(this is hardly limited to iPods, or even modern equivalents, since the ORIGINAL sony walkman would qualify here)
And right there should be the finishing move against such a law. People have been wandering around cities with reduced hearing while wearing headphones for over 20 years. What is it about the iPod that makes these pedestrians and drives dumber than they used to be. The answer, of course, is that it's not about the iPod (or similar). It's about people being dumbasses (pedestrians making stupid moves) and assholes (drivers who refuse to give the right-of-way to pedestrians, which they should even when the pedestrian is making a stupid move).
This proposal is a publicity grab, pure and simple. It won't make anyone any safer but it could seem to because the deaths in this guy's area were likely a statistical blip. I just wish that this kind of thing was limited to just New York. In my town of Portland, Oregon we had a similar dumb pedestrian problem when people were getting whacked by our light rail trains because the pedestrians were too damned stupid to look both ways before crossing a train track. So, they over-engineered things at these "dangerous" places so that lights would flash, noises would be made and gates would fall if there was a train anywhere nearby. Of course, the problem would have solved itself by people just learning that there were trains running, but still a bunch of money had to be spent to respond to the stupidity of the few.
I don't know if console games have done that before (beyond patching up things like framerate issues I think).
You just answered your own question. Of course console game engines have been patched. In fact, that's probably the game component most commonly patched for the simple fact that it's usually the smallest component on the disc, with models, textures, sounds and such taking the bulk of the space.
I think you're misunderstanding the OP. The "mod community" for Oblivion on the 360 consists of Bethesda (and they charge for mods). For Oblivion on the PC, the same community consists of Bethesda plus any number of independent gamers/programmers, the latter of whom make their mods available for free, and often modify the games far beyond what Bethesda would consider or even desire (changing greatly the original game mechanics).
I'm a console guy, but I'm still able to recognize that PC games have a significant advantage over consoles in that area.
If they say that group X is what the product is attempting to attract, and you've been attracted, what does that say about you?
I don't know...something sinister?
I like the TV shows Desperate Housewives and Men In Trees. Does that make me a 30-something soccer mom (I'm a 30-something single guy, BTW) because those shows are probably aimed at that demographic? Or, maybe it makes me gay (I'm pretty certain I'm straight)?
I also like playing GTA and watching Battlestar Galactica and Homicide: Life on the Street. Those preferences can tell people no more about me than the above more "girly" preferences.
The bottom line is that I don't worry about what other people might think my entertainment tastes say about me, and I don't dismiss things out of hand because someone tells me "that's for chicks" or similar. I think Viva Pinata is a blast to play, and whether Microsoft intended it to attract pre-teen girls or not is completely irrelevant to me. It's particularly irrelevant to how I view myself. It's a shame that there are people for whom that kind of junk does matter.
And if enough people get suckered into buy the PS3 over the 360 on that basis, then it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully, that doesn't happen and many of the titles currently announced as PS3 exclusives start migrating to the multi-platform method.
The problem isn't what Gates said, it's that people personalize what he's said. If one of the Slashdot editors says "Slashdot is marketed to guys who live in their parents' basements" (man, I have GOT to get out of here) then many slashdotters would take offense even if they live comfortably above ground in their own homes. Unfortunately, this seems to be a response that exists in a large portion of the population - or at least the Internet posting population.:)
Here's the problem with adding the courts in so early, as I see it: For every one stupid, probably invalid claim there are a hundred thousand sensible, valid claims. This has been demonstrated with the various media companies sending similar DMCA notices to YouTube and similar sites, requesting that they remove access to content that is clearly violating copyrights. The DMCA actually helps to prevent what would be an inevitable clog in the judicial system if such companies had to replace their DMCA notifications with the filing of lawsuits.
Further, if someone is targeted maliciously, while they may have to wait 14 days to put their material back up, there is still the ability to sue - the DMCA doesn't take away that remedy (it likely can't without a constitutional amendment) which has always existed.
For example, let's say you have a blog with pictures of yourself on it and I start sending DMCA notices to your ISP claiming that I own the copyright on those photographs. Your ISP would have to take your photos down (they'd likely be lazy and take the whole site down) until you counter-notify, but you could also sue me for harassment. Again, the DMCA doesn't stop you from seeking that remedy. Plus, at that point, an argument might be made (I am obviously NAL, so I can't say for certain) that this provision of the DMCA is unconstitutional, and the way could be paved for the courts to nullify it if it's so.
