. They are normally still in the $100-$150 range. That's chaep if you are a single 20-something with a $60k income in the computer industry. If you are a family of four with a family income of $45k, suddenly that disposable $100 is harder to come by.
Exclusive games? Less important than you'd think.
There are games.
Gamers will pick systems on franchises. The rest won't.
The rest of the world wants to sit down and play 1-2 times a week for 30 minutes, not read IGN and other web sites to figure out what games to dedicate the next 3 days of their lives too.
I'm not a fan of the Xbox, but it could pass the "good enough" barrier that MS likes to hit.
With the release of the Xbox as it is, it was a retarded move. They released a mediocre PC masquerading as a game console with mediocre games.
The only extras were the DVD (Sony beat them here) and the MP3 ripping/playing.
This isn't MS.
Microsoft strategy is to bundle several mediocre implementations in one box, undercut the competition, and establish a monopoly.
See MS Word vs. Wordperfect, Word got clobbered.
Excel vs. 1-2-3, Excel got clobbered.
Solution, sell "Office" for less than Wordperfect was individually? Boom, market yours.
Look at the 3 consoles. PS2 wins if you want a quantity of games, period. If you are into renting new games all the time with lots of variety, you need a PS2.
Gamecube has an amazing controller, tremendous graphics, and the best hardware in the business. (Blah, blah, blah, Mhz, blah, blah, blah, the Xbox processor is going to be slow compared to a customized PPC G3 with a game-taillored vector unit... think Altivec on crack in Photoshop shootouts... Intel only looks good in integer math... games don't do integer math...) Also it brings Nintendo's franchises, which are the best in the business.
What does Xbox have? Hype? Newness?
Microsoft needs to leverage more than their cash (willingness to lose $3 billion over three years to establish a presence is stupid... Atari, Nintendo, and Sony each dominated the market their first time out the door). There is no market openning now as there was Sony entered (3rd party hatred of Nintendo and Sega). The market loves Sony and the 25m-30m Nintendo fans love Nintendo.
Microsoft needs to bundle:
a mediocre DVD player
a mediocre video game player
a mediocre MP3 jukebox
a mediocre PVR (VCR Replacement)
and price them all at $300. I don't care about the specs, but they need to force families to think, "Sure the PS2 plays DVDs and games, but the MS Homestation does all this for the same price!"
Waah, Xbox is more powerful, Anandtech said so. PS2 ahs the best games, this website said so. Nintendo is the best, Nintendo Power said so. Indigo is a kiddie/gay color, waah.
The whole thing is retarded.
Follow the money, all makes sense.
Sony dominated the video game market by selling the playstation cheaply, and offering rediculously good deals to third parties to let them create games. The third parties CRANKED out the games. Some were good, some sucked. Some people made a lot of money, Sony did alright.
Nintendo watched their marketshare plummet (from 90% in the NES days, to 60% in the SNES days, to around 30% in the N64 days)... Nintendo made more money from the N64 than Sony did from the Playstation.
Apple sits at 4.5% of the hardware market. They made much better margins than the PC makers that sell the other 95.5% of the market.
Look, the consumer market? Very little money in it. The companies pushing computers to the middle class see next to nothing. Compaq/Dell/HP make all their money on business sales. Dell did well by not having such a huge split in the consumer/business department.
Interestingly, last time I saw the figures, 12-18 months ago, the big manufactures of PCs, Compaq/Dell/HP/Gateway combined for something like 50%-60% of the market. The "grey box" market (local stores, etc.) was most of the rest (Apple had the 4%-5%).
Apple's share isn't THAT small of a manufacturer, and they make more than the rest.
Yes, Microsoft blows away Apple in marketshare. Compaq does not.
If your allowance isn't sufficient to cover it. I mean, many of Slashdot's readership, like Syre (who figured out how to link to multiple piracy options, go you!) may have just moved on to living in their parent's basement. You can't expect them to spend money on goods and services.
1. Consumers, that's a retarded question. 2/3s of the US economy is consumption. Capitalist economies typically devote more resources to consumer goods than capital goods. Business computers are capital goods.
To grow a command economy, you push capital goods to excess. Hence the aggrarian Russia become a major superpower from the time of the Russian revolution (1917) to rival the western world by the end of WW II and remained competitive until its economic collapse in the early 90s. Despite the ability to keep up militarily (technically consumer goods, as weapons and munitions aren't used to produce other goods) and in factories, they had bread lines and 10 year waits for autos. Why? If the rest of the world wants to destroy you, you spend on military first, keeping up second, and goods for the people 3rd.
Businesses spend money differently. Demand for capital goods is different from demand for consumer goods. Businesses will buy capital goods (like computers) at higher prices because they get a good ROI on them, and the opportunity cost of downtime and tech support is higher.
Consumers are willing to spend differently. They are more likely to be willing to spend 1-2 hours on tech support then spend $100 to avoid those waits.
Its about two things: market segmentation, money.
If Microsoft can get themselves 1% of the consumer non-food, non-rent economy (essentially becoming a government and enacting a tax), they will become MUCH larger than now.
If they can better split the business buyers from the consumers, they can maximize prices and therefore profits.
I'm a disgrunted MCSE that didn't like the early retirement of the NT 4.0 certification. We were under the impression that it would last until the NT 6.0 certification process, but that didn't happen. I don't like Microsoft.
HOWEVER.
They do play games (Windows isn't done until 1-2-3 won't run, the DR-DOS Win3.1 beta fake error, etc.), but less often then you think. Half the games that they play stem from the fact that their employees don't look outside the Microsoft bubble.
Though I can't find it now, on MSN's Canadian Xbox page, they claimed that it was the first console to support 4 players. This is a company that is SO huge that adventuring to the rest of the tech world involves looking at other divisions. When they break standards, half the time I doubt they realize it. When they do things based upon their bastardized standard in another program, they may not realize it.
It's a large company, they can't act as a single mind despite what Slashdot thinks.
When I was in high school, we were spec'ing out Alphas for the school file servers. The problem with the Alphas? No software. You could only buy them as File and Print servers.
J++ looked like it was going to change things. If you wrote Java code, it would in theory, run anywhere. If you wrote J++ code, it would run on any Windows. Given the Windows Everywhere initiatives (the separate NT, Windows, and WinCE lines), J++ would have given Microsoft that platform independance.
MS wanted to split from Intel years ago. Everyone thought that Intel was dead after the Pentium. RISC processors were blowing them away, and Intel's CISC ISA was holding them back.
Well, Intel figured out how to build a RISC processor with a hardware decoder, Windows NT took off faster than expected, the 64-bit Alpha version never shipped, and now MS/Intel split a HUGE monopoly.
This gives their Windows Everywhere initiative some teeth. They are pushing Win32 APIs everywhere, but you need to code differently for the Xbox, Win32, or WinCE. Sure the APIs are the same, but not the compiled version.
The CLR means that Windows is Windows, and Windows code will run there.
Look at UNIX, there has been decent source compatibility, but no binary compatibility (until the recent Linux emulation everywhere). Outside of software distributed in source form, nobody supports every Unix, just the 1-3 that are profitable for them.
Source compatibility helps, but isn't enough. The CLR gives a form of binary compatibility.
Sun could have had this market with Java, but they fucked up. We'll see what happens.
Okay, now I've seen everything. An advertiser, in a box labeled ADVERTISEMENT, is using marked up hypertext to get his message across! The horror!
Instead of the Flash ads that alternate with this ad, this sneaky individual is advertising with text and links. It's sneaky for advertisers to entice you with content.
Give me a break Slashdot. Pop-up ads are evil, banner ads are evil, Flash banner ads are evil. HTML is evil?
