I just couldn't justify getting off work to see it, but I did have my tickets for yesterday (Friday night) secured online a week in advance, and very glad I did. Although the AMC where we saw it was not digital-equipped, the picture looked clear and fine, so I'm not sure what purists and Roger Ebert complained about. I'm still definitely planning to see it in our digital-equipped Showcase theater later, but I'm not expecting to notice that much of a difference. I think film projection can present this film perfectly in a nice theater with a well-tuned bright projector.
The good news for me is that I was really afraid I would hate it. Like most, I was disappointed by EP1, and heard that although this one was better, it wasn't much so. I would have to respectfully disagree with those opinions. This movie blows EP1 away, and although I have to see it again before figuring out where it stands in the rankings of the whole series, I'm definitely seeing it again. I'm pretty sure that having Jar-Jar on the screen for probably less than a minute total was significantly better than a movie full of Ewoks.
The battle scenes are outstanding, and I have no idea why some people said that only the last half an hour of the movie is "redeeming." I don't want to give anything away, but there are plenty of action scenes throughout the movie, starting out very early. Sure there is dialog and exposition interspersed throughout, but it's all very well done. For those of you who, like me, didn't like EP1 and had reservations about seeing it this weekend, I strongly recommend you check it out. Don't wait for video, or necessarily to see it in digital - it's a beautiful exciting movie that definitely needs to be seen on the big screen. Lucas has redeemed himself a little in my eyes, and I can't wait to see how EP3 will turn out now.
Not to be stereotypical, but I don't think the hiring managers of the type of places where he is applying are huge Slashdot followers. On the other hand, perhaps he's hoping that many techie hiring persons are indeed such followers, and perhaps is using this "Ask Slashdot" as a great way to post his resume. In which case, more power to him, a man's gotta work:)
I have to agree. Just earlier today at an online Microsoft seminar, the presenter mentioned that the original version of the IIS Lockdown tool completely broke Exchange Server. To paraphrase him to the best of my abilities, "pretty interface, no email." To be fair, he demonstrated the newest version of the tool, which is supposed to do an outstanding job of locking down IIS, and that problem now has been completely eliminated.
I can feel the karma burn coming on, but I don't care. While I have dutifully read through all the posts, no one seems to have truly pointed out why MS and EA would be in disagreement on this issue. No, it's not "obvious" that MS is just doing this to plug Hailstorm and My Services - I think MS got a pretty clear message that companies are not interested in storing their private data on MS's servers given their track record on security.
However, for anyone that has followed MS's Xbox online vision, the reason why they want everyone on the same servers is clear. One of the biggest selling points of the service (since getting ahead in a highly competitive field like games is all about differentiation) is that users will be able to switch between games on the fly if they already own those games. So I'm playing Halo, someone on my buddy list signs on and wants to play Tony Hawk, and I can get notified of it while playing Halo.
While I can see that scheme happening with servers being hosted by different companies simply by using a common protocol of some sort, I would think that this would be very difficult to implement when you're talking about many vendors and many hosting facilities. I think MS wants to really control the positive user experience on the Xbox and they know that if EA's servers suck, people (including most of us on here) are going to blame MS, not the actual game vendor.
A secondary reason is combined billing. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority, but I've never paid for an online game, I think it's a waste of money. If I already paid $50 for a game, I don't want to pay $10 each month to keep playing it. Diablo, etc. which were playable online for free were always a much better choice for me. Yet I'm considering Xbox Live (online service) when it gets started. Why? B/c I think this sounds like a better deal, where I'm going to be able to pay a flat fee for multiple games that I can play online, instead of $10/month to this company, $15 to another, and so on. Now sure that means that my billing information belongs to one place, MS, and that will potentially worry me. But I think I'd rather have one company to worry about, once again, than 5 different ones all having my credit card number. But that's just me.
EA might not be happy with that idea, and wants to get its own monthly fee, but of course publicly they're going to say that they're just out to protect their customer's data. In reality, it's just business I think, let's not jus take sides automatically.
I read over your post a few times, but why would this "get Windows users over to the Linux camp" when the promotion does not apply to Windows users, and only those of other Linux distros? You mention that you see this as a good idea, but don't really explain why.
What kind of pressure can MS possibly exert if RH were to extend the rebate to Win OS users as well? MS can influence plenty of partners/customers, such as content providers, OEMs, and schools (not anti-MS necessarily, just saying that they do have a great deal of influence), but what can they do to a Linux company?