Anyway, it's all a matter of knowing your rights. Ignorance of the law...
This is true, but the only consequence under the DMCA is that the ISP has to take down, or block access to, the material - no money changes hands, nobody has their PC taken away, etc., so the phrase "burden of proof" is inapplicable. Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even this can be reversed using the provisions of the DMCA to "counter-notify" the ISP and original claimant that the material is in fact not infringing. At that point, the burden is right back on the original claimant, and if s/he/they doesn't file for a court order (injunction) within 10-14 days, the material can be put back up. Even if said court order is granted (and it would seem difficult/ridiculous in this situation), it still doesn't, in and of itself, cause any damages beyond the ISP removing access to the material.
In short, if one knows his or her rights, it will cost quite a lot more than 30 seconds of typing to get something removed from the Internet with a fallacious copyright claim, and if they try to push further that initial, fallacious claim can constitute a criminal offense if the lie was knowing.
I've addressed this above, if you want to bother to read the discussion, and I've already stated that I'm wrong on the grammar issue. Your repetition is unnecessary.
Having looked over the official summary of the relevant section, it seems that it's true that the ISP has to take down, or block access to, the material upon notification. It then falls to the "subscriber" (the person who posted the material) to respond (to both the ISP and the "copyright holder") that the material is indeed not violating copyright (either because the material is the property of the subscriber, such as I think would apply in this case, or because the material falls under one of the exceptions such as "fair use"). At that point, once the "counter-notification" has been sent, the "copyright holder" has to file a court order within 10-14 days, and if they don't then the service provider has to put the material back up and that's the end of it.
It all seems fairly reasonable, at least on an individual-to-individual basis, which would seem to be the case in this situation, where it wouldn't be one lonely person trying to take on a corporate juggernaut. Whatever the situation, there seems to be recourse available. In this particular case, it would seem likely that the "copyright holder" (I keep using quotes because it's so ridiculous) wouldn't pursue it to court because once it's on the record it will look ridiculous to whichever judge has to look at it...
I would call that meta-pedantry since I'm inferring a particular intent from the article title and summary, which would mean that your quoted definition of "by" isn't applicable. That said, you're pedantically correct since my inference is my own.;)
Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to be pedantic, at least in the sense that I really do consider both the title and the summary (and the article, to some lesser extent) misleading. They constantly refer to the DMCA when even without that particular [overall bad] piece of legislation, if this guy felt that his copyright was being violated he could still send a C&D and could still, in theory, sue over the video, given the right (sic) lawyer.
I suppose it's just one of those things where the acronym "DMCA" will get something more attention than just the words "copyright law."
I understand that, but the implication of the title is that this particular case is a "done deal," as if showing a dance for a few seconds in a video has been legally established as copyright infringement covered by the DMCA. It also implies that somehow the DMCA itself is at fault, which isn't the case. The DMCA didn't make dance steps copyrightable, any more than it made videos of said dances potential copyright infringement. All the DMCA provides in this particular case is a mechanism for the copyright holder to enforce his or her copyright - that isn't a bad thing, though obviously, and IMO in this case, it can be used badly.
1) The DMCA is not an organization, it is a law. Laws get enforced. They don't go around doing the enforcing. 2) The claim has yet to be upheld (enforced) by any court or other governmental body. 3) Even if the letter is acted upon and the video is removed, that still doesn't indicate whether or not the DMCA is being properly applied (if not, then the DMCA can't be demonized in this situation). All it means is that someone decided removing the video was the easiest way to handle a potential problem.
What bothers me about TiVo is that they are in a conflict-of-interest situation. They have people buying TiVos (and subscriptions) on the one hand, and they have advertisers and media companies on the other. Let's face it: the needs and wants of the two groups are not usually aligned.
Why aren't they? ABC, NBC, TNT, etc. need to know which of their shows are being watched, and I want them to know what I'm watching so that they'll keep showing my programs. Those needs seem to line up nicely. Even selling my commercial skipping data could be useful to me AND them because I might watch more commercials if I find them entertaining (like the Geico caveman commercials - that primitive is a crack-up!).