Personally, I think that exit-pops are wrong and should be illegal. If I choose to leave your site, you shouldn't be allowed to harass me. Pop-unders are questionable, as it sneaks the space under. Popups bother me less.
However, Slashdot is right, someone sending me 500 bytes of HTML is MUCH worse than a 30k Flash ad.
If and when I need a PDA, I'll get a Palm. Right now, my Blackberry's PDA capabilities are sufficient. The GBA is fun. I enjoy playing Golden Sun, an amazing game. I don't expect to do work on my GBA... I have a laptop, I may get the Samsung Cell Phone/Palm IIIc combo, but who knows.
Not everything in life needs to do work. Sometimes I want to relax, and IR Chess seems less fun and relaxing than Golden Sun.
I dropped my $30 or so for Super Mario Advanced, which is a graphically improved Mario Brothers (yeah, the OLD arcade game that got rereleased on the NES later), and a slightly tweaked Super Mario Brothers 2.
Super Mario Advanced is the same Mario Brothers game for multiplayer, with Super Mario World as the mario game.
Mario Kart Advanced is a rerelease of the SNES Super Mario Kart.
I bought Dragon Warrior I & II for the Game Boy Color (to play on my GBA), rereleases of the old NES games.
The NES/SNES games are being rereleased for the GBC/GBA. Some GB (pre-color) are still on the market. I almost grabbed my first generation ones when visiting my folks, but figured I'd rather not sour their memory by replaying them. (Some NES/SNES games have had their memory ruinned for me by emulation)...
Unlike other companys, Nintendo doesn't truly abandon software... they rerelease it for handhelds later on. I'm sure that the Game Boy Super Advanced will be 3D and have N64 ports, and the Game Boy Super Duper Advanced will have some Game Cube ports.
Regardless, as another post set, the GBA is a great handheld for older gamers. It has 2D side-scrollers, RPGs, etc. All the games (and STYLE of games) that you loved on a NES/SNES are being released here, while the gaming market has moved on.
My parents loved the Atari, and would play my NES while I was asleep and found it frustrating. They couldn't handle the finger twitching of the NES.
I find that my Gamecube pushes my reflexes, and I doubt that I'll be able to keep up for much longer. When my kids are playing their systems 2 generations from now, I'm going to feel over the hill, while I did really well on my NES/SNES/SMS/S-Genny... N64 I was average, and now I'm over the hill.
Oh well,
Alex
P.S. If you live in a city and commute on a subway... GBA is great.
Well, with a large elderly population, Florida is heavily influenced by their vote.
The AARP is powerful not because of an ability to deliver votes, but there ability to get the word out.
No, they can't influence trade policy with China, but on issues related to the elderly, they are listened to. If they send out maillers to their members about issues that will affect them, it affects (or is believed to affect) their voting.
The scare tactics that are pulled with the elderly in Florida is shocking and apalling. They are lied to, tricked, etc., and because they mostly live in isolated "retirement" communities, their interaction with the rest of the world is limited to their families. The AARP can influence things and accomplishes things.
In a "Geeks for freedom" movement, you would be likely to be 1 million strong, and even worse, that would be spread out across the country (1 million people in 1 state is useful, in 50, well, less power) but could still be influential.
It would involve people voting in a certain direction and otherwise mobilizing manpower. A funded PAC or 2 wouldn't hurt either.
The black lobby sucks because it is 90% vote Democratic. The Democratic party plays lip service to the black caucus and other black special interest groups.
Hell, the Jewish population, maybe 1/6th the size of the Black population, has as much if not more influence. The Jewish population votes in larger numbers, and splits (I think around 65%-35% Democratic). The Democratic party has to pay attention or a portion swinging to the GOP can hurt them in New York and Florida because of reasonable sized Jewish populations.
You don't want to be chronically Party X. You want to have money to "participate" in government, and have a voting block that you can swing.
Politicians (particularly in my native state of Florida) cater to the AARP because it splits. They know that if the elderly split 50-50, they can ignore them if they don't piss them off. Get the AARP pissed off and see them fo 80%-20% for your opponent, and you are out of a job.
If a Republican pisses off black voters, they aren't hurt much. The only way for black groups to affect things is to get out the vote. Jeb Bush alienated the black community. Voting Democratic didn't matter. Getting the black vote out in Florida however, nearly cost his brother the White House. (Blacks are roughly 8% of Florida's poplation, normally around 6% of the vote, and something like 12% of the 2000 presidential race).
Being a split group that will swing is FAR more powerful. Without a get out the vote drive (the elderly vote reliably as is), the AARP is STILL able to swing things because they have potential power.
I meant PSX, not PS2... I have heard everywhere from 40m to 100m. I said 45m, but it was probably closer to 60m like you are suggesting. Who really knows.
I would suggest that the PSX steamrollered the N64, but I won't necessarily agree that Sony steamrollered Nintendo. Nintendo made a lot of money the past few years. The Gameboy color sold a buttload, the GBA is now making money (some numbers I saw put the GBA+Gamecube sales > PS2 sales, with about equal numbers of each). Sure the Gamecube will make some cash, but they don't make much on the console (Sony and MS lose money on consoles, though Sony may be break even soon, they broke even on the PS2 project itself), but Nintendo sells the whole widget.
Nintendo was the world when the world was smaller 40m consoles. Ninteno is now a small player when their small niche is 30m-40m. Not too bad.
Apple Computers is profitable at between 2.5% and 4% of sales (around 5% of market penetration). Nintendo has the same situation. The Gamecube and GBA are cheap to make. The GBA is off-the-shelf components, the Gamecube is a good deal from IBM/ArtX(now ATI).
I bet you Nintendo makes a lot of shareholders happy, and us Mario/Zelda lunatics happy (if poorer).
1. Nintendo would rather sell you Nintendo games than other games. If a console owner will buy 15 games over its lifetime, Nintendo would rather 12 of them be Nintendo than 7.
2. Strong third parties got them in trouble. They tried to keep them down during the NES days, but some of them got big. A few bolted to the Genesis, a LOT later bolted to the Playstation. Sony has no real longtime franchises.
3. Square is in financial trouble. Nintendo wants them weaker. The Sony investment helped them, but didn't make them too beholden to Sony. Apparently Nintendo owns (or owned) 20% of Square, at least at one point.
4. Square is the example. Nintendo wants developers to know that they can't screw with them. They are still the 800 lb. gorilla in this space, even if the Playstation had better penetration than the N64 (although not as much as Slashdot would have you believe... something like 30m N64s to 45m PS2s). Nintendo puts forth the least efforts to attract developers and is able to push systems. The 3rd parties tried to cut deals with Nintendo, so Nintendo ignored them and released its own games.
Users aren't loyal to Third Party franchises. They are loyal to franchises, period. Nintendo is in a strong position given that they have more strong franchises in house than anyone. Their franchises are probably almost as good as ALL of the Third Party ones, and that is by design. In the NES days, a Third Party could only release 5 games/year. This accomplished NOA's goal of only having great games, and NCL's goal of keeping the companies week.
Square is over a barrel. They are strapped for cash, and they are getting manhandled by Sony. Sony played nice while Nintendo was the big boy, now they are beating up the third parties. Everyone but Square gets to negotiate with Nintendo. Square will probably never be allowed to release another Nintendo system game, but who knows. They just have to kiss the ring... a LOT.
They helped kill the N64, which forced fans to either miss out on Nintendo franchises, Sony games, or buy two consoles. Buying a Sega console is one thing, Sega makes great games. Sony doesn't make games. I don't want to buy a second (or now third console) because Square decided to be retarded.
