One "good" reason not to drop the price of Halo is that it would compete (among those who don't have Halo already) with the many FPS games that have been released fairly recently and are still being released at a decent clip for the Xbox.
Personally, I don't see why anyone gets upset about Halo staying at $50. If it's a good enough game that someone wants to play, then it's probably worth the $50. If it's not, then as stated above there are plenty of other FPS games to look at on the Xbox. Even more important, there are plenty of used copies of Halo out there for purchase, and if the disc is in good condition today it'll work and keep working as long as you take care of it, just like a new title.
At EBGames.com, the only PS2 game out of the ones listed in this story that is budget right now is Final Fantasy X - it's even on their PS2 front page.
Are you kidding? I borrowed a copy from a friend and lent it to my sister (a full-fledged adult, BTW) who promptly gave it to her brother-in-law. I had to shell out $45 (used - what a discount!) for a copy of FFX to get back to my friend. It was probably part of Square's karma incentive program to discourage people from borrowing their games.
On topic, if Kingdom Hearts and R&C are budget now I'll be running out to get them ASAP (I'm a sicko who only feeds his Xbox with full-priced games these days).:)
All of this talk about DVD/video game synergy is interesting, and the speculation about how it affects game console (hardware and software) sales is equally so. It does bring another question up, though: Would Sony have sold as many PS2s as they have if the system hadn't come out while the DVD format was still in the process of gaining its full traction?
I think that the appeal of the combination DVD/videogame console was located entirely in the fact that a great many people didn't yet have a DVD player. This, coupled with the fact that a decent DVD player was still at least $150 made the PS2 look a lot more appealing because it would give them access to all those neat DVDs that they hadn't been able to watch before AND it would give them access to all the neat video games which were, or would be, available for the new Playstation. Add into the mix the continued popularity of the FIRST Playstation game system and the PS2's compatibility with that (not to mention the fact that they were offering their system a year ahead of Nintendo and Microsoft), and you have the perfect confluence of events for the PS2 to completely dominate the market.
Of course, this raises yet another question which is "Can that lightning strike again?" Now that the interested people have their DVD players (PS2, standalone or both), will DVD movie compatibility continue to be a major selling point of systems in the NEXT video game generation? My speculation would be that the answer is "no." While it might be handy in that you can just plug in the follow-on console to your Xbox or PS2 and unplug the old one, I think it's more likely that people won't care at all about the unit's DVD movie playing.
Because of the above, I think that Nintendo did the right thing too soon. With only a year separating the PS2 and the Gamecube, they probably would have been smarter to make the thing able to play DVD movies so that there would be no perception of absent features. If they were releasing the Gamecube today, however, I think that the lack of that feature would go by with almost no comment since just about everyone who wants a DVD player (and has had a halfway decent job in the last two years - I've seen cheap players go for $60!) already has one.
Speculation says that Gamecube will fall to $129...
ACTUALLY, according to this link, Nintendo is going to be dropping the US price of the Gamecube to $99 by the end of September. Unfortunately, the only other place I found the info was here and there's no linkage in that "viewer mail" section to get more details. Nintendo's website was similarly not helpful at all.
Assuming the above is true, it was probably at the end of last week's news cycle and we'll probably hear more tomorrow.
If it WERE funny, I would be laughing. I have a pretty "good" sense of humor - "good" in the sense that I can laugh at things that are truly funny, like The Onion; and things that are marginally funny, like "Friends".
The linked article read like it had been crapped out of a 12-year-old bored in homeroom. While that may be entertaining to some, it doesn't seem like what we would hope to expect from Slashdot.
First off, on sales figures: Until I see one source with hard data on all three, I disbelieve all of them. What inevitably happens is that people have to cobble together US figures released by Microsoft, production numbers released by Nintendo, worldwide distribution (including replacements) figures from Sony, the various third-party surveys and statistical guesses, etc. All numbers that have different meanings and varying degrees of relevance to the "big question": Who's first, who's second and who's third (thank your lucky stars you can't here my Lou Abbott impression).
Until there's a consistent third-party reporting on all three companies the various sales figures, while perhaps having some value taken on their own, become meaningless when compared to one another.
