One can reasonably ask: 'why would EA (or any other developer) care whether the DS or PSP 'wins' the portable market?'
I think you're on the right track to some extent by mentioning the money EA has plunked down on PSP development. The corollary to that, though, is that most of the time EA is about the graphical "bling" with the gameplay itself playing a subsidiary role. Considering that, the PSP is far more appealing to a company like EA than the DS because they can stay in their comfort zone.
Taking that thought further, it also means that in order for EA to be top dog on the DS (which they're used to on the PS, the PS2, and probably the Xbox), they have to compete with Nintendo. So far, competing with Nintendo's first-party DS titles is a losing proposition for every company that tries. Even the occasional hit, like Castlevania or Phoenix Wright, doesn't come close to the numbers of Nintendo titles like Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, New Super Mario Brothers and Nintendogs. That's not to say that companies like Capcom and Konami aren't making nice money on their titles, but they aren't likely to ever beat Nintendo's game sales.
I would note, finally, that it seems like there are production issues with DS carts. Trying to find popular, third-party titles like Castlevania, Trauma Center and Phoenix Wright has been extremely difficult (all three have reissues shipping over the next month or so) while, on the other hand, Nintendo's titles sell like hotcakes and store shelves still overflow with their product. It's possible that EA doesn't care for Nintendo's policies in this area and might get better terms on UMDs.
Sorry, but I don't think making UMD writable is going to make anyone care about it. DVD-/+RW is already ubiquitous and offers more storage. In terms of portable media players, even the size advantage is questionable given how many small flash- and HD-based players are on the market - MD certainly wouldn't have gone anywhere if it debuted under these same circumstances. I don't think writable UMD could even entice PSP users considering they already have to buy at least one Memory Stick in order to save games, and they could buy an additional Memory Stick for far less money than it would cost to get a UMD burner and media.
No, I think UMD was ill-conceived from the beginning as anything but a way to get cheaper, larger storage for portable games.
This 99% of games suck bullshit has just about got to stop.
It will never stop, just like it never stopped for the Xbox (I still see people occasionally say "Halo is the only reason to buy an Xbox"). Some people just can't change their minds once they've made them up, and what is true early in the console's life will be believed until the thing is replaced with a "PSP-2."
Personally, I could only imagine buying a PSP if I started getting tired of the games I'm playing on my DS and there's nothing left to buy for it. After all, there are still Xbox and Gamecube (my PS2 is on the fritz) games that I own and haven't gotten to yet, not to mention the ones I haven't even purchased. I still haven't seen a game for the PSP that I would consider a killer app - note that I'm not saying there's nothing good on the PSP (there are several games which I would play if I owned one), but there's nothing that appeals enough to me to warrant a purchase.
I don't know if it speaks badly of the submitter and editor, or badly of their perception of the/. crowd, when something so redundant is included in an article summary for a purely inflammatory effect.
[don't make the mistake] of thinking the vast majority of the PS3's intended audience actually pay attention to things like E3, post to slashdot, or even GET obscure humor related to "gigantic crabs."
You should also be wary of making the mistake of thinking that the vast majority of the PS3's intended audience is likely to buy any console at or near launch. The PS3 may indeed be a "hot item" this Christmas, but I consider that more likely to be due to hardware shortages than demand (much like the Xbox 360 last year, for which Microsoft took an online reaming). As for parents going "Cabbage Patch" on the thing, the difference is that the PS3's attractiveness to children will be duplicated in large part by both the Wii and the Xbox 360. I doubt that any child young enough to inspire adults to buy extravagant gifts will be disappointed by getting either of the latter two consoles on Christmas morning, and even indulgent adults like to save money.
The PS3 could end up being even more successful in the long term than the PS2 - anything's possible. But, I think it has a very tough row to hoe this year at those prices.
He won't have to. The ending of the movie (or perhaps the series of movies - I don't know their plans) will be Damon/Kirk having a mini stroke, resulting in his functional aphasia.
Actually, there is a reason. If the hardware output is restricted to 480p then it follows that you can't output 720p or 1080i (or 768p or any of the other HD/PC resolutions). It's really not that hard to figure out. They (Nintendo, Iwata-san and company) have said many times that the Wii will not output HD signals. On the other hand, neither Sony nor Microsoft made that claim of the Xbox (obviously) or the PS2. If your logic holds, then why didn't the Gamecube have any 720p or 1080i games?
Until official specifications are released to the public, I can only go by Nintendo's word that the Wii will not support HD resolutions. Third-parties (e.g., you) overhyping the capabilities of the console, particularly sight unseen, certainly don't do Nintendo any favors.