Okay, I can't find the original article (spend time on Google searches for Square Nintendo fued), but a quote from it,
"Squaresoft president Nao Suzuki has finally spoken out about their relationship with Nintendo. In the Japanese newspaper Nikkei Business he revealed that it was their pride (or arrogance) that led the company to fall out with Nintendo.
He claims that when the company originally announced that Final Fantasy will be going to the Playstation back in 1997 Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi actually took it lightly, saying it "couldn't be helped".
However, Squaresoft then went on to publically diss the Nintendo 64 and amazingly convinced Enix to join the Playstation as well. Looking back he admits it wasn't a very smart move.
So it turns out Yamauchi isn't actually bitter about losing Final Fantasy. It's all about their attitude after and the fact that they got Enix to switch sides as well. You could say Yamauchi was stabbed in the back and is now out for revenge. "
Basically, if you want to understand how Nintendo behaved when they had dominance, read Game Over. If you remember the game shortages and runs from the SMB3 time period, you'll be fascinated to learn how it all went down.
Nintendo got their butt kicked by Sega on the guidelines because of Mortal Kombat. The fixed it by the N64, because it hurt them in the SNES/Genny fight (when Sony was developing the "Play Station" a CD-ROM multimedia system that played SNES games).
In a nutshell though, Square had a few problems with Nintendo.
1. The cartridge format limited FMV. This was the official reason for the fight. It probably wasn't the real reason.
2. The cartridge "costs." Okay, the Slashdot idiots that claim that cartridges cost $20 and CDs $5 don't understand the industry. Nintendo didn't charge "license" fees per say, they sold you cartridges. They outsourced the manufacturing, and included their license fees in the cartridge. This meant that you had to buy a bulk number, paying up front. If the game flopped, Nintendo got paid regardless and you lost out. This meant that Square was perpetually one failled game away from tanking.
3. Arrogance. Nintendo felt (correct, IMHO) that they made Square, so Square should be graetful. Square knew that they had a following, and people would follow them. They saw Sony's entry as an opportunity to negotiate better terms.
4. The Enix connection. Enix was a competitor (Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior series of RPGs), in fact more popular in Japan. Why would Squaresoft bring their competition along? Part of it is cultural, Japanese corporates don't have the same cutthroat tendancies that are in the US. The CEOs of major competitors will all know each other, etc. That's why Sega was able to jump on with their rival Nintendo. The executives were friendly, so they changed from competition to somewhat allies quickly. The other reason is that they probably felt that most gamers would want to play Dragon Quest AND Final Fantasy. If you could only pick a console, and your choices were Final Fantasy and who knows, or Dragon Quest and Mario, Final Fantasy was in trouble. By keeping the RPG giants on the same page regarding the Playstation, RPG fans could safely ditch Nintendo.
That's the real joke, Nintendo is a games monster. Supporting Nintendo feels almost as bad as supporting Microsoft, especially with the stuff Nintendo pulled during its NES/Famicon monopoly games. Unfortunately, I'm a sucker for a new Mario/Zelda game, so off my money goes to Redmond's Nintendo of America.
The Gameboy line owns the handheld market. I just bought a GBA a few weeks ago, the older, color games are mostly NES ports, and the newer Advanced games, are mostly SNES ports. Yet these games, over a decade old, are selling for $40.
The N64, while not as successful as the NES appeared to have shipped as many units as the SNES over the years. Given that the N64 had limited 3rd party support, Nintendo probably did better as you make more money selling your own games than licensing third parties.
Oh well, if the Gamecube is as successful as the N64 I'll have many years of fun gaming. I'll just have to get over the guilt of feeding that monster that has been exploiting me since I was 8...
The problem with these numbers is that it excludes Walmart. This really hurts Nintendo.
Nintendo priced the Gamecube $100 cheaper, and sells it as a family system. This combination makes Walmart especially significant for Nintendo. Walmart is their largest reseller, and is excluded from these numbers.
This is in addition to the obvious problems that during this time period, not all three systems were out. For installed base, of course the PS2 has the early selling advantage, but extrapolating anything from three weeks is meaningless when one of the three competitors wasn't on the market for one of those weeks.
However, if we pretend that it is relevants:
Sales per day:
Nintendo: 28666
Xbox: 38916
PS2: 35629
At this rate, Xbox will catch up with the Plastation 2 in a few decades. Nintendo should look better when the real numbers come out, as Walmart should help them catch up by a few thousand per day on their competition.
As far as platform adoption, Nintendo will be more dependant on Christmas numbers than the other consoles simply because it appeals to a younger crowd. XBox and PS2 are competing for the 16-25 market, Nintendo owns the rest of the market and has some presence in that market.
Look, ever since the "Sega does what Nintendon't" ads and the Mortal Kombat scandal in the SNES/Genny wars, Nintendo's weak side was exposed. In making a fun, colorful gaming system, it is easy to manipulate teens into thinking that other companies make "cooler" stuff.
Shrug, I loved my NES, my SNES, my brother's N64, and I'll love my Gamecube when I get it this weekend. My friends love their gamecubes. If the fiancee isn't kept entertained by the Gamecube games, we may pick up a PS2 and 6 or 7 games if the price drops (I'm not dropping $300 for the right to buy Frequency, FF7, FFX, Dragon Warrior 7), but even if so it is more likely to be for the PS1 compatibility.
Anyway, anyone who hasn't played SSBM (Super Smash Brothers Melee) or SMB (Super Monkey Ball) with three friends for hours doesn't understand how fun console gaming is. I play consoles mostly with friends, and we'll knock back a few beers while screaming and yelling during SMB or talking trash during SSBM.
I mean, to me, 4 player is more important than Final Fantasy, as I'll choose fun with friends over an RPG.
I like Bush, I "liked" Sen. Ashcroft. I'm not terribly thrilled with Ashcroft post 9/11. I give the FBI props for doing a great job of rounding up the suspects. I don't like the power grab.
I voted in Florida...
I don't think that Clinton/Reno was attempting to apply Justice, I think that they were making a point to Microsoft that they need to "participate" in the government. Once the "participation" checks arrived, the situation changed.
All the politicians are corrupt to some extent, its the nature of the beast. I refuse to believe that Clinton/Reno were anything but corrupt in this case, as their 8 years of behavior indicated.
Several friends that are undergrads are going through recruiting. Because of the economy, the recruiting levels are lower. They were worried that if they took an "inferior" job, they couldn't recruit their next year.
Apparently the consulting firms only want to hire people that fit in a small pigeonhole. They want you to pay them boatloads of money to be advised by people that were chosen because:
1) They had no useful knowledge/experience
2) They fit a small description, people that focused on grades at the expense of everything else
I don't know, but if I was the 55 year old CEO of a company looking to hire consultants, I wouldn't want to be spending $1500/day for some kid straight out of school that has never done anything...
The Playstation has many games, as a result, people can rent a new game for each weekend. This means that you need to crank out games, because you can't get best sellers. The only games that sell are those that are too long for 1-2 weekends. The Final Fantasies sold, but the rest are variations. They may all be the same game, but the graphics are a bit different so you rent a different one for the weekend. Sony with its Third Party strategy created a system where games sell for a bit then become bargain bins and rentals run the market.
Look at the N64, and the Gamecube is similar. Sure there are games that you can rent and beat in a weekend, but Nintendo STILL focuses on game play. Their strategy, since the NES, was to make amazing games that would be best sellers and create artificial shortages.
For N64, Bond was an amazing game. Sure, it's a FPS (which I normally hate), but it was DAMNED fun. People played and played and played. The game is still fun 5 years ago.