On Linux: The idea that Microsoft should be supportive of Linux on their machine is at best naive. Why should they offer more legitimacy [than they have to] to a competitor? Further, why should they support such a feature that would inevitably cause increased sales of a product that isn't a revenue generator while probably minimizing the attach rate of the software, on which they DO make money?
Perspective: If people buy one Xbox to run Microsoft-approved Linux, that's not too bad for Microsoft. After all, it's very likely that the buyer will purchase one or more games for the system (even if they're not a fan of Xbox exclusives, they could go for Xbox versions of multi-console titles that might be better on X).
On the other hand, if people buy one or more EXTRA Xboxen to run Microsoft-approved Linux then any chances of profit (slim in this generation, anyway) off the additional machines go up in smoke since a multiple-Xbox buyer is unlikely to buy multiple copies of each game.
Even in the PR area, it's at best a wash to support Xbox Linux since the people whose minds they would want to change about their company wouldn't be satisfied with just that one thing. They would simply move on to all the other things they hate about Microsoft and Windows while playing with their LinuXboxen.
None of what is explained in this story qualifies as "news."
Amen. In fact, I stopped reading because the writer presented something that not only wasn't news, but wasn't even true:
"Starcraft: Ghost, a game about a popular female character from the outrageously successful PC game who must perform a series of dangerous missions while avoiding being punched in the breasts, is now an X-Box exclusive."
The rumor that Ghost will be Xbox exclusive has apparently been spread around so much that it's now being taken as a fact. The truth, of course, is that no such announcement has been made and Blizzard's official website still has the icons of all three consoles on the Starcraft: Ghost front page.
I was nearly stopped in my tracks by the beyond insipid "penis chart." There was no way I could continue after the paragraph quoted above.
That's pretty darned funny. I guess my disclaimers about not knowing much about their PC releases and using the word "console" weren't enough to save me from your hilarious comment.
I don't know much, if anything, about Ubisoft's PC releases being that I go mostly console with a smattering of only the "big" PC titles (Civilization, Warcraft, Diablo, Sims, etc.). However, Ubisoft's console releases over the past couple years have been well nigh bulletproof. Splinter Cell alone makes their console releases at least worth taking a look at every time (hopefully XIII will be as well done)...Maybe they'll take M&M and make it a console RPG franchise. With games like Morrowind and KOTOR making inroads for American RPGs on consoles, M&M could find a very friendly home on at least the Xbox.
I have an unmodded Xbox. You see, I already have machines that can run Linux, DivX movies and pirated software. They even have x86 cores, just like the Xbox!
"1) i can't tell if the bandwidth of these things is really an issue. 6 channels at cd quality comes to 4.233 megabits. 192/24/6= 27 megabits. so it would seem that regular usb would be too slow, i guess, but that's in the spec of several of the usb audio boxes, so i just don't know what's going on."
I can't speak to multi-channel video games on the PC (are they doing DD5.1 in PC games these days?), but bandwidth isn't a problem at all for the other big multi-channel format, DVD. A compressed Dobly Digital six-channel (DD5.1) stream comes in at only 448 kbit/s. Since the Extigy can pass through and decode Dolby Digital, the USB doesn't have to carry the decoded/decompressed signal and the data rate above wouldn't stress a USB 1.1 connection at all - all depending on the driver and DVD player software, of course.
You're absolutely right, and as I said I didn't expect a true-to-the-arcade conversion. But they did things to that game that were just ignorant:
1. The color scheme. Take a look at these screenshots to see what I'm talking about. While I know that they probably couldn't have gotten arcade colors, they CERTAINLY could have at least made it a bit more aesthetically pleasing.
2. Tablets! I know that the Atari could resemble something at least a LITTLE closer to dots. They could have at least shrunk up those godawful things a couple of pixels.
3. North/south transport? Talk about something that didn't need to be changed.
4. Speed. I played a lot of games that moved at a decent clip on the 2600 (watch the bomber on high levels of "Kaboom!" by Activision for an example).