As long as the process is transparent to me, and I don't suddenly start getting phone calls from, say, Geico because they "heard" I liked their commercials, I'm perfectly fine with Tivo selling my viewing habits. Maybe some shows that I like will stay on the air longer because the cancellation decisions are based on bigger, more accurate sample sets...
The counter-argument to that (not one I subscribe to, just advocating the devil) is that you're censoring yourself because people are not, or may not be, respecting your privacy. For example, if you know that your next-door neighbors love spy gadgets - especially their parabolic microphone - then you may not say what you really think of them on your own property, for fear that they'll hear and go Bakersfield Chimp on you.
Personally, I'm in favor of Tivo going this route for the simple fact that it's extremely unlikely I'll ever be hooked up to Nielsen's TV rating service and I'd like for TV networks to base their decisions on the largest sample set possible. For example, maybe a huge portion of people with Tivos watch Battlestar Galactica but, in a statistical fluke, almost nobody who has a Nielsen hookup does. In that situation, if Tivo doesn't sell their data to NBC/Universal, maybe BSG gets cancelled when as few as 100,000 more viewers - represented by the addition of Tivo's data - could have saved the show.
Sequels, as opposed to original developments. The developer didn't even want to do a sequel. The PSP version is especially horrible.
I wasn't testifying to the quality of the sequel or the PSP game. I was simply pointing out that if the first game had not sold well then the other games probably wouldn't have been created.
So wait for the price to drop. It's not like the movies where you miss seeing it on a big screen. It's just as much fun six months later, and usually just as available if not more so.
And I'm sure many people will do exactly that - I do it all the time. In this case, though, we're talking about a game only 3 months old (in the US at least), and that wait-and-see attitude costs game developers money - a game that sells a million copies at $50-60 isn't going to excite publishers as much as a game that sells a million copies at $20-30 (well, that's probably hyperbole, so make it 100,000;]).
In other words, a game's failure - from the perspective of the developer/publisher - can typically be determined within the first three or four months of release. Apart from the "huge" games (Halo, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Oblivion, etc.) that can sell well for long periods, after that point there are progressively diminishing returns, either from reduced interest (the "if it ain't new, I ain't interested" factor combined with shifting marketing focus to newer games) or from reduced prices. It doesn't mean much to the consumer who decides to buy the game late, but it can mean a great deal to what happens to the game developer (did they want to do a sequel and now can't, can the studio stay afloat, will they have to switch publishers, etc.).
First off, I haven't played Okami (I haven't played any home console games for a couple months). With that out of the way, I would only wonder if the release of Okami was just badly timed, at least in the US. With the ridiculous amount of press surrounding the releases of the Wii and the PS3 (not to mention the big 360 game, Gears of War), is it really a surprise that a new PS2 title hasn't gotten the attention that it perhaps deserves? Had the game been released at the same time in the US as in Japan (April), it might have had a better shot at getting traction. As it is, it came out in September when seemingly the entire US market was frozen in anticipation of the new consoles.
As for originality selling, Katamari Damacy (to name one) has had enough success to get not only a PS2 sequel but a version on the PSP. Even more recently, Nintendo has seemed to be all about originality with the DS and Wii, and they certainly aren't suffering.
Unfortunately, new home console titles cost $50+ a pop. That's a lot of money to invest, and I don't think it's unreasonable for gamers to go with "safe bets." I also suspect that if an "Okami 2" was released on the Wii (the painting aspect would seem tailor-made for that console), and of course it was good, it would sell like gangbusters. Then again, at that point the same complaints would be made by someone else that people are only interested in sequels...
Oh, get off it. It's not a question of MS "understanding" Japanese gamers, unless you really think that you're more capable of understanding the gaming business better than the professionals in the field. It's a question of getting Japanese developers to make their games for the 360, and right now the chicken is waiting for the egg: Developers want to make games for hardware accepted by gamers and gamers want hardware for which developers are making games. Believe me, if the companies developing the big franchises (such as MGS, FF and DQ) announced that they were making those franchises available on the 360, that console would get a lot more interest from both Japanese gamers and other Japanese game developers. Unfortunately for MS, the success of the PS2 made the PS3 look extremely desirable to game developers and some assumed that the PS3 would be a similar crazy success.