Super Smash Brothers is AMAZING. It's a fun game that never gets old because you play against your friends. Mario 64 had LOADS of fun and a lot of gameplay. The Zeldas for N64 were creative and interesting. Midway's Blitz and Hang Time are phenomenal lines of games, arcade style sports games are a blast.
Hell, I only played the N64 heavily for the first year before I left for school, I had a blast with it. When I visited the folks on breaks, my brother always had 2-3 new awesome games that were a blast.
Nintendo still focuses on Gameplay. Their lines of games are amazing. I hope that more people interested in gaming see through the "hundred of identical games" and pick up a Gamecube instead and get 5-10 games that they will play for years. That combined with enough Third Parties that you can rent a new game whenever you want should make an awesome system.
The problem is the economics of the system. People rent games and play through them then move on. There are still games that remain loads of fun (I still play a few games of Powerball on the Genesis when I visit my parents), but they don't work in the rental-focused market.
The 7800 inclucing backwards compatibility out of the box MAY have hurt them. I loved my 5200, and when I played a 2600, it was neat to know that it was one of the original systems.
However, when the 7800 came out, able to play 2600 games, we (my friends, young at the time) assumed that it meant that it was a glorified 2600. Recently, a friedn bought a 5200 and some games off E-bay for nostalgia, and referred to it has the "best Atari system ever" reminding me of our thoughts.
I have mixed feelings on backwards compatibility. At the time, I was appalled that Nintendo didn't let me play me 30 NES games on the SNES. However, I still had a working NES, so it wasn't THAT big a deal. However, when I got my SNES at launch and it lacked games, it really turned me off to the system... I ended up playing my Genesis more as a result.
However, with the NES and SNES on the same TV, I don't know why I cared that I needed separate systems.
However, the Sega Master System, while "better" hardware (specwise) felt flimsy, and seemed to have problems moving. Ours died when we moved it from TV-to-TV once. The Power Converter/Genesis seemed like a more useful purchase at the time then a new SMS.
Seriously, this will be amazing in Boston
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
I moved from downtown to Brighton, despite working near Copley Square. It was the perfect compromise between the suburbs (and nothing easy to get to) and closer downtown (where I'd have half the apartment in an aging Brownstone). I live 4.2 miles from work. Taking the public transportation (which I do daily) takes 35 minutes. At 12 mph, this would make it 20, AND I wouldn't be sitting on a crowded, smelly, car.
In Boston, you can't really locate a business too far from the train stations. With this, commuters from the suburbs could get around Boston really conveniently by taking the train into the city than using their Segway to get around inside the city.
This can work WITH suburbs, if people are creative.
Now, in South Florida, where I grew up, this would be useless. I was 20 miles from everything, and there was no mass transportation that was worthwhile. However, if some useful rails were put in (you IT over to your town station, then hop on the train somewhere at 180 mph, then IT to your destination, it could work).
The Segway seems great for those living in major cities (or Boston, which is a miniature major city) which have a useful public transportation system. Taking mass transit but driving to the train station seems silly.
This won't eliminate the car, but COULD go towards eliminate commuting in a car. There isn't a problem (traffic or environmental) with people using cars for hauling items (like groceries) or taking long trips. Its the commuters sitting in cars not moving in city traffic that are the problem.
Nintendo has a tremendous fan base from its NES/SNES days. Unlike PCs which have lots of original games and some sequels, console games are heavily about franchises and sequels. The franchise concept is an interesting one that doesn't seem as popular in the PC market.
Nintendo's Mario franchise goes back to Donkey Kong. They milk this for all it is worth, and it has quite a fan base. We played Mario Kart 64 for months (still do occaisionally). It isn't a particularly amazing game, but the fact that you are playing SMB characters (complete with Stars and Turtle Shells) just makes it a little more enjoyable.
Nintendo has a family of franchises with well known characters.
As a result, Nintendo doesn't NEED to carpet bomb the media. They need to maximize their profits. They aren't subsidizing the hardware, nor do they NEED a huge initial adoption. They'll have a successful holiday season. Realize that the abysmal failure of the N64 was only a failure compared to the NES/SNES dominance. They shipped 30m units over time and made some cash. When the Pokemon craze hit, they rode that all the way to the bank.
Nintendo's MAJOR problem is that they squeezed the Third parties too hard, and they bolted for the PSX instead of the N64. While the N64 has some AMAZING games (great replay factor, Bond, Hang Time, Kart... all playable for years), the companies that were "MADE" selling NES games stayed through the SNES but left to the PSX.
The shame is, I'm mostly interested in Nintendo games. However, because of whatever business decisions Nintendo made, I may pick up a PSOne or PS2 for some games that bolted in this time that my fiancee really wants.
Microsoft has a problem, NOBODY trusts them. If you are a game maker, you have to see the shit that they pull in the PC space. Nintendo's garbage let Sony pull off a coup, they established themselves as the non-game company. As a result, game makers weren't threatened by Sony.
Sega (my brother has owned all their systems since the Master System) has LOTS of great games. Their franchises aren't as good as Nintendo's, but they innovate and create new ones all the time. However, their hardware was NEVER impressive, and they NEVER had third parties like Nintendo. You used to buy a Sega system for their games, now you can get them wherever. I still play some of my Genny games.
The problem with Microsoft is that they have their own games division. They also have shown that they will hide APIs, etc., to help their products over the competition.
If I was a game maker, I might take their subsidies to make games, but I'd be VERY nervous about cozying up too much. I would guess that the independant game makers helping XBox with games are hoping that XBox does well enough that they do well, but not too much that MS EVER has the power that Nintendo did 15 years ago.
Sony was SMART with the PSX. They didn't carpet bomb the airwaves. They let the system get a following. People slowly fell in love with the system. Sony was a new player and played it smart. They courted developers.
Microsoft seems to think that it get bully its way into the market. I'm not sold on that. Sony has a following because the Third Party companies LIKE working with them. They have GREAT game support. Nintendo has a GREAT audiance (including people over 21... most of the people I know want the new Nintendo system). Microsoft would be smart to play this cool and use their DirectX similarities to get games to the market.
If you are launching a game for the PS2 AND PC, there is little reason not to make it a three-way launch for the PS2/PC/Xbox. The Xbox's superior hardware should help it with games on the PS2 AND Xbox.
MS shouldn't be playing for this Xmas, they should be playing for next Xmas. PS2's market lead is HUGE, they need to be careful in playing catchup.
Personally, I think that the market will be a two company market, Sony and Nintendo. As long as Nintendo's franchises remain popular AND they can sell the systems at a profit/break even, there is NO reason for them to be a software only player. Sega's hardware always seemed flimsy and while their games were always fun, they don't have the nostalgia factor that Nintendo has,
The Tickle-me Elmo effect is a LOT easier to do with a doll than a game system that costs $500 with accessories...:)
I found that, thanks for the help. The problem I found (I haven't tried this in 2 months) is that those numbers weren't aggressive enough. I tried just doubling those, but monitoring the results, one of the parameters appeared to have a max. Certain values appeared to be manually overridden in param.c, etc.
Again, I wanted details, I got One (1) example. I was trying to assign 1GB of buffers, which required much more shared memory than that, and I appeared to hit a cap before I reached that.
OTOH, my Linux install handled it beatifully with 1 (non-compile time) configuration change. Red Hat now has my database server, complete with a dual-processor machine.
PostgreSQL is developed for Linux and Solaris... sticking to one of those two platforms has some advantages.
Slashdot Mirror
DVD players aren't SO cheap. They are normally still in the $100-$150 range. That's chaep if you are a single 20-something with a $60k income in the computer industry. If you are a family of four with a family income of $45k, suddenly that disposable $100 is harder to come by.