IANAL, but I can offer upgrades from anything I want for a product - in fact MS has frequently offered discounts for competitive upgrades. Eg from Notes to Exchange, or WordPerfect Suite to Office.
So I think the real reason for this move is clearly to win over current Linux users, not those of Windows. And as someone pointed out, this will hardly grow the market overall, but perhaps might do something for RH's revenue.
I know that's probably not what the person asking the question wants, but how about just contacting this X Solutions headhunting agency and trying to work things out with them? I mean, if the job looks promising, and the employer simply wants to avoid getting sued by this agency, contacting the headhunter may resolve the issue.
Either just threaten the headhunting firm a little, and have them call the employer or promise not to sue (or sign something), or worse (and I'm sure you don't want this but..) come into the company through the headhunting firm. I know that's a bad solution because they had no right to represent you in the first place, but if the company is willing to pay their fee, and still wants to hire you, things would work out. The anger over getting used would go away in a little bit, but the good job would hopefully stay.
I'm surprised he didn't mention the firm by name in the letter. Writing anonymously would protect the submitter of the question, but now all of us looking for work in the future may wonder if we're dealing with the same bad agency and don't even know it.
Hmm, that was not the case in Swordfish, the last major movie I remember that featured uber-geeks. That was definitively some sort of a "movie" *nix that was shown. Of course, let's not even go into all the other horribly stupid problems that movie had.
And continue this line of thought, next year, 2003, we're set to get a brand new season of that show we love best, War. The villain in this series of episodes will be Iraq. Not that I would question my government - that would be unpatriotic, and that kind of speech is not allowed.
I think like many other laws, they start out assuming innocent until proven guilty, which is what this excerpt says to me, and now are more and more turning into guilty until proven innocent. The great reasoning here is that the accuser (Disney) can't prove the clear and convincing evidence unless the accused, SonicBlue, cooperates.
If only the rest of the justice system worked that way. The police, when not able to produce evidence that someone is engaging in illegal activity, would require individuals to wear tracking devices to prove that they're not doing anything bad.
I think this is exactly what's going on in this case, except the accuser will be able to get away with it.
Of course the bad side of this is that if it collapses, you've just lost 1) The bridge 2) People who were most familiar with the project, and could fix it 3) The heavy loaded trucks that could've been used for something else
But I guess the idea was to have this be scary enough so that it would never happen. Ever actually hear of a bridge failing this type of test?
I don't understand how you can say you're in the POS business and have never heard of this. They do not call them kiosks in the article, they specifically say:
Symbol makes hardware used by IBM in its wireless point-of-sale terminals.
Now I do understand your point that it may be cheaper to do physical wire, but that doesn't seem to be preventing the many customers that they mention in the article, including Best Buy from purchasing and using this wireless POS technology.
Very interesting, thanks. I wonder why his credit card number was not in the stream though, while others were, when he specifically made a transaction just to check it out? Perhaps some registers dial the line to verify the cc directly, while others beam it to another terminal equipped with a phone line?
Absolutely. The manufacturer states in the article that their equipment includes security, but whether the stores use it is up to them. Well, that sounds a lot like Microsoft's IIS - oh, it can be secure, they say, you just have to know how to do it.
Wrong, wrong, what a wrong approach. This company should've turned encryption on by default. Then, if the stores choose to turn it off for some crazy reason, that's up to them. Meanwhile, if my cc number was to be stolen using this method, I think I could easily hold the manufacturer and the installer of these wireless registers responsible as well as the store.
I understand your point, but I think you're wrong overall. Most gamers have this nostalgia that you're describing, which is why there are so many emulation sites, and why so many people love them. However, it's impossible not to expect games to make progress, and to become more complex along the way.
Maybe it's an exaggerated example, but do you really want Pong on your latest and greatest console? Of course not, you want it to take full advantage of the hardware, and not be the same old thing. While the games that you're talking about were indeed great, and probably easier to learn, their time is now unfortunately past. 3D is basically a requirement these days, and online capability will be as well in the next few years. Both of those things mean more complicated controls, and more time to master. But ultimately, the great games will always be worth their learning curves.
You also can't just say that before games were all about quality and now it's more quantity. There were plenty of crap titles that were released in the past for all consoles, you just don't remember them b/c you only remember the great stuff. Similarly, it's easy to say now that all you see if a ton of crap when you look around, but a few years from now, we won't remember most of those titles.