If you've got sources for that information, do please share them. I've tried several permutations of Google searching, trying to find confirmation of what you say and every statement indicates that the Wii hardware will not support high-definition resolutions (720p/1080i/1080p) and will only support 480p and NTSC/PAL. There is no indication that this limitation is specific to a particular category of titles but rather, again, a limitation in the hardware itself.
I'm as hyped about the Wii as anyone, but the statements given by Nintendo on this issue are quite clear.
With the occasional 720p and 1080i titles where the developers feel it's appropriate.
According to Nintendo, there will be no 720p or 1080i titles. They've stated multiple times, and in no uncertain terms, that the Wii will not have HD output.
X-Play isn't perfect, but they are pretty good. They are the only show left on the network that is good (except ST:TNG which they haven't managed to ruin yet).
I agree with the X-Play sentiment, but it should be noted (in case someone has a weird cable system that carries G4 but not Spike and tries to find it) that Spike has ST:TNG (and DS9) while G4 carries the awful and ruined "Star Trek 2.0" where they put a whole bunch of scrolling junk on the screen to frame classic Star Trek episodes.
Upon taking a look at the now -1 post, I was half-tempted to go back and give it a desultory "funny" mod since there's actually a time-specific reference in there to the "borrowed" cohost "last week.":)
I don't think it has anything to do with genetics. I think it's just that the guy who chose Germany as his civilization is changing entertainers to scientists...
Wow, really? A "Game Developers Conference" is a better place for developers to exchange ideas and make better games? I'm shocked! Shocked!!! Well, not that shocked.
Re:Just tweek $x/sq.ft. and $y/visitor
on
The End of E3?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The cost of the actual space on the convention floor is probably a tiny consideration to the big developers/publishers. It's often the cost of the "spectacle" that the marketing people feel they need which costs a lot. There's also lost time to developers when they have to put together playable demos of games that might still be two or more years from completion.
Increasing the cost to attendees would end up a losing proposition because you'd end up decreasing the number of press and retail people who would actually attend - those people shouldn't have to pay for a game's advertising (neither should I, which is why I haven't blown cash on subscriptions to any of the big gaming sites).
It could be argued that EA, Microsoft, Sony and the rest could just show up with a display made of pressboard and a couple of LCD monitors on which to show videos of gameplay. But, while that might work once, the next year everybody would try to outdo themselves and their competitors, and you end up with the flashy, noisy, expensive debacle which E3 has become.
Re:Interesting twist..
on
The End of E3?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think you're right on the money here. While the week of E3 is obviously big in terms of the amount of game information, screenshots, etc. released, the number of people who actually get hands-on with the stuff at the convention is rather small. With the continued increase of non-industry people attending, it becomes an even worse deal with the "important" people (read: the representatives of the big gaming news outlets and the retail executives who might influence what gets put on store shelves) either being squeezed out or attending the semi-private showings off the floor. The big publishers would be far better off focusing their E3 money on flying the press to their locations and demoing the games more intimately. They'd spend less money and probably make a bigger splash with the games on which they want to focus, spreading out over the rest of the year.
I don't know how bad it would be for the small, independent developers to lose E3, though I have to say I don't think it would matter much. When I've followed E3 via the Interweb, I rarely, if ever, find out about the "tiny" games anyway. A much smaller convention consisting entirely of those small developers would probably work better for them in any case.
If it's true, I don't think it will be a big loss. As a non-attending consumer, without E3 I'll probably end up with the same pre-release information that I've gotten for years. It will probably be more timely as well given the number of times E3 coverage has made me excited for a game, only to wait another two or more years before it gets released.
Think about the power requirements for 8 cores, then think about return you're getting in terms of actual utilization of those cores.
Okay, I just thought about power requirements for 8 cores, and then I thought about the fact that included even in the article summary was an indication that CPU power requirements are going to drop "dramatically." Obviously, I can't see into the future (or Intel's labs) to find out what the word "dramatically" means, but it's a clear indication that they're trying to keep power requirements at least stable while the number of cores increases.
As for what desktop PCs "need," well, for most people [running Windows XP] they probably "need" about 1GHz from a single core and 256MB of memory with a 32MB (max) graphics card.
I wonder, though, how much game developers will be affected by the move to multiple cores in the console world. The Xbox 360 already has three full processor cores and the PS3 will have the 7- to 8-core (though the extra cores are not, as I understand it, truly full CPU cores) Cell processor. Assuming these new consoles gain traction, game developers are going to find ways to use the extra processing power and they're not going to be excited to slide backwards in terms of power when developing for the PC.