Exclusive games? Less important than you'd think.
There are games.
Gamers will pick systems on franchises. The rest won't.
The rest of the world wants to sit down and play 1-2 times a week for 30 minutes, not read IGN and other web sites to figure out what games to dedicate the next 3 days of their lives too.
I'm not a fan of the Xbox, but it could pass the "good enough" barrier that MS likes to hit.
With the release of the Xbox as it is, it was a retarded move. They released a mediocre PC masquerading as a game console with mediocre games.
The only extras were the DVD (Sony beat them here) and the MP3 ripping/playing.
This isn't MS.
Microsoft strategy is to bundle several mediocre implementations in one box, undercut the competition, and establish a monopoly.
See MS Word vs. Wordperfect, Word got clobbered.
Excel vs. 1-2-3, Excel got clobbered.
Solution, sell "Office" for less than Wordperfect was individually? Boom, market yours.
Look at the 3 consoles. PS2 wins if you want a quantity of games, period. If you are into renting new games all the time with lots of variety, you need a PS2.
Gamecube has an amazing controller, tremendous graphics, and the best hardware in the business. (Blah, blah, blah, Mhz, blah, blah, blah, the Xbox processor is going to be slow compared to a customized PPC G3 with a game-taillored vector unit... think Altivec on crack in Photoshop shootouts... Intel only looks good in integer math... games don't do integer math...) Also it brings Nintendo's franchises, which are the best in the business.
What does Xbox have? Hype? Newness?
Microsoft needs to leverage more than their cash (willingness to lose $3 billion over three years to establish a presence is stupid... Atari, Nintendo, and Sony each dominated the market their first time out the door). There is no market openning now as there was Sony entered (3rd party hatred of Nintendo and Sega). The market loves Sony and the 25m-30m Nintendo fans love Nintendo.
Microsoft needs to bundle:
a mediocre DVD player
a mediocre video game player
a mediocre MP3 jukebox
a mediocre PVR (VCR Replacement)
and price them all at $300. I don't care about the specs, but they need to force families to think, "Sure the PS2 plays DVDs and games, but the MS Homestation does all this for the same price!"
Neat... I still run a Linux/OpenBSD shop instead of still consulting on Citrix/NT systems.
Waah, Xbox is more powerful, Anandtech said so. PS2 ahs the best games, this website said so. Nintendo is the best, Nintendo Power said so. Indigo is a kiddie/gay color, waah.
The whole thing is retarded.
Follow the money, all makes sense.
Sony dominated the video game market by selling the playstation cheaply, and offering rediculously good deals to third parties to let them create games. The third parties CRANKED out the games. Some were good, some sucked. Some people made a lot of money, Sony did alright.
Nintendo watched their marketshare plummet (from 90% in the NES days, to 60% in the SNES days, to around 30% in the N64 days)... Nintendo made more money from the N64 than Sony did from the Playstation.
Apple sits at 4.5% of the hardware market. They made much better margins than the PC makers that sell the other 95.5% of the market.
Look, the consumer market? Very little money in it. The companies pushing computers to the middle class see next to nothing. Compaq/Dell/HP make all their money on business sales. Dell did well by not having such a huge split in the consumer/business department.
Interestingly, last time I saw the figures, 12-18 months ago, the big manufactures of PCs, Compaq/Dell/HP/Gateway combined for something like 50%-60% of the market. The "grey box" market (local stores, etc.) was most of the rest (Apple had the 4%-5%).
Apple's share isn't THAT small of a manufacturer, and they make more than the rest.
Yes, Microsoft blows away Apple in marketshare. Compaq does not.
Apple is in a good location.
If your allowance isn't sufficient to cover it. I mean, many of Slashdot's readership, like Syre (who figured out how to link to multiple piracy options, go you!) may have just moved on to living in their parent's basement. You can't expect them to spend money on goods and services.
They are entitled to it, remember?
1. Consumers, that's a retarded question. 2/3s of the US economy is consumption. Capitalist economies typically devote more resources to consumer goods than capital goods. Business computers are capital goods.
To grow a command economy, you push capital goods to excess. Hence the aggrarian Russia become a major superpower from the time of the Russian revolution (1917) to rival the western world by the end of WW II and remained competitive until its economic collapse in the early 90s. Despite the ability to keep up militarily (technically consumer goods, as weapons and munitions aren't used to produce other goods) and in factories, they had bread lines and 10 year waits for autos. Why? If the rest of the world wants to destroy you, you spend on military first, keeping up second, and goods for the people 3rd.
Businesses spend money differently. Demand for capital goods is different from demand for consumer goods. Businesses will buy capital goods (like computers) at higher prices because they get a good ROI on them, and the opportunity cost of downtime and tech support is higher.
Consumers are willing to spend differently. They are more likely to be willing to spend 1-2 hours on tech support then spend $100 to avoid those waits.
Its about two things: market segmentation, money.
If Microsoft can get themselves 1% of the consumer non-food, non-rent economy (essentially becoming a government and enacting a tax), they will become MUCH larger than now.
If they can better split the business buyers from the consumers, they can maximize prices and therefore profits.
Alex
I'm a disgrunted MCSE that didn't like the early retirement of the NT 4.0 certification. We were under the impression that it would last until the NT 6.0 certification process, but that didn't happen. I don't like Microsoft.
HOWEVER.
They do play games (Windows isn't done until 1-2-3 won't run, the DR-DOS Win3.1 beta fake error, etc.), but less often then you think. Half the games that they play stem from the fact that their employees don't look outside the Microsoft bubble.
Though I can't find it now, on MSN's Canadian Xbox page, they claimed that it was the first console to support 4 players. This is a company that is SO huge that adventuring to the rest of the tech world involves looking at other divisions. When they break standards, half the time I doubt they realize it. When they do things based upon their bastardized standard in another program, they may not realize it.
It's a large company, they can't act as a single mind despite what Slashdot thinks.
Alex
When I was in high school, we were spec'ing out Alphas for the school file servers. The problem with the Alphas? No software. You could only buy them as File and Print servers.
J++ looked like it was going to change things. If you wrote Java code, it would in theory, run anywhere. If you wrote J++ code, it would run on any Windows. Given the Windows Everywhere initiatives (the separate NT, Windows, and WinCE lines), J++ would have given Microsoft that platform independance.
MS wanted to split from Intel years ago. Everyone thought that Intel was dead after the Pentium. RISC processors were blowing them away, and Intel's CISC ISA was holding them back.
Well, Intel figured out how to build a RISC processor with a hardware decoder, Windows NT took off faster than expected, the 64-bit Alpha version never shipped, and now MS/Intel split a HUGE monopoly.
This gives their Windows Everywhere initiative some teeth. They are pushing Win32 APIs everywhere, but you need to code differently for the Xbox, Win32, or WinCE. Sure the APIs are the same, but not the compiled version.
The CLR means that Windows is Windows, and Windows code will run there.
Look at UNIX, there has been decent source compatibility, but no binary compatibility (until the recent Linux emulation everywhere). Outside of software distributed in source form, nobody supports every Unix, just the 1-3 that are profitable for them.
Source compatibility helps, but isn't enough. The CLR gives a form of binary compatibility.
Sun could have had this market with Java, but they fucked up. We'll see what happens.
Okay, now I've seen everything. An advertiser, in a box labeled ADVERTISEMENT, is using marked up hypertext to get his message across! The horror!
Instead of the Flash ads that alternate with this ad, this sneaky individual is advertising with text and links. It's sneaky for advertisers to entice you with content.
Give me a break Slashdot. Pop-up ads are evil, banner ads are evil, Flash banner ads are evil. HTML is evil?