No, what Microsoft needs is for companies like Konami and Square to say something like this: "Yes, we are going to put [Metal Gear Solid 4|Final Fantasy XIII] on the Xbox 360 because so many people [outside Japan] own that console." There have already been indications from both those companies of interest in the 360 (and both companies already have titles available for the console), but if they made a real commitment to developing their top titles for the 360, then both other developers and the Japanese gamers would follow.
I can speak to the Xbox version of Psychonauts. While I'm sure it was slow compared to PC, the load times didn't cause me any irritation at all except a rare couple times when I would accidentally "zone" while searching for something and have to wait through two loads to get back on track. Of course, once I modded my Xbox, the load times became miniscule in comparison when running from the hard drive.:)
Xbox load screens were only truly awful in a couple of games that I played. Top Spin was absolutely the worst with long loads to enter events and even long load "pauses" within the store where you could buy clothing and equipment (like a long pause between buying tank top A and tank top C). KOTOR was another that was bad with both load times (a symptom of having relatively small, but highly detailed, areas in which to adventure) and save times (thanks, Bioware, for not bothering to create a true save system and instead just taking a snapshot of memory).
The thing that I would wonder about is the purpose behind the searches. For example, I know for certain that I'm not going to be a PS3 within the next year (unless something huge happens on the price front). Yet, I might still do a search for "PS3" to find out news about the console. Similarly, because I'm not going PS3 and the standalone Blu-ray players are way too expensive, I won't buy one of those, either. But, I may still do a "blu-ray" search in order to perhaps find out if there are any new players available, or if I'm looking for information on HD movie releases.
On the other hand, I already know a lot more about the 360 (having had one), the Wii (that it's too hard to find right now) and HD-DVD (will likely buy the 360 add-on), so I might search for those terms a lot less.
In any case, it's a meaningless statistic whose only possible use could be to determine brand recognition and/or general interest, and I don't think anyone doubts the branding power of Sony, nor should anyone doubt the power of controversy to drive Internet interest.:)
You either didn't read your own link, or you decided to gloss over a pretty important quote regarding the "Debbie Does Dallas...Again" release: "The title will also debut simultaneously on HD DVD, and list price for either version is $39.95." Based on that, and the fact that other companies (such as Wicked and Digital Playground) are already going HD DVD, it doesn't look like any of the major porn players are planning to go BD exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
And right there should be the finishing move against such a law. People have been wandering around cities with reduced hearing while wearing headphones for over 20 years. What is it about the iPod that makes these pedestrians and drives dumber than they used to be. The answer, of course, is that it's not about the iPod (or similar). It's about people being dumbasses (pedestrians making stupid moves) and assholes (drivers who refuse to give the right-of-way to pedestrians, which they should even when the pedestrian is making a stupid move).
This proposal is a publicity grab, pure and simple. It won't make anyone any safer but it could seem to because the deaths in this guy's area were likely a statistical blip. I just wish that this kind of thing was limited to just New York. In my town of Portland, Oregon we had a similar dumb pedestrian problem when people were getting whacked by our light rail trains because the pedestrians were too damned stupid to look both ways before crossing a train track. So, they over-engineered things at these "dangerous" places so that lights would flash, noises would be made and gates would fall if there was a train anywhere nearby. Of course, the problem would have solved itself by people just learning that there were trains running, but still a bunch of money had to be spent to respond to the stupidity of the few.
You just answered your own question. Of course console game engines have been patched. In fact, that's probably the game component most commonly patched for the simple fact that it's usually the smallest component on the disc, with models, textures, sounds and such taking the bulk of the space.
I think you're misunderstanding the OP. The "mod community" for Oblivion on the 360 consists of Bethesda (and they charge for mods). For Oblivion on the PC, the same community consists of Bethesda plus any number of independent gamers/programmers, the latter of whom make their mods available for free, and often modify the games far beyond what Bethesda would consider or even desire (changing greatly the original game mechanics).
I'm a console guy, but I'm still able to recognize that PC games have a significant advantage over consoles in that area.
I don't know...something sinister?
I like the TV shows Desperate Housewives and Men In Trees. Does that make me a 30-something soccer mom (I'm a 30-something single guy, BTW) because those shows are probably aimed at that demographic? Or, maybe it makes me gay (I'm pretty certain I'm straight)?