5. Sound. The Atari 2600 was by no means an audio giant but the sounds on that game were about as annoying as Atari sounds got. It almost made me want to just run the guy around areas I'd already eaten through just to take a break from the clunky chomp sound.
Again, it's not about being untrue to the arcade version - it's about a classic game being turned into a crapfest. Ms. Pac-Man didn't have arcade-quality graphics either, but it was not only playable on the 2600 but was enjoyable (I managed to resign myself to the oblong pellets). To my mind, Pac-Man was neither.
If Atari had taken even an extra WEEK (their development time on titles was often measured in DAYS), they probably could have made a much better game. Sadly, we'll never know.
Many early 2600 adopters might not remember it as well, having moved on to other Atari systems, Commodore 64 (my vice), Colecovision, Nintendo, etc., but Atari did redeem themselves [somewhat] very late in the life of the 2600 by releasing a pretty darned good version of Ms. Pac-Man - considering, of course, the great limitations of the console. It was, literally, the last game I played on that system and it at least ensured I left on a positive Pac note.
Mine is probably the same as many: Pac-Man for the Atari 2600. I can't even describe the disappointment I felt as a little tyke when my grandparents and I got to their house and plugged that game in. Even then (elementary school), I knew that there was no way it would be an arcade-perfect translation but I had played so many really fun games for the 2600 that I felt it was a "can't miss" proposition. Boy, was I wrong.
I noticed immediately that the graphics were atrocious. Again, it wasn't that I was expecting an arcade game but the COLORS! They were simply awful. I was prepared to accept the hideous colors because, well, it was still Pac-Man, darn it! It HAD to at least play well! As I started the game and clutched my joystick...upside down - one of my little quirks was that I always held Atari-style joysticks upside down because I felt like I should be hitting the button with my right thumb, a belief vindicated later by virtually every other game console...but I digress. So, I'm holding my joystick as I start the game and I move the stick to the left and...well...Pac-Man...moved...so...slowly. I started working myself into a rage. Atari was ruining Pac-Man, a gaming classic. As I continued to move about the maze, I of course noticed that the ghosts looked horrible, the dots weren't even dots anymore (little rectangles) and my frustration boiled to a point I had never reached before while playing a video game.
Even then, I was a pretty calm, "good" kid. I put my joystick down, got up, turned the console off, removed Pac-Man and put it into one of the game cases (big, beautiful plastic things that held 20 cartridges a piece). I placed the instruction manual carefully in the provided slot in the case and took out another game - ANY other game (don't remember specifically as we had many) - and tried to calm myself down. I didn't even tell my grandparents how angry I was since I didn't want to seem ungrateful for the gift.
For the remainder of my time playing the Atari 2600, whenever I played any game that I thought was bad I always compared it to the miserable abortion that was Pac-Man and so I managed to stay fairly satisfied. To put it into even more perspective, that attitude even helped me find enjoyment in E.T. and M.A.S.H.!
Pac-Man for the Atari 2600:
Worst...gaming...experience...ever.
It should also be noted that EA has said time and time again that they plan to eventually charge for the privilege of playing their games online. They've downplayed it more recently, but a big part of their dissatisfaction with Xbox Live is that XBL already charges a fee and EA isn't sure (rightly so) that XBL subscribers would pay an additional fee for matchmaking/roster updates on EA games.
It's not an actual lack of interest from GC owners (I don't have a BB adaptor myself because I won't buy it for just one game, especially when I already have one for the PS2 and Xbox Live), rather it's a combination fo the fact that Nintendo perceives a lack of interest - or perhaps more accurately a lack of demand - and the fact that Nintendo has other, potentially more lucrative areas to exploit (E-Card Reader and GBA to name two).
Because Nintendo understands that people don't want to pay much (if anything) for online gaming, they see each network adaptor sale as a one-off where people will pay for the adaptor and then buy games as they would have if they hadn't. Thus, Nintendo only gets to charge once for a low-margin item. With E-Cards and GBA connectivity, Nintendo not only gets the initial relatively low-margin hardware sale but they get the sales of higher-margin GBA games and ridiculous-margin trading cards.