Personally, I think that exit-pops are wrong and should be illegal. If I choose to leave your site, you shouldn't be allowed to harass me. Pop-unders are questionable, as it sneaks the space under. Popups bother me less.
However, Slashdot is right, someone sending me 500 bytes of HTML is MUCH worse than a 30k Flash ad.
Slashdot, grow the fuck up!
Alex
If and when I need a PDA, I'll get a Palm. Right now, my Blackberry's PDA capabilities are sufficient. The GBA is fun. I enjoy playing Golden Sun, an amazing game. I don't expect to do work on my GBA... I have a laptop, I may get the Samsung Cell Phone/Palm IIIc combo, but who knows.
Not everything in life needs to do work. Sometimes I want to relax, and IR Chess seems less fun and relaxing than Golden Sun.
To each their own...
Alex
I dropped my $30 or so for Super Mario Advanced, which is a graphically improved Mario Brothers (yeah, the OLD arcade game that got rereleased on the NES later), and a slightly tweaked Super Mario Brothers 2.
Super Mario Advanced is the same Mario Brothers game for multiplayer, with Super Mario World as the mario game.
Mario Kart Advanced is a rerelease of the SNES Super Mario Kart.
I bought Dragon Warrior I & II for the Game Boy Color (to play on my GBA), rereleases of the old NES games.
The NES/SNES games are being rereleased for the GBC/GBA. Some GB (pre-color) are still on the market. I almost grabbed my first generation ones when visiting my folks, but figured I'd rather not sour their memory by replaying them. (Some NES/SNES games have had their memory ruinned for me by emulation)...
Unlike other companys, Nintendo doesn't truly abandon software... they rerelease it for handhelds later on. I'm sure that the Game Boy Super Advanced will be 3D and have N64 ports, and the Game Boy Super Duper Advanced will have some Game Cube ports.
Regardless, as another post set, the GBA is a great handheld for older gamers. It has 2D side-scrollers, RPGs, etc. All the games (and STYLE of games) that you loved on a NES/SNES are being released here, while the gaming market has moved on.
My parents loved the Atari, and would play my NES while I was asleep and found it frustrating. They couldn't handle the finger twitching of the NES.
I find that my Gamecube pushes my reflexes, and I doubt that I'll be able to keep up for much longer. When my kids are playing their systems 2 generations from now, I'm going to feel over the hill, while I did really well on my NES/SNES/SMS/S-Genny... N64 I was average, and now I'm over the hill.
Oh well,
Alex
P.S. If you live in a city and commute on a subway... GBA is great.
Well, with a large elderly population, Florida is heavily influenced by their vote.
The AARP is powerful not because of an ability to deliver votes, but there ability to get the word out.
No, they can't influence trade policy with China, but on issues related to the elderly, they are listened to. If they send out maillers to their members about issues that will affect them, it affects (or is believed to affect) their voting.
The scare tactics that are pulled with the elderly in Florida is shocking and apalling. They are lied to, tricked, etc., and because they mostly live in isolated "retirement" communities, their interaction with the rest of the world is limited to their families. The AARP can influence things and accomplishes things.
In a "Geeks for freedom" movement, you would be likely to be 1 million strong, and even worse, that would be spread out across the country (1 million people in 1 state is useful, in 50, well, less power) but could still be influential.
It would involve people voting in a certain direction and otherwise mobilizing manpower. A funded PAC or 2 wouldn't hurt either.
Alex
The black lobby sucks because it is 90% vote Democratic. The Democratic party plays lip service to the black caucus and other black special interest groups.
Hell, the Jewish population, maybe 1/6th the size of the Black population, has as much if not more influence. The Jewish population votes in larger numbers, and splits (I think around 65%-35% Democratic). The Democratic party has to pay attention or a portion swinging to the GOP can hurt them in New York and Florida because of reasonable sized Jewish populations.
You don't want to be chronically Party X. You want to have money to "participate" in government, and have a voting block that you can swing.
Politicians (particularly in my native state of Florida) cater to the AARP because it splits. They know that if the elderly split 50-50, they can ignore them if they don't piss them off. Get the AARP pissed off and see them fo 80%-20% for your opponent, and you are out of a job.
If a Republican pisses off black voters, they aren't hurt much. The only way for black groups to affect things is to get out the vote. Jeb Bush alienated the black community. Voting Democratic didn't matter. Getting the black vote out in Florida however, nearly cost his brother the White House. (Blacks are roughly 8% of Florida's poplation, normally around 6% of the vote, and something like 12% of the 2000 presidential race).
Being a split group that will swing is FAR more powerful. Without a get out the vote drive (the elderly vote reliably as is), the AARP is STILL able to swing things because they have potential power.
Alex
I meant PSX, not PS2... I have heard everywhere from 40m to 100m. I said 45m, but it was probably closer to 60m like you are suggesting. Who really knows.
I would suggest that the PSX steamrollered the N64, but I won't necessarily agree that Sony steamrollered Nintendo. Nintendo made a lot of money the past few years. The Gameboy color sold a buttload, the GBA is now making money (some numbers I saw put the GBA+Gamecube sales > PS2 sales, with about equal numbers of each). Sure the Gamecube will make some cash, but they don't make much on the console (Sony and MS lose money on consoles, though Sony may be break even soon, they broke even on the PS2 project itself), but Nintendo sells the whole widget.
Nintendo was the world when the world was smaller 40m consoles. Ninteno is now a small player when their small niche is 30m-40m. Not too bad.
Apple Computers is profitable at between 2.5% and 4% of sales (around 5% of market penetration). Nintendo has the same situation. The Gamecube and GBA are cheap to make. The GBA is off-the-shelf components, the Gamecube is a good deal from IBM/ArtX(now ATI).
I bet you Nintendo makes a lot of shareholders happy, and us Mario/Zelda lunatics happy (if poorer).
Strong third parties are BAD for Nintendo.
1. Nintendo would rather sell you Nintendo games than other games. If a console owner will buy 15 games over its lifetime, Nintendo would rather 12 of them be Nintendo than 7.
2. Strong third parties got them in trouble. They tried to keep them down during the NES days, but some of them got big. A few bolted to the Genesis, a LOT later bolted to the Playstation. Sony has no real longtime franchises.
3. Square is in financial trouble. Nintendo wants them weaker. The Sony investment helped them, but didn't make them too beholden to Sony. Apparently Nintendo owns (or owned) 20% of Square, at least at one point.
4. Square is the example. Nintendo wants developers to know that they can't screw with them. They are still the 800 lb. gorilla in this space, even if the Playstation had better penetration than the N64 (although not as much as Slashdot would have you believe... something like 30m N64s to 45m PS2s). Nintendo puts forth the least efforts to attract developers and is able to push systems. The 3rd parties tried to cut deals with Nintendo, so Nintendo ignored them and released its own games.
Users aren't loyal to Third Party franchises. They are loyal to franchises, period. Nintendo is in a strong position given that they have more strong franchises in house than anyone. Their franchises are probably almost as good as ALL of the Third Party ones, and that is by design. In the NES days, a Third Party could only release 5 games/year. This accomplished NOA's goal of only having great games, and NCL's goal of keeping the companies week.
Square is over a barrel. They are strapped for cash, and they are getting manhandled by Sony. Sony played nice while Nintendo was the big boy, now they are beating up the third parties. Everyone but Square gets to negotiate with Nintendo. Square will probably never be allowed to release another Nintendo system game, but who knows. They just have to kiss the ring... a LOT.