I also like playing GTA and watching Battlestar Galactica and Homicide: Life on the Street. Those preferences can tell people no more about me than the above more "girly" preferences.
The bottom line is that I don't worry about what other people might think my entertainment tastes say about me, and I don't dismiss things out of hand because someone tells me "that's for chicks" or similar. I think Viva Pinata is a blast to play, and whether Microsoft intended it to attract pre-teen girls or not is completely irrelevant to me. It's particularly irrelevant to how I view myself. It's a shame that there are people for whom that kind of junk does matter.
And if enough people get suckered into buy the PS3 over the 360 on that basis, then it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully, that doesn't happen and many of the titles currently announced as PS3 exclusives start migrating to the multi-platform method.
The problem isn't what Gates said, it's that people personalize what he's said. If one of the Slashdot editors says "Slashdot is marketed to guys who live in their parents' basements" (man, I have GOT to get out of here) then many slashdotters would take offense even if they live comfortably above ground in their own homes. Unfortunately, this seems to be a response that exists in a large portion of the population - or at least the Internet posting population. :)
At least sex can be fun...
Here's the problem with adding the courts in so early, as I see it: For every one stupid, probably invalid claim there are a hundred thousand sensible, valid claims. This has been demonstrated with the various media companies sending similar DMCA notices to YouTube and similar sites, requesting that they remove access to content that is clearly violating copyrights. The DMCA actually helps to prevent what would be an inevitable clog in the judicial system if such companies had to replace their DMCA notifications with the filing of lawsuits.
Further, if someone is targeted maliciously, while they may have to wait 14 days to put their material back up, there is still the ability to sue - the DMCA doesn't take away that remedy (it likely can't without a constitutional amendment) which has always existed.
For example, let's say you have a blog with pictures of yourself on it and I start sending DMCA notices to your ISP claiming that I own the copyright on those photographs. Your ISP would have to take your photos down (they'd likely be lazy and take the whole site down) until you counter-notify, but you could also sue me for harassment. Again, the DMCA doesn't stop you from seeking that remedy. Plus, at that point, an argument might be made (I am obviously NAL, so I can't say for certain) that this provision of the DMCA is unconstitutional, and the way could be paved for the courts to nullify it if it's so.
Anyway, it's all a matter of knowing your rights. Ignorance of the law...
This is true, but the only consequence under the DMCA is that the ISP has to take down, or block access to, the material - no money changes hands, nobody has their PC taken away, etc., so the phrase "burden of proof" is inapplicable. Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even this can be reversed using the provisions of the DMCA to "counter-notify" the ISP and original claimant that the material is in fact not infringing. At that point, the burden is right back on the original claimant, and if s/he/they doesn't file for a court order (injunction) within 10-14 days, the material can be put back up. Even if said court order is granted (and it would seem difficult/ridiculous in this situation), it still doesn't, in and of itself, cause any damages beyond the ISP removing access to the material.
In short, if one knows his or her rights, it will cost quite a lot more than 30 seconds of typing to get something removed from the Internet with a fallacious copyright claim, and if they try to push further that initial, fallacious claim can constitute a criminal offense if the lie was knowing.
I've addressed this above, if you want to bother to read the discussion, and I've already stated that I'm wrong on the grammar issue. Your repetition is unnecessary.
Having looked over the official summary of the relevant section, it seems that it's true that the ISP has to take down, or block access to, the material upon notification. It then falls to the "subscriber" (the person who posted the material) to respond (to both the ISP and the "copyright holder") that the material is indeed not violating copyright (either because the material is the property of the subscriber, such as I think would apply in this case, or because the material falls under one of the exceptions such as "fair use"). At that point, once the "counter-notification" has been sent, the "copyright holder" has to file a court order within 10-14 days, and if they don't then the service provider has to put the material back up and that's the end of it.
It all seems fairly reasonable, at least on an individual-to-individual basis, which would seem to be the case in this situation, where it wouldn't be one lonely person trying to take on a corporate juggernaut. Whatever the situation, there seems to be recourse available. In this particular case, it would seem likely that the "copyright holder" (I keep using quotes because it's so ridiculous) wouldn't pursue it to court because once it's on the record it will look ridiculous to whichever judge has to look at it...