Until they either a) figure out how to make big bucks (I'm thinking EQ bucks) on each online game or b) really start getting trounced by the other more net-friendly consoles (with market research showing that the lack of online titles is the big factor), Nintendo is going to keep moving at a crawl towards online console gaming.
Oh COME on! I'm all for Nintendo being successful but let's not fool ourselves. If Nintendo was not a "strictly commercial" business, they would release Pokemon games in complete form rather than splitting a few things off into a separate package and call it by a different name. If Nintendo were mainly in it for the "artistic side," then they wouldn't force third parties to make Gamecube games in order to sell GBA games. If Nintendo wasn't in it for the almighty dollar (and yen), they would have enabled the island in Animal Crossing for everyone rather than requiring a connection to the GBA.
In short, Nintendo's desire for profits is no less than Sony's or Microsoft's. Let's not get all misty believing otherwise.
You might be right about Japan's fascination with handheld gadgets, but a device such as you describe would stray way too far - primarily in terms of concept and price - from what the GB/GBC/GBA's core audience expects and would cost them more customers than it would attract.
Believe it or not, Nintendo knows EXACTLY what they're doing in the handheld market and are probably best served by "staying the course" in that area. While Sony's plan for the PSP is ambitious and interesting, the truth is that it's not going to sell like the GBA does unless they slice the price to the marrow (just cutting it to the bone won't be enough). People like me, who have good jobs and plenty of disposable income, will probably buy one...but most people (particularly parents) are going to see it sitting next to a Nintendo product (either GBA SP or its successor) at 50-75% of the price and just get that and use any extra cash to buy games.
Well, the last projection I owned was a Toshiba 40" widescreen (NTSC, before they came out with the 40" HDTV version) and it stood up to many, MANY hours of Playstation use (mainly Final Fantasy Tactics) without a problem.
Now, admittedly, I had tuned the TV using one of the DVD home theater discs and so the contrast wasn't at the default "so bright it's like staring at a sheet of white paper in direct sunlight" setting. So, I suppose that if people leave the contrast setting too high they probably CAN burn the thing in. I would submit, however, that anyone who would do that probably isn't hanging around on this Slashdot thread or AVSForum or one of the other home theater resources on the interweb where they will find out almost immediately that factory video settings are evil.
To that end, I'll edit my original concept and say this:
"Properly configured, modern rear-projection (CRT-based) television sets are not prone to burn-in except under the most extreme conditions."
Re:a word of warning
on
Buying a New TV?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Modern rear-projection (and front for that matter) televisions do not have significant burn-in problems. Five to ten years ago, this was a big problem but it just isn't anymore. The only way to burn in a new projection TV is to run a static image for days at a time without respite - something I wouldn't recommend doing. Normal usage, including video games, is just fine.
I don't know what "substance" you're looking for. If it's engaging stories with interesting beginnings and exciting endings, then MMORPGs aren't for you. The depth in a good MMORPG should theoretically be found in the community that develops inside of it. The various activities within said game should be engaging enough to interest people (and "phat lewt" certainly is engaging to a great many people), but when it comes right down to it the real fun should be found in the people with whom you engage in said activities.
I think that when people talk about EQ players, for example, being obsessed with getting particular powerful items they minimize the fact that they a) can't get those powerful items without other people and b) they likely wouldn't want to get them without other people because, as you correctly point out, the battles themselves aren't that compelling. The most addicted EQ people log in every day not just for the advancement of their own character but usually because they've found a group of people (a guild) where they feel comfortable and which they want to help out by participating in the big raids on big monsters and such.
Of course, I would argue with the idea that even the basic mechanics of current MMORPGs are lacking. Diablo 2 is still quite popular, and not because of modifications, the reason cited for the longevity of many PC games. It's because hacking and slashing in order to get cool stuff is either fun or addictive, and maybe both. When it comes down to it, the gameplay of games like Everquest is simply Diablo but bigger and slower, and as I said people enjoy Diablo.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I don't see why anyone gets upset about Halo staying at $50. If it's a good enough game that someone wants to play, then it's probably worth the $50. If it's not, then as stated above there are plenty of other FPS games to look at on the Xbox. Even more important, there are plenty of used copies of Halo out there for purchase, and if the disc is in good condition today it'll work and keep working as long as you take care of it, just like a new title.