They helped kill the N64, which forced fans to either miss out on Nintendo franchises, Sony games, or buy two consoles. Buying a Sega console is one thing, Sega makes great games. Sony doesn't make games. I don't want to buy a second (or now third console) because Square decided to be retarded.
Square should suffer, then come back to the fold.
Okay, I can't find the original article (spend time on Google searches for Square Nintendo fued), but a quote from it,
"Squaresoft president Nao Suzuki has finally spoken out about their relationship with Nintendo. In the Japanese newspaper Nikkei Business he revealed that it was their pride (or arrogance) that led the company to fall out with Nintendo.
He claims that when the company originally announced that Final Fantasy will be going to the Playstation back in 1997 Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi actually took it lightly, saying it "couldn't be helped".
However, Squaresoft then went on to publically diss the Nintendo 64 and amazingly convinced Enix to join the Playstation as well. Looking back he admits it wasn't a very smart move.
So it turns out Yamauchi isn't actually bitter about losing Final Fantasy. It's all about their attitude after and the fact that they got Enix to switch sides as well. You could say Yamauchi was stabbed in the back and is now out for revenge. "
Basically, if you want to understand how Nintendo behaved when they had dominance, read Game Over. If you remember the game shortages and runs from the SMB3 time period, you'll be fascinated to learn how it all went down.
Nintendo got their butt kicked by Sega on the guidelines because of Mortal Kombat. The fixed it by the N64, because it hurt them in the SNES/Genny fight (when Sony was developing the "Play Station" a CD-ROM multimedia system that played SNES games).
In a nutshell though, Square had a few problems with Nintendo.
1. The cartridge format limited FMV. This was the official reason for the fight. It probably wasn't the real reason.
2. The cartridge "costs." Okay, the Slashdot idiots that claim that cartridges cost $20 and CDs $5 don't understand the industry. Nintendo didn't charge "license" fees per say, they sold you cartridges. They outsourced the manufacturing, and included their license fees in the cartridge. This meant that you had to buy a bulk number, paying up front. If the game flopped, Nintendo got paid regardless and you lost out. This meant that Square was perpetually one failled game away from tanking.
3. Arrogance. Nintendo felt (correct, IMHO) that they made Square, so Square should be graetful. Square knew that they had a following, and people would follow them. They saw Sony's entry as an opportunity to negotiate better terms.
4. The Enix connection. Enix was a competitor (Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior series of RPGs), in fact more popular in Japan. Why would Squaresoft bring their competition along? Part of it is cultural, Japanese corporates don't have the same cutthroat tendancies that are in the US. The CEOs of major competitors will all know each other, etc. That's why Sega was able to jump on with their rival Nintendo. The executives were friendly, so they changed from competition to somewhat allies quickly. The other reason is that they probably felt that most gamers would want to play Dragon Quest AND Final Fantasy. If you could only pick a console, and your choices were Final Fantasy and who knows, or Dragon Quest and Mario, Final Fantasy was in trouble. By keeping the RPG giants on the same page regarding the Playstation, RPG fans could safely ditch Nintendo.
Alex
That's the real joke, Nintendo is a games monster. Supporting Nintendo feels almost as bad as supporting Microsoft, especially with the stuff Nintendo pulled during its NES/Famicon monopoly games. Unfortunately, I'm a sucker for a new Mario/Zelda game, so off my money goes to Redmond's Nintendo of America.
The Gameboy line owns the handheld market. I just bought a GBA a few weeks ago, the older, color games are mostly NES ports, and the newer Advanced games, are mostly SNES ports. Yet these games, over a decade old, are selling for $40.
The N64, while not as successful as the NES appeared to have shipped as many units as the SNES over the years. Given that the N64 had limited 3rd party support, Nintendo probably did better as you make more money selling your own games than licensing third parties.
Oh well, if the Gamecube is as successful as the N64 I'll have many years of fun gaming. I'll just have to get over the guilt of feeding that monster that has been exploiting me since I was 8...
Alex
The problem with these numbers is that it excludes Walmart. This really hurts Nintendo.
Nintendo priced the Gamecube $100 cheaper, and sells it as a family system. This combination makes Walmart especially significant for Nintendo. Walmart is their largest reseller, and is excluded from these numbers.
This is in addition to the obvious problems that during this time period, not all three systems were out. For installed base, of course the PS2 has the early selling advantage, but extrapolating anything from three weeks is meaningless when one of the three competitors wasn't on the market for one of those weeks.
However, if we pretend that it is relevants:
Sales per day:
Nintendo: 28666
Xbox: 38916
PS2: 35629
At this rate, Xbox will catch up with the Plastation 2 in a few decades. Nintendo should look better when the real numbers come out, as Walmart should help them catch up by a few thousand per day on their competition.
As far as platform adoption, Nintendo will be more dependant on Christmas numbers than the other consoles simply because it appeals to a younger crowd. XBox and PS2 are competing for the 16-25 market, Nintendo owns the rest of the market and has some presence in that market.
Look, ever since the "Sega does what Nintendon't" ads and the Mortal Kombat scandal in the SNES/Genny wars, Nintendo's weak side was exposed. In making a fun, colorful gaming system, it is easy to manipulate teens into thinking that other companies make "cooler" stuff.
Shrug, I loved my NES, my SNES, my brother's N64, and I'll love my Gamecube when I get it this weekend. My friends love their gamecubes. If the fiancee isn't kept entertained by the Gamecube games, we may pick up a PS2 and 6 or 7 games if the price drops (I'm not dropping $300 for the right to buy Frequency, FF7, FFX, Dragon Warrior 7), but even if so it is more likely to be for the PS1 compatibility.
Anyway, anyone who hasn't played SSBM (Super Smash Brothers Melee) or SMB (Super Monkey Ball) with three friends for hours doesn't understand how fun console gaming is. I play consoles mostly with friends, and we'll knock back a few beers while screaming and yelling during SMB or talking trash during SSBM.
I mean, to me, 4 player is more important than Final Fantasy, as I'll choose fun with friends over an RPG.
Alex
I like Bush, I "liked" Sen. Ashcroft. I'm not terribly thrilled with Ashcroft post 9/11. I give the FBI props for doing a great job of rounding up the suspects. I don't like the power grab.
I voted in Florida...
I don't think that Clinton/Reno was attempting to apply Justice, I think that they were making a point to Microsoft that they need to "participate" in the government. Once the "participation" checks arrived, the situation changed.
All the politicians are corrupt to some extent, its the nature of the beast. I refuse to believe that Clinton/Reno were anything but corrupt in this case, as their 8 years of behavior indicated.
Several friends that are undergrads are going through recruiting. Because of the economy, the recruiting levels are lower. They were worried that if they took an "inferior" job, they couldn't recruit their next year.
Apparently the consulting firms only want to hire people that fit in a small pigeonhole. They want you to pay them boatloads of money to be advised by people that were chosen because:
1) They had no useful knowledge/experience
2) They fit a small description, people that focused on grades at the expense of everything else
I don't know, but if I was the 55 year old CEO of a company looking to hire consultants, I wouldn't want to be spending $1500/day for some kid straight out of school that has never done anything...
Alex
The Playstation has many games, as a result, people can rent a new game for each weekend. This means that you need to crank out games, because you can't get best sellers. The only games that sell are those that are too long for 1-2 weekends. The Final Fantasies sold, but the rest are variations. They may all be the same game, but the graphics are a bit different so you rent a different one for the weekend. Sony with its Third Party strategy created a system where games sell for a bit then become bargain bins and rentals run the market.
Look at the N64, and the Gamecube is similar. Sure there are games that you can rent and beat in a weekend, but Nintendo STILL focuses on game play. Their strategy, since the NES, was to make amazing games that would be best sellers and create artificial shortages.