I'm sure that it will be at least 5 years before 8-core CPUs become important to most desktop users, but I think it's probably inevitable that they will.
First off, all of these technologies are being implemented in rear-projection, so there is some extra space in terms of thickness between the screen and back edge of the sets. But, all three of them are still thin compared to CRT solutions and, if "money is no object" (we'll just pretend it isn't) there are 1080p (1920x1080) sets available in the 50-70" range. One possible snag is that you'll want to make sure that these 1920x1080 sets will actually take such a signal - several of them will only up-convert signals to 1080p. Of course, in the case of a 1080i signal it will still look darn good since it's a simple line-doubling issue. Looking at a slightly older technology, there is rear-projection LCD. Sony offers 1080p HDTVs of this ilk.
None of these items will be as sleek as a direct-view plasma or LCD, but none of them will approach the room-dominating size of an old-school CRT RPTV either. They also won't be inexpensive, though compared to direct-view plasma and LCD units in similar sizes (BTW- Sharp actually does sell LCDs in the 50+" range) they'll be at least competitive and often much cheaper.
Finally, "burn-in" isn't an issue with any of these technologies, though each can have its quirks (for example, some people are sensitive to the DLP "rainbow" effect, though supposedly it has been minimized in the latest 1080p sets).
Plus, now, using a good RSS feed reader, you can roll your own TechTV. Can't you do that with TIVO and Freevo now?
This is why G4TV being a bad channel overall doesn't bother me. My Tivo grabs [what I consider] the good show (note the lack of an "s") and I never have to see the rest. If I decide to sample something new (like the awful Star Trek 2.0), I can do so by recording one, watching it later without commercials, and I never have to see it again if it sucks. Meanwhile, Tivo is grabbing the other shows spread all over my satellite subscription that I like, along with its recommendations for filler, and I end up watching only "the good stuff."
I guess things will only turn bad for me if all of my friends and acquaintances start watching TV like I do. At that point, I'll have to work harder at sampling new stuff so I can figure out what to add to my season pass list.
$745 dollars poses a serious health risk for me. Mainly if I were to spend that much on games in one day my fiance would kill me. Literally. I would be a dead man.
May I suggest that if your fiancee is prone "literally" killing you, it might be in your best interest to end the engagement and find someone at least a bit less murderous?
Your entire rant was about the evils of an online profile, and it exhibited a level of mental acuity...well, a level that is becoming prevalent on Slashdot. If I exhibited "aggression" due to that, it's only because I find tedious people who aren't very bright but somehow feel smart enough to gripe about nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
One (me) suspects they were trying hard to get a non-US (particularly UK given the origin of the list) website or two on the list.
I think you're on the right track to some extent by mentioning the money EA has plunked down on PSP development. The corollary to that, though, is that most of the time EA is about the graphical "bling" with the gameplay itself playing a subsidiary role. Considering that, the PSP is far more appealing to a company like EA than the DS because they can stay in their comfort zone.
Taking that thought further, it also means that in order for EA to be top dog on the DS (which they're used to on the PS, the PS2, and probably the Xbox), they have to compete with Nintendo. So far, competing with Nintendo's first-party DS titles is a losing proposition for every company that tries. Even the occasional hit, like Castlevania or Phoenix Wright, doesn't come close to the numbers of Nintendo titles like Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, New Super Mario Brothers and Nintendogs. That's not to say that companies like Capcom and Konami aren't making nice money on their titles, but they aren't likely to ever beat Nintendo's game sales.
I would note, finally, that it seems like there are production issues with DS carts. Trying to find popular, third-party titles like Castlevania, Trauma Center and Phoenix Wright has been extremely difficult (all three have reissues shipping over the next month or so) while, on the other hand, Nintendo's titles sell like hotcakes and store shelves still overflow with their product. It's possible that EA doesn't care for Nintendo's policies in this area and might get better terms on UMDs.
Then again, what do I know?
Doctors can't buy a Nintendo DS?
Sorry, but I don't think making UMD writable is going to make anyone care about it. DVD-/+RW is already ubiquitous and offers more storage. In terms of portable media players, even the size advantage is questionable given how many small flash- and HD-based players are on the market - MD certainly wouldn't have gone anywhere if it debuted under these same circumstances. I don't think writable UMD could even entice PSP users considering they already have to buy at least one Memory Stick in order to save games, and they could buy an additional Memory Stick for far less money than it would cost to get a UMD burner and media.
No, I think UMD was ill-conceived from the beginning as anything but a way to get cheaper, larger storage for portable games.