I would call that meta-pedantry since I'm inferring a particular intent from the article title and summary, which would mean that your quoted definition of "by" isn't applicable. That said, you're pedantically correct since my inference is my own. ;)
Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to be pedantic, at least in the sense that I really do consider both the title and the summary (and the article, to some lesser extent) misleading. They constantly refer to the DMCA when even without that particular [overall bad] piece of legislation, if this guy felt that his copyright was being violated he could still send a C&D and could still, in theory, sue over the video, given the right (sic) lawyer.
I suppose it's just one of those things where the acronym "DMCA" will get something more attention than just the words "copyright law."
I understand that, but the implication of the title is that this particular case is a "done deal," as if showing a dance for a few seconds in a video has been legally established as copyright infringement covered by the DMCA. It also implies that somehow the DMCA itself is at fault, which isn't the case. The DMCA didn't make dance steps copyrightable, any more than it made videos of said dances potential copyright infringement. All the DMCA provides in this particular case is a mechanism for the copyright holder to enforce his or her copyright - that isn't a bad thing, though obviously, and IMO in this case, it can be used badly.
How about Dreary, Repetitive Mantras?
1) The DMCA is not an organization, it is a law. Laws get enforced. They don't go around doing the enforcing.
2) The claim has yet to be upheld (enforced) by any court or other governmental body.
3) Even if the letter is acted upon and the video is removed, that still doesn't indicate whether or not the DMCA is being properly applied (if not, then the DMCA can't be demonized in this situation). All it means is that someone decided removing the video was the easiest way to handle a potential problem.
Why aren't they? ABC, NBC, TNT, etc. need to know which of their shows are being watched, and I want them to know what I'm watching so that they'll keep showing my programs. Those needs seem to line up nicely. Even selling my commercial skipping data could be useful to me AND them because I might watch more commercials if I find them entertaining (like the Geico caveman commercials - that primitive is a crack-up!).
As long as the process is transparent to me, and I don't suddenly start getting phone calls from, say, Geico because they "heard" I liked their commercials, I'm perfectly fine with Tivo selling my viewing habits. Maybe some shows that I like will stay on the air longer because the cancellation decisions are based on bigger, more accurate sample sets...
The counter-argument to that (not one I subscribe to, just advocating the devil) is that you're censoring yourself because people are not, or may not be, respecting your privacy. For example, if you know that your next-door neighbors love spy gadgets - especially their parabolic microphone - then you may not say what you really think of them on your own property, for fear that they'll hear and go Bakersfield Chimp on you.
Personally, I'm in favor of Tivo going this route for the simple fact that it's extremely unlikely I'll ever be hooked up to Nielsen's TV rating service and I'd like for TV networks to base their decisions on the largest sample set possible. For example, maybe a huge portion of people with Tivos watch Battlestar Galactica but, in a statistical fluke, almost nobody who has a Nielsen hookup does. In that situation, if Tivo doesn't sell their data to NBC/Universal, maybe BSG gets cancelled when as few as 100,000 more viewers - represented by the addition of Tivo's data - could have saved the show.
I wasn't testifying to the quality of the sequel or the PSP game. I was simply pointing out that if the first game had not sold well then the other games probably wouldn't have been created.
And I'm sure many people will do exactly that - I do it all the time. In this case, though, we're talking about a game only 3 months old (in the US at least), and that wait-and-see attitude costs game developers money - a game that sells a million copies at $50-60 isn't going to excite publishers as much as a game that sells a million copies at $20-30 (well, that's probably hyperbole, so make it 100,000
In other words, a game's failure - from the perspective of the developer/publisher - can typically be determined within the first three or four months of release. Apart from the "huge" games (Halo, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Oblivion, etc.) that can sell well for long periods, after that point there are progressively diminishing returns, either from reduced interest (the "if it ain't new, I ain't interested" factor combined with shifting marketing focus to newer games) or from reduced prices. It doesn't mean much to the consumer who decides to buy the game late, but it can mean a great deal to what happens to the game developer (did they want to do a sequel and now can't, can the studio stay afloat, will they have to switch publishers, etc.).