At EBGames.com, the only PS2 game out of the ones listed in this story that is budget right now is Final Fantasy X - it's even on their PS2 front page.
On topic, if Kingdom Hearts and R&C are budget now I'll be running out to get them ASAP (I'm a sicko who only feeds his Xbox with full-priced games these days). :)
I think that the appeal of the combination DVD/videogame console was located entirely in the fact that a great many people didn't yet have a DVD player. This, coupled with the fact that a decent DVD player was still at least $150 made the PS2 look a lot more appealing because it would give them access to all those neat DVDs that they hadn't been able to watch before AND it would give them access to all the neat video games which were, or would be, available for the new Playstation. Add into the mix the continued popularity of the FIRST Playstation game system and the PS2's compatibility with that (not to mention the fact that they were offering their system a year ahead of Nintendo and Microsoft), and you have the perfect confluence of events for the PS2 to completely dominate the market.
Of course, this raises yet another question which is "Can that lightning strike again?" Now that the interested people have their DVD players (PS2, standalone or both), will DVD movie compatibility continue to be a major selling point of systems in the NEXT video game generation? My speculation would be that the answer is "no." While it might be handy in that you can just plug in the follow-on console to your Xbox or PS2 and unplug the old one, I think it's more likely that people won't care at all about the unit's DVD movie playing.
Because of the above, I think that Nintendo did the right thing too soon. With only a year separating the PS2 and the Gamecube, they probably would have been smarter to make the thing able to play DVD movies so that there would be no perception of absent features. If they were releasing the Gamecube today, however, I think that the lack of that feature would go by with almost no comment since just about everyone who wants a DVD player (and has had a halfway decent job in the last two years - I've seen cheap players go for $60!) already has one.
ACTUALLY, according to this link, Nintendo is going to be dropping the US price of the Gamecube to $99 by the end of September. Unfortunately, the only other place I found the info was here and there's no linkage in that "viewer mail" section to get more details. Nintendo's website was similarly not helpful at all.
Assuming the above is true, it was probably at the end of last week's news cycle and we'll probably hear more tomorrow.
The linked article read like it had been crapped out of a 12-year-old bored in homeroom. While that may be entertaining to some, it doesn't seem like what we would hope to expect from Slashdot.
Until there's a consistent third-party reporting on all three companies the various sales figures, while perhaps having some value taken on their own, become meaningless when compared to one another.
On Linux: The idea that Microsoft should be supportive of Linux on their machine is at best naive. Why should they offer more legitimacy [than they have to] to a competitor? Further, why should they support such a feature that would inevitably cause increased sales of a product that isn't a revenue generator while probably minimizing the attach rate of the software, on which they DO make money?
Perspective: If people buy one Xbox to run Microsoft-approved Linux, that's not too bad for Microsoft. After all, it's very likely that the buyer will purchase one or more games for the system (even if they're not a fan of Xbox exclusives, they could go for Xbox versions of multi-console titles that might be better on X).
On the other hand, if people buy one or more EXTRA Xboxen to run Microsoft-approved Linux then any chances of profit (slim in this generation, anyway) off the additional machines go up in smoke since a multiple-Xbox buyer is unlikely to buy multiple copies of each game.
Even in the PR area, it's at best a wash to support Xbox Linux since the people whose minds they would want to change about their company wouldn't be satisfied with just that one thing. They would simply move on to all the other things they hate about Microsoft and Windows while playing with their LinuXboxen.
Amen. In fact, I stopped reading because the writer presented something that not only wasn't news, but wasn't even true:
"Starcraft: Ghost, a game about a popular female character from the outrageously successful PC game who must perform a series of dangerous missions while avoiding being punched in the breasts, is now an X-Box exclusive."
The rumor that Ghost will be Xbox exclusive has apparently been spread around so much that it's now being taken as a fact. The truth, of course, is that no such announcement has been made and Blizzard's official website still has the icons of all three consoles on the Starcraft: Ghost front page.
I was nearly stopped in my tracks by the beyond insipid "penis chart." There was no way I could continue after the paragraph quoted above.