Plus it's not like most PS2 games are designed to take advantage of 4 players, like Xbox's are. Which is too bad, b/c all the PS2 ports are only for 2 players, while original Xbox games that have multiplayer can thankfully support more. So cost is not the only factor.
That's an excellent point, one good accurate review can justify a whole year's subscription. In fact, this just happened to me last week with GameSpot. I was thinking of getting Burnout, but after watching their video review, I decided that I'd get as annoyed by the repeating crashes as they did. Now I'll probably just rent it instead.
Ironically, I was just thinking a few days ago that with IGN going to subscription model, I was surprised GameSpot hasn't done it yet, as their reviews are generally better. Plus the video reviews really allow you to see specifically what the reviewer is talking about, and I think makes their site look at lot more professional. I'm not sure if I'm going to subscribe yet, but I'm definitely thinking about it.
I don't know how you came around to characterizing my original post as "hysterical", but whatever. I wasn't originally planning on buying a memory card, but ended up doing so eventually, but it wasn't required. As for DVD playback, I ended up investing in that the same day as the console, in order to have another DVD player. All my post was saying is that given the base $300 cost, both Sony and MS made certain choices as to what include and not include in the system. MS included features that make games easier to save, while PS2 included movie playback, which led to many people in Japan buying the console for the sole purpose of playing movies (if anyone remembers the PS2 launch), and none of those people made a dime for Sony. I'll stand by my statement.
Xbox is the same except that its bigger, heavier, uglier, and makes you pay extra $$$ for DVD playback.
People just love repeating the statement about Xbox costing extra. Just once more, let's go over this.
What's the primary purpose of a game console? To play games.
What's the usual thing to do when one plays a game? Save your progress.
Which system comes built-in with next to unlimited storage for saved games (hard drive)? Xbox
Which system requires you to buy a memory card (bringing it to the same price as Xbox with DVD playback)? PS2
So, did MS make the right choice in including storage instead of DVD playback with the system? I guess that depends if you see the primary function of your game console as a DVD unit or a game station. I think you can tell by this post where I stand.
Well put, but of course everyone does forget this. Now that it's much much later, and a few killer games have come out for PS2, every PS2 owner forgot the initial problems, which is of course natural. The Xbox had a great launch line-up, and will continue to get better games. Meanwhile, as you point out, most of those PS2 launch titles are now in obscurity (well with the possible exception of Ridge Racer). I'm a fan, but I was honestly getting a little worried reading all these doom predictions, so I was glad to come across your optimism. I have meant to buy Rallisport Challenge, and definitely will when I beat JSRF, which is an absolutely incredible game.
Very interesting and detailed look at the game by game dominance on each platform. I think I have a much clearer picture now of how PS2 is winning the game in each respective category. I think one of the interesting points in there that has not been mentioned above is how the PS2 ports may revive interest in the PS2 versions of the games themselves, as mentioned in the case of James Bond : AUF and SpyHunter.
Broadband support from Xbox: None, and details are unknown (expect something at E3, but the broadband support is suppose be rolled out June 2002.
Broadband support from Sony: Ethernet/Modem kit that allows you to specify how to connect, Linux kit that lets you do just about anything you want (rip/play MP3's, connect to the Internet), Upcoming AOL support (Yes, AOL sucks, but that's still a damn lot of people)
Advantage: Playstation 2
Router hack? No online support? Sounds like sound research - from the Playstation Official Magazine that is. Xbox has hard drive and broadband _built-in_ and every single owner can play online already if they choose with GameSpy Arcade, which is not a hack but just a tunneling app. Playstation will require expensive add-on accessories that most users will choose not to buy, as historically add-ons are never bought by more than 5% of any console userbase.
So, Xbox owners can already play Halo, Tony Hawk 2x and 3 online. Most of the games after the official online launch will have online capability, once again available to all owners. Star Wars Galaxies, one of the games that you've mentioned is already signed on to come out on Xbox as well, and should be huge. Please don't mask a biased opinion as an objective review covering all aspects.
There are other ways to generate market interest besides price drops. While that is the option most consumers tend to support first, because it benefits us, I do not think it's likely that MS will do this. It's too early, as you said, after the launch, and a price drop would not address the more serious issues that MS might be facing. I know that they're handling the controller issue by releasing the smaller "S" controller in the NA market soon. As for the public acceptance, and game library size issues, I think those will tend to diminish if the console remains on the market through the next Christmas season.