For N64, Bond was an amazing game. Sure, it's a FPS (which I normally hate), but it was DAMNED fun. People played and played and played. The game is still fun 5 years ago.
Super Smash Brothers is AMAZING. It's a fun game that never gets old because you play against your friends. Mario 64 had LOADS of fun and a lot of gameplay. The Zeldas for N64 were creative and interesting. Midway's Blitz and Hang Time are phenomenal lines of games, arcade style sports games are a blast.
Hell, I only played the N64 heavily for the first year before I left for school, I had a blast with it. When I visited the folks on breaks, my brother always had 2-3 new awesome games that were a blast.
Nintendo still focuses on Gameplay. Their lines of games are amazing. I hope that more people interested in gaming see through the "hundred of identical games" and pick up a Gamecube instead and get 5-10 games that they will play for years. That combined with enough Third Parties that you can rent a new game whenever you want should make an awesome system.
The problem is the economics of the system. People rent games and play through them then move on. There are still games that remain loads of fun (I still play a few games of Powerball on the Genesis when I visit my parents), but they don't work in the rental-focused market.
Alex
The 7800 inclucing backwards compatibility out of the box MAY have hurt them. I loved my 5200, and when I played a 2600, it was neat to know that it was one of the original systems.
However, when the 7800 came out, able to play 2600 games, we (my friends, young at the time) assumed that it meant that it was a glorified 2600. Recently, a friedn bought a 5200 and some games off E-bay for nostalgia, and referred to it has the "best Atari system ever" reminding me of our thoughts.
I have mixed feelings on backwards compatibility. At the time, I was appalled that Nintendo didn't let me play me 30 NES games on the SNES. However, I still had a working NES, so it wasn't THAT big a deal. However, when I got my SNES at launch and it lacked games, it really turned me off to the system... I ended up playing my Genesis more as a result.
However, with the NES and SNES on the same TV, I don't know why I cared that I needed separate systems.
However, the Sega Master System, while "better" hardware (specwise) felt flimsy, and seemed to have problems moving. Ours died when we moved it from TV-to-TV once. The Power Converter/Genesis seemed like a more useful purchase at the time then a new SMS.
I moved from downtown to Brighton, despite working near Copley Square. It was the perfect compromise between the suburbs (and nothing easy to get to) and closer downtown (where I'd have half the apartment in an aging Brownstone). I live 4.2 miles from work. Taking the public transportation (which I do daily) takes 35 minutes. At 12 mph, this would make it 20, AND I wouldn't be sitting on a crowded, smelly, car.
In Boston, you can't really locate a business too far from the train stations. With this, commuters from the suburbs could get around Boston really conveniently by taking the train into the city than using their Segway to get around inside the city.
This can work WITH suburbs, if people are creative.
Now, in South Florida, where I grew up, this would be useless. I was 20 miles from everything, and there was no mass transportation that was worthwhile. However, if some useful rails were put in (you IT over to your town station, then hop on the train somewhere at 180 mph, then IT to your destination, it could work).
The Segway seems great for those living in major cities (or Boston, which is a miniature major city) which have a useful public transportation system. Taking mass transit but driving to the train station seems silly.
This won't eliminate the car, but COULD go towards eliminate commuting in a car. There isn't a problem (traffic or environmental) with people using cars for hauling items (like groceries) or taking long trips. Its the commuters sitting in cars not moving in city traffic that are the problem.
Alex
Nintendo has a tremendous fan base from its NES/SNES days. Unlike PCs which have lots of original games and some sequels, console games are heavily about franchises and sequels. The franchise concept is an interesting one that doesn't seem as popular in the PC market.
:)
Nintendo's Mario franchise goes back to Donkey Kong. They milk this for all it is worth, and it has quite a fan base. We played Mario Kart 64 for months (still do occaisionally). It isn't a particularly amazing game, but the fact that you are playing SMB characters (complete with Stars and Turtle Shells) just makes it a little more enjoyable.
Nintendo has a family of franchises with well known characters.
As a result, Nintendo doesn't NEED to carpet bomb the media. They need to maximize their profits. They aren't subsidizing the hardware, nor do they NEED a huge initial adoption. They'll have a successful holiday season. Realize that the abysmal failure of the N64 was only a failure compared to the NES/SNES dominance. They shipped 30m units over time and made some cash. When the Pokemon craze hit, they rode that all the way to the bank.
Nintendo's MAJOR problem is that they squeezed the Third parties too hard, and they bolted for the PSX instead of the N64. While the N64 has some AMAZING games (great replay factor, Bond, Hang Time, Kart... all playable for years), the companies that were "MADE" selling NES games stayed through the SNES but left to the PSX.
The shame is, I'm mostly interested in Nintendo games. However, because of whatever business decisions Nintendo made, I may pick up a PSOne or PS2 for some games that bolted in this time that my fiancee really wants.
Microsoft has a problem, NOBODY trusts them. If you are a game maker, you have to see the shit that they pull in the PC space. Nintendo's garbage let Sony pull off a coup, they established themselves as the non-game company. As a result, game makers weren't threatened by Sony.
Sega (my brother has owned all their systems since the Master System) has LOTS of great games. Their franchises aren't as good as Nintendo's, but they innovate and create new ones all the time. However, their hardware was NEVER impressive, and they NEVER had third parties like Nintendo. You used to buy a Sega system for their games, now you can get them wherever. I still play some of my Genny games.
The problem with Microsoft is that they have their own games division. They also have shown that they will hide APIs, etc., to help their products over the competition.
If I was a game maker, I might take their subsidies to make games, but I'd be VERY nervous about cozying up too much. I would guess that the independant game makers helping XBox with games are hoping that XBox does well enough that they do well, but not too much that MS EVER has the power that Nintendo did 15 years ago.
Sony was SMART with the PSX. They didn't carpet bomb the airwaves. They let the system get a following. People slowly fell in love with the system. Sony was a new player and played it smart. They courted developers.
Microsoft seems to think that it get bully its way into the market. I'm not sold on that. Sony has a following because the Third Party companies LIKE working with them. They have GREAT game support. Nintendo has a GREAT audiance (including people over 21... most of the people I know want the new Nintendo system). Microsoft would be smart to play this cool and use their DirectX similarities to get games to the market.
If you are launching a game for the PS2 AND PC, there is little reason not to make it a three-way launch for the PS2/PC/Xbox. The Xbox's superior hardware should help it with games on the PS2 AND Xbox.
MS shouldn't be playing for this Xmas, they should be playing for next Xmas. PS2's market lead is HUGE, they need to be careful in playing catchup.
Personally, I think that the market will be a two company market, Sony and Nintendo. As long as Nintendo's franchises remain popular AND they can sell the systems at a profit/break even, there is NO reason for them to be a software only player. Sega's hardware always seemed flimsy and while their games were always fun, they don't have the nostalgia factor that Nintendo has,
The Tickle-me Elmo effect is a LOT easier to do with a doll than a game system that costs $500 with accessories...
Alex
I found that, thanks for the help. The problem I found (I haven't tried this in 2 months) is that those numbers weren't aggressive enough. I tried just doubling those, but monitoring the results, one of the parameters appeared to have a max. Certain values appeared to be manually overridden in param.c, etc.
Again, I wanted details, I got One (1) example. I was trying to assign 1GB of buffers, which required much more shared memory than that, and I appeared to hit a cap before I reached that.
OTOH, my Linux install handled it beatifully with 1 (non-compile time) configuration change. Red Hat now has my database server, complete with a dual-processor machine.
PostgreSQL is developed for Linux and Solaris... sticking to one of those two platforms has some advantages.
Alex