First off, I haven't played Okami (I haven't played any home console games for a couple months). With that out of the way, I would only wonder if the release of Okami was just badly timed, at least in the US. With the ridiculous amount of press surrounding the releases of the Wii and the PS3 (not to mention the big 360 game, Gears of War), is it really a surprise that a new PS2 title hasn't gotten the attention that it perhaps deserves? Had the game been released at the same time in the US as in Japan (April), it might have had a better shot at getting traction. As it is, it came out in September when seemingly the entire US market was frozen in anticipation of the new consoles.
As for originality selling, Katamari Damacy (to name one) has had enough success to get not only a PS2 sequel but a version on the PSP. Even more recently, Nintendo has seemed to be all about originality with the DS and Wii, and they certainly aren't suffering.
Unfortunately, new home console titles cost $50+ a pop. That's a lot of money to invest, and I don't think it's unreasonable for gamers to go with "safe bets." I also suspect that if an "Okami 2" was released on the Wii (the painting aspect would seem tailor-made for that console), and of course it was good, it would sell like gangbusters. Then again, at that point the same complaints would be made by someone else that people are only interested in sequels...
Oh, get off it. It's not a question of MS "understanding" Japanese gamers, unless you really think that you're more capable of understanding the gaming business better than the professionals in the field. It's a question of getting Japanese developers to make their games for the 360, and right now the chicken is waiting for the egg: Developers want to make games for hardware accepted by gamers and gamers want hardware for which developers are making games. Believe me, if the companies developing the big franchises (such as MGS, FF and DQ) announced that they were making those franchises available on the 360, that console would get a lot more interest from both Japanese gamers and other Japanese game developers. Unfortunately for MS, the success of the PS2 made the PS3 look extremely desirable to game developers and some assumed that the PS3 would be a similar crazy success.
You mean like Mistwalker?
No, what Microsoft needs is for companies like Konami and Square to say something like this: "Yes, we are going to put [Metal Gear Solid 4|Final Fantasy XIII] on the Xbox 360 because so many people [outside Japan] own that console." There have already been indications from both those companies of interest in the 360 (and both companies already have titles available for the console), but if they made a real commitment to developing their top titles for the 360, then both other developers and the Japanese gamers would follow.
I can speak to the Xbox version of Psychonauts. While I'm sure it was slow compared to PC, the load times didn't cause me any irritation at all except a rare couple times when I would accidentally "zone" while searching for something and have to wait through two loads to get back on track. Of course, once I modded my Xbox, the load times became miniscule in comparison when running from the hard drive. :)
Xbox load screens were only truly awful in a couple of games that I played. Top Spin was absolutely the worst with long loads to enter events and even long load "pauses" within the store where you could buy clothing and equipment (like a long pause between buying tank top A and tank top C). KOTOR was another that was bad with both load times (a symptom of having relatively small, but highly detailed, areas in which to adventure) and save times (thanks, Bioware, for not bothering to create a true save system and instead just taking a snapshot of memory).
My impression is that Mr. Sessler is confused by many things, such as balls of string and shiny objects.
Now Sensitive Ses, THAT is a thinker!
The thing that I would wonder about is the purpose behind the searches. For example, I know for certain that I'm not going to be a PS3 within the next year (unless something huge happens on the price front). Yet, I might still do a search for "PS3" to find out news about the console. Similarly, because I'm not going PS3 and the standalone Blu-ray players are way too expensive, I won't buy one of those, either. But, I may still do a "blu-ray" search in order to perhaps find out if there are any new players available, or if I'm looking for information on HD movie releases.
:)
On the other hand, I already know a lot more about the 360 (having had one), the Wii (that it's too hard to find right now) and HD-DVD (will likely buy the 360 add-on), so I might search for those terms a lot less.
In any case, it's a meaningless statistic whose only possible use could be to determine brand recognition and/or general interest, and I don't think anyone doubts the branding power of Sony, nor should anyone doubt the power of controversy to drive Internet interest.
You either didn't read your own link, or you decided to gloss over a pretty important quote regarding the "Debbie Does Dallas...Again" release: "The title will also debut simultaneously on HD DVD, and list price for either version is $39.95." Based on that, and the fact that other companies (such as Wicked and Digital Playground) are already going HD DVD, it doesn't look like any of the major porn players are planning to go BD exclusive.