Slashdot Mirror
I just couldn't justify getting off work to see it, but I did have my tickets for yesterday (Friday night) secured online a week in advance, and very glad I did. Although the AMC where we saw it was not digital-equipped, the picture looked clear and fine, so I'm not sure what purists and Roger Ebert complained about. I'm still definitely planning to see it in our digital-equipped Showcase theater later, but I'm not expecting to notice that much of a difference. I think film projection can present this film perfectly in a nice theater with a well-tuned bright projector.
The good news for me is that I was really afraid I would hate it. Like most, I was disappointed by EP1, and heard that although this one was better, it wasn't much so. I would have to respectfully disagree with those opinions. This movie blows EP1 away, and although I have to see it again before figuring out where it stands in the rankings of the whole series, I'm definitely seeing it again. I'm pretty sure that having Jar-Jar on the screen for probably less than a minute total was significantly better than a movie full of Ewoks.
The battle scenes are outstanding, and I have no idea why some people said that only the last half an hour of the movie is "redeeming." I don't want to give anything away, but there are plenty of action scenes throughout the movie, starting out very early. Sure there is dialog and exposition interspersed throughout, but it's all very well done. For those of you who, like me, didn't like EP1 and had reservations about seeing it this weekend, I strongly recommend you check it out. Don't wait for video, or necessarily to see it in digital - it's a beautiful exciting movie that definitely needs to be seen on the big screen. Lucas has redeemed himself a little in my eyes, and I can't wait to see how EP3 will turn out now.
Not to be stereotypical, but I don't think the hiring managers of the type of places where he is applying are huge Slashdot followers. On the other hand, perhaps he's hoping that many techie hiring persons are indeed such followers, and perhaps is using this "Ask Slashdot" as a great way to post his resume. In which case, more power to him, a man's gotta work :)
I have to agree. Just earlier today at an online Microsoft seminar, the presenter mentioned that the original version of the IIS Lockdown tool completely broke Exchange Server. To paraphrase him to the best of my abilities, "pretty interface, no email." To be fair, he demonstrated the newest version of the tool, which is supposed to do an outstanding job of locking down IIS, and that problem now has been completely eliminated.
I can feel the karma burn coming on, but I don't care. While I have dutifully read through all the posts, no one seems to have truly pointed out why MS and EA would be in disagreement on this issue. No, it's not "obvious" that MS is just doing this to plug Hailstorm and My Services - I think MS got a pretty clear message that companies are not interested in storing their private data on MS's servers given their track record on security.
However, for anyone that has followed MS's Xbox online vision, the reason why they want everyone on the same servers is clear. One of the biggest selling points of the service (since getting ahead in a highly competitive field like games is all about differentiation) is that users will be able to switch between games on the fly if they already own those games. So I'm playing Halo, someone on my buddy list signs on and wants to play Tony Hawk, and I can get notified of it while playing Halo.
While I can see that scheme happening with servers being hosted by different companies simply by using a common protocol of some sort, I would think that this would be very difficult to implement when you're talking about many vendors and many hosting facilities. I think MS wants to really control the positive user experience on the Xbox and they know that if EA's servers suck, people (including most of us on here) are going to blame MS, not the actual game vendor.
A secondary reason is combined billing. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority, but I've never paid for an online game, I think it's a waste of money. If I already paid $50 for a game, I don't want to pay $10 each month to keep playing it. Diablo, etc. which were playable online for free were always a much better choice for me. Yet I'm considering Xbox Live (online service) when it gets started. Why? B/c I think this sounds like a better deal, where I'm going to be able to pay a flat fee for multiple games that I can play online, instead of $10/month to this company, $15 to another, and so on. Now sure that means that my billing information belongs to one place, MS, and that will potentially worry me. But I think I'd rather have one company to worry about, once again, than 5 different ones all having my credit card number. But that's just me.
EA might not be happy with that idea, and wants to get its own monthly fee, but of course publicly they're going to say that they're just out to protect their customer's data. In reality, it's just business I think, let's not jus take sides automatically.
Although funny, was it really necessary to do the 555 exchange? I mean, it's not like anyone would even get to dial the rest of that :)
I read over your post a few times, but why would this "get Windows users over to the Linux camp" when the promotion does not apply to Windows users, and only those of other Linux distros? You mention that you see this as a good idea, but don't really explain why.
What kind of pressure can MS possibly exert if RH were to extend the rebate to Win OS users as well? MS can influence plenty of partners/customers, such as content providers, OEMs, and schools (not anti-MS necessarily, just saying that they do have a great deal of influence), but what can they do to a Linux company?