It will never stop, just like it never stopped for the Xbox (I still see people occasionally say "Halo is the only reason to buy an Xbox"). Some people just can't change their minds once they've made them up, and what is true early in the console's life will be believed until the thing is replaced with a "PSP-2."
Personally, I could only imagine buying a PSP if I started getting tired of the games I'm playing on my DS and there's nothing left to buy for it. After all, there are still Xbox and Gamecube (my PS2 is on the fritz) games that I own and haven't gotten to yet, not to mention the ones I haven't even purchased. I still haven't seen a game for the PSP that I would consider a killer app - note that I'm not saying there's nothing good on the PSP (there are several games which I would play if I owned one), but there's nothing that appeals enough to me to warrant a purchase.
I don't know if it speaks badly of the submitter and editor, or badly of their perception of the /. crowd, when something so redundant is included in an article summary for a purely inflammatory effect.
You should also be wary of making the mistake of thinking that the vast majority of the PS3's intended audience is likely to buy any console at or near launch. The PS3 may indeed be a "hot item" this Christmas, but I consider that more likely to be due to hardware shortages than demand (much like the Xbox 360 last year, for which Microsoft took an online reaming). As for parents going "Cabbage Patch" on the thing, the difference is that the PS3's attractiveness to children will be duplicated in large part by both the Wii and the Xbox 360. I doubt that any child young enough to inspire adults to buy extravagant gifts will be disappointed by getting either of the latter two consoles on Christmas morning, and even indulgent adults like to save money.
The PS3 could end up being even more successful in the long term than the PS2 - anything's possible. But, I think it has a very tough row to hoe this year at those prices.
He won't have to. The ending of the movie (or perhaps the series of movies - I don't know their plans) will be Damon/Kirk having a mini stroke, resulting in his functional aphasia.
Just for the heck of it, I'll note that Sigmund Freud was Austrian. :)
Actually, there is a reason. If the hardware output is restricted to 480p then it follows that you can't output 720p or 1080i (or 768p or any of the other HD/PC resolutions). It's really not that hard to figure out. They (Nintendo, Iwata-san and company) have said many times that the Wii will not output HD signals. On the other hand, neither Sony nor Microsoft made that claim of the Xbox (obviously) or the PS2. If your logic holds, then why didn't the Gamecube have any 720p or 1080i games?
Until official specifications are released to the public, I can only go by Nintendo's word that the Wii will not support HD resolutions. Third-parties (e.g., you) overhyping the capabilities of the console, particularly sight unseen, certainly don't do Nintendo any favors.
If you've got sources for that information, do please share them. I've tried several permutations of Google searching, trying to find confirmation of what you say and every statement indicates that the Wii hardware will not support high-definition resolutions (720p/1080i/1080p) and will only support 480p and NTSC/PAL. There is no indication that this limitation is specific to a particular category of titles but rather, again, a limitation in the hardware itself.
I'm as hyped about the Wii as anyone, but the statements given by Nintendo on this issue are quite clear.
According to Nintendo, there will be no 720p or 1080i titles. They've stated multiple times, and in no uncertain terms, that the Wii will not have HD output.
Ah, the dreaded reply to myself: I had no idea that they were putting ST:TNG on 2 channels. My bad.
I agree with the X-Play sentiment, but it should be noted (in case someone has a weird cable system that carries G4 but not Spike and tries to find it) that Spike has ST:TNG (and DS9) while G4 carries the awful and ruined "Star Trek 2.0" where they put a whole bunch of scrolling junk on the screen to frame classic Star Trek episodes.
Upon taking a look at the now -1 post, I was half-tempted to go back and give it a desultory "funny" mod since there's actually a time-specific reference in there to the "borrowed" cohost "last week." :)
I don't think it has anything to do with genetics. I think it's just that the guy who chose Germany as his civilization is changing entertainers to scientists...
Wow, really? A "Game Developers Conference" is a better place for developers to exchange ideas and make better games? I'm shocked! Shocked!!! Well, not that shocked.
The cost of the actual space on the convention floor is probably a tiny consideration to the big developers/publishers. It's often the cost of the "spectacle" that the marketing people feel they need which costs a lot. There's also lost time to developers when they have to put together playable demos of games that might still be two or more years from completion.
Increasing the cost to attendees would end up a losing proposition because you'd end up decreasing the number of press and retail people who would actually attend - those people shouldn't have to pay for a game's advertising (neither should I, which is why I haven't blown cash on subscriptions to any of the big gaming sites).