Two words for the linked article: "Utter crap."
Three words for michael: "Shame on you."
That's pretty darned funny. I guess my disclaimers about not knowing much about their PC releases and using the word "console" weren't enough to save me from your hilarious comment.
I don't know much, if anything, about Ubisoft's PC releases being that I go mostly console with a smattering of only the "big" PC titles (Civilization, Warcraft, Diablo, Sims, etc.). However, Ubisoft's console releases over the past couple years have been well nigh bulletproof. Splinter Cell alone makes their console releases at least worth taking a look at every time (hopefully XIII will be as well done)...Maybe they'll take M&M and make it a console RPG franchise. With games like Morrowind and KOTOR making inroads for American RPGs on consoles, M&M could find a very friendly home on at least the Xbox.
I have an unmodded Xbox. You see, I already have machines that can run Linux, DivX movies and pirated software. They even have x86 cores, just like the Xbox!
A mod is now available for Unreal Tournament 2003 which changes all the players into hoverbikes! And no extra hardware required! Woot!
I can't speak to multi-channel video games on the PC (are they doing DD5.1 in PC games these days?), but bandwidth isn't a problem at all for the other big multi-channel format, DVD. A compressed Dobly Digital six-channel (DD5.1) stream comes in at only 448 kbit/s. Since the Extigy can pass through and decode Dolby Digital, the USB doesn't have to carry the decoded/decompressed signal and the data rate above wouldn't stress a USB 1.1 connection at all - all depending on the driver and DVD player software, of course.
1. The color scheme. Take a look at these screenshots to see what I'm talking about. While I know that they probably couldn't have gotten arcade colors, they CERTAINLY could have at least made it a bit more aesthetically pleasing.
2. Tablets! I know that the Atari could resemble something at least a LITTLE closer to dots. They could have at least shrunk up those godawful things a couple of pixels.
3. North/south transport? Talk about something that didn't need to be changed.
4. Speed. I played a lot of games that moved at a decent clip on the 2600 (watch the bomber on high levels of "Kaboom!" by Activision for an example).
5. Sound. The Atari 2600 was by no means an audio giant but the sounds on that game were about as annoying as Atari sounds got. It almost made me want to just run the guy around areas I'd already eaten through just to take a break from the clunky chomp sound.
Again, it's not about being untrue to the arcade version - it's about a classic game being turned into a crapfest. Ms. Pac-Man didn't have arcade-quality graphics either, but it was not only playable on the 2600 but was enjoyable (I managed to resign myself to the oblong pellets). To my mind, Pac-Man was neither.
If Atari had taken even an extra WEEK (their development time on titles was often measured in DAYS), they probably could have made a much better game. Sadly, we'll never know.
Many early 2600 adopters might not remember it as well, having moved on to other Atari systems, Commodore 64 (my vice), Colecovision, Nintendo, etc., but Atari did redeem themselves [somewhat] very late in the life of the 2600 by releasing a pretty darned good version of Ms. Pac-Man - considering, of course, the great limitations of the console. It was, literally, the last game I played on that system and it at least ensured I left on a positive Pac note.
I noticed immediately that the graphics were atrocious. Again, it wasn't that I was expecting an arcade game but the COLORS! They were simply awful. I was prepared to accept the hideous colors because, well, it was still Pac-Man, darn it! It HAD to at least play well! As I started the game and clutched my joystick...upside down - one of my little quirks was that I always held Atari-style joysticks upside down because I felt like I should be hitting the button with my right thumb, a belief vindicated later by virtually every other game console...but I digress. So, I'm holding my joystick as I start the game and I move the stick to the left and...well...Pac-Man...moved...so...slowly. I started working myself into a rage. Atari was ruining Pac-Man, a gaming classic. As I continued to move about the maze, I of course noticed that the ghosts looked horrible, the dots weren't even dots anymore (little rectangles) and my frustration boiled to a point I had never reached before while playing a video game.