IANAL, but I can offer upgrades from anything I want for a product - in fact MS has frequently offered discounts for competitive upgrades. Eg from Notes to Exchange, or WordPerfect Suite to Office.
So I think the real reason for this move is clearly to win over current Linux users, not those of Windows. And as someone pointed out, this will hardly grow the market overall, but perhaps might do something for RH's revenue.
I know that's probably not what the person asking the question wants, but how about just contacting this X Solutions headhunting agency and trying to work things out with them? I mean, if the job looks promising, and the employer simply wants to avoid getting sued by this agency, contacting the headhunter may resolve the issue.
..) come into the company through the headhunting firm. I know that's a bad solution because they had no right to represent you in the first place, but if the company is willing to pay their fee, and still wants to hire you, things would work out. The anger over getting used would go away in a little bit, but the good job would hopefully stay.
Either just threaten the headhunting firm a little, and have them call the employer or promise not to sue (or sign something), or worse (and I'm sure you don't want this but
I'm surprised he didn't mention the firm by name in the letter. Writing anonymously would protect the submitter of the question, but now all of us looking for work in the future may wonder if we're dealing with the same bad agency and don't even know it.
Hmm, that was not the case in Swordfish, the last major movie I remember that featured uber-geeks. That was definitively some sort of a "movie" *nix that was shown. Of course, let's not even go into all the other horribly stupid problems that movie had.
And continue this line of thought, next year, 2003, we're set to get a brand new season of that show we love best, War. The villain in this series of episodes will be Iraq. Not that I would question my government - that would be unpatriotic, and that kind of speech is not allowed.
I think like many other laws, they start out assuming innocent until proven guilty, which is what this excerpt says to me, and now are more and more turning into guilty until proven innocent. The great reasoning here is that the accuser (Disney) can't prove the clear and convincing evidence unless the accused, SonicBlue, cooperates.
If only the rest of the justice system worked that way. The police, when not able to produce evidence that someone is engaging in illegal activity, would require individuals to wear tracking devices to prove that they're not doing anything bad.
I think this is exactly what's going on in this case, except the accuser will be able to get away with it.
Yikes. I'd call in sick that day.
Of course the bad side of this is that if it collapses, you've just lost
1) The bridge
2) People who were most familiar with the project, and could fix it
3) The heavy loaded trucks that could've been used for something else
But I guess the idea was to have this be scary enough so that it would never happen. Ever actually hear of a bridge failing this type of test?
I don't understand how you can say you're in the POS business and have never heard of this. They do not call them kiosks in the article, they specifically say:
Symbol makes hardware used by IBM in its wireless point-of-sale terminals.
Now I do understand your point that it may be cheaper to do physical wire, but that doesn't seem to be preventing the many customers that they mention in the article, including Best Buy from purchasing and using this wireless POS technology.
You can do that with a finger. It's just a tad more painful :)
But I know what you mean, you don't want your identity to be something you can't really cancel, which is a good point.
Very interesting, thanks. I wonder why his credit card number was not in the stream though, while others were, when he specifically made a transaction just to check it out? Perhaps some registers dial the line to verify the cc directly, while others beam it to another terminal equipped with a phone line?
Absolutely. The manufacturer states in the article that their equipment includes security, but whether the stores use it is up to them. Well, that sounds a lot like Microsoft's IIS - oh, it can be secure, they say, you just have to know how to do it.
Wrong, wrong, what a wrong approach. This company should've turned encryption on by default. Then, if the stores choose to turn it off for some crazy reason, that's up to them. Meanwhile, if my cc number was to be stolen using this method, I think I could easily hold the manufacturer and the installer of these wireless registers responsible as well as the store.
I understand your point, but I think you're wrong overall. Most gamers have this nostalgia that you're describing, which is why there are so many emulation sites, and why so many people love them. However, it's impossible not to expect games to make progress, and to become more complex along the way.
Maybe it's an exaggerated example, but do you really want Pong on your latest and greatest console? Of course not, you want it to take full advantage of the hardware, and not be the same old thing. While the games that you're talking about were indeed great, and probably easier to learn, their time is now unfortunately past. 3D is basically a requirement these days, and online capability will be as well in the next few years. Both of those things mean more complicated controls, and more time to master. But ultimately, the great games will always be worth their learning curves.
You also can't just say that before games were all about quality and now it's more quantity. There were plenty of crap titles that were released in the past for all consoles, you just don't remember them b/c you only remember the great stuff. Similarly, it's easy to say now that all you see if a ton of crap when you look around, but a few years from now, we won't remember most of those titles.