It could be argued that EA, Microsoft, Sony and the rest could just show up with a display made of pressboard and a couple of LCD monitors on which to show videos of gameplay. But, while that might work once, the next year everybody would try to outdo themselves and their competitors, and you end up with the flashy, noisy, expensive debacle which E3 has become.
I think you're right on the money here. While the week of E3 is obviously big in terms of the amount of game information, screenshots, etc. released, the number of people who actually get hands-on with the stuff at the convention is rather small. With the continued increase of non-industry people attending, it becomes an even worse deal with the "important" people (read: the representatives of the big gaming news outlets and the retail executives who might influence what gets put on store shelves) either being squeezed out or attending the semi-private showings off the floor. The big publishers would be far better off focusing their E3 money on flying the press to their locations and demoing the games more intimately. They'd spend less money and probably make a bigger splash with the games on which they want to focus, spreading out over the rest of the year.
I don't know how bad it would be for the small, independent developers to lose E3, though I have to say I don't think it would matter much. When I've followed E3 via the Interweb, I rarely, if ever, find out about the "tiny" games anyway. A much smaller convention consisting entirely of those small developers would probably work better for them in any case.
If it's true, I don't think it will be a big loss. As a non-attending consumer, without E3 I'll probably end up with the same pre-release information that I've gotten for years. It will probably be more timely as well given the number of times E3 coverage has made me excited for a game, only to wait another two or more years before it gets released.
And yet, Sony's game division once again posted a loss last quarter .
Have a nice day!
Okay, I just thought about power requirements for 8 cores, and then I thought about the fact that included even in the article summary was an indication that CPU power requirements are going to drop "dramatically." Obviously, I can't see into the future (or Intel's labs) to find out what the word "dramatically" means, but it's a clear indication that they're trying to keep power requirements at least stable while the number of cores increases.
As for what desktop PCs "need," well, for most people [running Windows XP] they probably "need" about 1GHz from a single core and 256MB of memory with a 32MB (max) graphics card.
I wonder, though, how much game developers will be affected by the move to multiple cores in the console world. The Xbox 360 already has three full processor cores and the PS3 will have the 7- to 8-core (though the extra cores are not, as I understand it, truly full CPU cores) Cell processor. Assuming these new consoles gain traction, game developers are going to find ways to use the extra processing power and they're not going to be excited to slide backwards in terms of power when developing for the PC.
I'm sure that it will be at least 5 years before 8-core CPUs become important to most desktop users, but I think it's probably inevitable that they will.
First off, all of these technologies are being implemented in rear-projection, so there is some extra space in terms of thickness between the screen and back edge of the sets. But, all three of them are still thin compared to CRT solutions and, if "money is no object" (we'll just pretend it isn't) there are 1080p (1920x1080) sets available in the 50-70" range. One possible snag is that you'll want to make sure that these 1920x1080 sets will actually take such a signal - several of them will only up-convert signals to 1080p. Of course, in the case of a 1080i signal it will still look darn good since it's a simple line-doubling issue. Looking at a slightly older technology, there is rear-projection LCD. Sony offers 1080p HDTVs of this ilk.
None of these items will be as sleek as a direct-view plasma or LCD, but none of them will approach the room-dominating size of an old-school CRT RPTV either. They also won't be inexpensive, though compared to direct-view plasma and LCD units in similar sizes (BTW- Sharp actually does sell LCDs in the 50+" range) they'll be at least competitive and often much cheaper.
Finally, "burn-in" isn't an issue with any of these technologies, though each can have its quirks (for example, some people are sensitive to the DLP "rainbow" effect, though supposedly it has been minimized in the latest 1080p sets).
This is why G4TV being a bad channel overall doesn't bother me. My Tivo grabs [what I consider] the good show (note the lack of an "s") and I never have to see the rest. If I decide to sample something new (like the awful Star Trek 2.0), I can do so by recording one, watching it later without commercials, and I never have to see it again if it sucks. Meanwhile, Tivo is grabbing the other shows spread all over my satellite subscription that I like, along with its recommendations for filler, and I end up watching only "the good stuff."
I guess things will only turn bad for me if all of my friends and acquaintances start watching TV like I do. At that point, I'll have to work harder at sampling new stuff so I can figure out what to add to my season pass list.
May I suggest that if your fiancee is prone "literally" killing you, it might be in your best interest to end the engagement and find someone at least a bit less murderous?
Your entire rant was about the evils of an online profile, and it exhibited a level of mental acuity...well, a level that is becoming prevalent on Slashdot. If I exhibited "aggression" due to that, it's only because I find tedious people who aren't very bright but somehow feel smart enough to gripe about nothing.