Even then, I was a pretty calm, "good" kid. I put my joystick down, got up, turned the console off, removed Pac-Man and put it into one of the game cases (big, beautiful plastic things that held 20 cartridges a piece). I placed the instruction manual carefully in the provided slot in the case and took out another game - ANY other game (don't remember specifically as we had many) - and tried to calm myself down. I didn't even tell my grandparents how angry I was since I didn't want to seem ungrateful for the gift.
For the remainder of my time playing the Atari 2600, whenever I played any game that I thought was bad I always compared it to the miserable abortion that was Pac-Man and so I managed to stay fairly satisfied. To put it into even more perspective, that attitude even helped me find enjoyment in E.T. and M.A.S.H.!
Pac-Man for the Atari 2600:
Worst...gaming...experience...ever.
It should also be noted that EA has said time and time again that they plan to eventually charge for the privilege of playing their games online. They've downplayed it more recently, but a big part of their dissatisfaction with Xbox Live is that XBL already charges a fee and EA isn't sure (rightly so) that XBL subscribers would pay an additional fee for matchmaking/roster updates on EA games.
Because Nintendo understands that people don't want to pay much (if anything) for online gaming, they see each network adaptor sale as a one-off where people will pay for the adaptor and then buy games as they would have if they hadn't. Thus, Nintendo only gets to charge once for a low-margin item. With E-Cards and GBA connectivity, Nintendo not only gets the initial relatively low-margin hardware sale but they get the sales of higher-margin GBA games and ridiculous-margin trading cards.
Until they either a) figure out how to make big bucks (I'm thinking EQ bucks) on each online game or b) really start getting trounced by the other more net-friendly consoles (with market research showing that the lack of online titles is the big factor), Nintendo is going to keep moving at a crawl towards online console gaming.
In short, Nintendo's desire for profits is no less than Sony's or Microsoft's. Let's not get all misty believing otherwise.
Believe it or not, Nintendo knows EXACTLY what they're doing in the handheld market and are probably best served by "staying the course" in that area. While Sony's plan for the PSP is ambitious and interesting, the truth is that it's not going to sell like the GBA does unless they slice the price to the marrow (just cutting it to the bone won't be enough). People like me, who have good jobs and plenty of disposable income, will probably buy one...but most people (particularly parents) are going to see it sitting next to a Nintendo product (either GBA SP or its successor) at 50-75% of the price and just get that and use any extra cash to buy games.
Just a small note: Though Metroid Prime is indeed published by Nintendo, Super Monkey Ball is a "Sega Joint." :)
Now, admittedly, I had tuned the TV using one of the DVD home theater discs and so the contrast wasn't at the default "so bright it's like staring at a sheet of white paper in direct sunlight" setting. So, I suppose that if people leave the contrast setting too high they probably CAN burn the thing in. I would submit, however, that anyone who would do that probably isn't hanging around on this Slashdot thread or AVSForum or one of the other home theater resources on the interweb where they will find out almost immediately that factory video settings are evil.
To that end, I'll edit my original concept and say this:
"Properly configured, modern rear-projection (CRT-based) television sets are not prone to burn-in except under the most extreme conditions."
Modern rear-projection (and front for that matter) televisions do not have significant burn-in problems. Five to ten years ago, this was a big problem but it just isn't anymore. The only way to burn in a new projection TV is to run a static image for days at a time without respite - something I wouldn't recommend doing. Normal usage, including video games, is just fine.
I think that when people talk about EQ players, for example, being obsessed with getting particular powerful items they minimize the fact that they a) can't get those powerful items without other people and b) they likely wouldn't want to get them without other people because, as you correctly point out, the battles themselves aren't that compelling. The most addicted EQ people log in every day not just for the advancement of their own character but usually because they've found a group of people (a guild) where they feel comfortable and which they want to help out by participating in the big raids on big monsters and such.
Of course, I would argue with the idea that even the basic mechanics of current MMORPGs are lacking. Diablo 2 is still quite popular, and not because of modifications, the reason cited for the longevity of many PC games. It's because hacking and slashing in order to get cool stuff is either fun or addictive, and maybe both. When it comes down to it, the gameplay of games like Everquest is simply Diablo but bigger and slower, and as I said people enjoy Diablo.
That's what I get for not clicking your link. My apologies. :)