Plus it's not like most PS2 games are designed to take advantage of 4 players, like Xbox's are. Which is too bad, b/c all the PS2 ports are only for 2 players, while original Xbox games that have multiplayer can thankfully support more. So cost is not the only factor.
That's an excellent point, one good accurate review can justify a whole year's subscription. In fact, this just happened to me last week with GameSpot. I was thinking of getting Burnout, but after watching their video review, I decided that I'd get as annoyed by the repeating crashes as they did. Now I'll probably just rent it instead.
Ironically, I was just thinking a few days ago that with IGN going to subscription model, I was surprised GameSpot hasn't done it yet, as their reviews are generally better. Plus the video reviews really allow you to see specifically what the reviewer is talking about, and I think makes their site look at lot more professional. I'm not sure if I'm going to subscribe yet, but I'm definitely thinking about it.
I don't know how you came around to characterizing my original post as "hysterical", but whatever. I wasn't originally planning on buying a memory card, but ended up doing so eventually, but it wasn't required. As for DVD playback, I ended up investing in that the same day as the console, in order to have another DVD player. All my post was saying is that given the base $300 cost, both Sony and MS made certain choices as to what include and not include in the system. MS included features that make games easier to save, while PS2 included movie playback, which led to many people in Japan buying the console for the sole purpose of playing movies (if anyone remembers the PS2 launch), and none of those people made a dime for Sony. I'll stand by my statement.
Xbox is the same except that its bigger, heavier, uglier, and makes you pay extra $$$ for DVD playback.
People just love repeating the statement about Xbox costing extra. Just once more, let's go over this.
What's the primary purpose of a game console? To play games.
What's the usual thing to do when one plays a game? Save your progress.
Which system comes built-in with next to unlimited storage for saved games (hard drive)? Xbox
Which system requires you to buy a memory card (bringing it to the same price as Xbox with DVD playback)? PS2
So, did MS make the right choice in including storage instead of DVD playback with the system? I guess that depends if you see the primary function of your game console as a DVD unit or a game station. I think you can tell by this post where I stand.
Well put, but of course everyone does forget this. Now that it's much much later, and a few killer games have come out for PS2, every PS2 owner forgot the initial problems, which is of course natural. The Xbox had a great launch line-up, and will continue to get better games. Meanwhile, as you point out, most of those PS2 launch titles are now in obscurity (well with the possible exception of Ridge Racer). I'm a fan, but I was honestly getting a little worried reading all these doom predictions, so I was glad to come across your optimism. I have meant to buy Rallisport Challenge, and definitely will when I beat JSRF, which is an absolutely incredible game.
Very interesting and detailed look at the game by game dominance on each platform. I think I have a much clearer picture now of how PS2 is winning the game in each respective category. I think one of the interesting points in there that has not been mentioned above is how the PS2 ports may revive interest in the PS2 versions of the games themselves, as mentioned in the case of James Bond : AUF and SpyHunter.
Broadband support from Xbox:
None, and details are unknown (expect something at E3, but the broadband support is suppose be rolled out June 2002.
Broadband support from Sony:
Ethernet/Modem kit that allows you to specify how to connect, Linux kit that lets you do just about anything you want (rip/play MP3's, connect to the Internet), Upcoming AOL support (Yes, AOL sucks, but that's still a damn lot of people)
Advantage: Playstation 2
Router hack? No online support? Sounds like sound research - from the Playstation Official Magazine that is. Xbox has hard drive and broadband _built-in_ and every single owner can play online already if they choose with GameSpy Arcade, which is not a hack but just a tunneling app. Playstation will require expensive add-on accessories that most users will choose not to buy, as historically add-ons are never bought by more than 5% of any console userbase.
So, Xbox owners can already play Halo, Tony Hawk 2x and 3 online. Most of the games after the official online launch will have online capability, once again available to all owners. Star Wars Galaxies, one of the games that you've mentioned is already signed on to come out on Xbox as well, and should be huge. Please don't mask a biased opinion as an objective review covering all aspects.
There are other ways to generate market interest besides price drops. While that is the option most consumers tend to support first, because it benefits us, I do not think it's likely that MS will do this. It's too early, as you said, after the launch, and a price drop would not address the more serious issues that MS might be facing. I know that they're handling the controller issue by releasing the smaller "S" controller in the NA market soon. As for the public acceptance, and game library size issues, I think those will tend to diminish if the console remains on the market through the next Christmas season.