That's an unfair comparison. A fair comparison would be to compare the DVD that has been released with what's available on iTunes.
What you have is more than likely a torrent of a HD rip. That, by its nature, will be superior to DVD because HD broadcasts have higher resolution. Because of file size, I don't see HD downloads being commonplace for a few years, and not de rigueur for 5-7 years, if not more. Yes, Comcast in the US has HD on-demand but the selection is paltry and limited and the quality is questionable (since it depends on available bandwidth).
Now, on to pricing...
The problem is that $9.99 per movie, across the board, is a terrible idea. When was the last time Steve Jobs shopped for a DVD? At the very low-end (not counting public domain titles), we have Wal-Mart sales for movies for under $4 each. And these are for movies which are well-known and popular and put out by the big studios. At the other end, we have publishers/distributors that sell single movies for $20-$50 regularly. (Terry Gilliam's Brazil for example, is a big box set for $59.95).
Movie prices, especially since the advent of the DVD, have been dropping steadily. For bigger movies now (say, Munich, Chronicles of Narnia, King Kong, Walk the Line), you have at least two different products on release day: one for the budget minded (MSRP $20-30), one for the collectors (MSRP $30-$40) -- some markets, especially Japan, get insanely expensive editions in the $100+ range. The less expensive version gradually keeps dropping in price, with many movies ending with a final price of $7-$15, when they were $20 or more before. (For a recent example, see The Constant Gardener). These aren't sales --- the studio is dropping the actual price.
You generally don't see that with albums. Not only is most music from $10 to $16 new, but you don't see it drop in price as time passes. Amazon has Hotel Rwanda (the movie) for $7.88, but the soundtrack is still $14.98. A year ago the movie was more expensive than the soundtrack, whose price has not dropped.
I'd say the studios have the pricing thing a bit more figured out than Apple. Now it's just a matter of time to see if Steve will use his Disney ownership to pull some weight in re: their movies. I frankly don't see Disney EVER selling every animated movie of theirs for $9.99.
The MSRP of the Toshiba HD-A1 is actually only $499.99. So it's about half the price for a player that delivers similar results. The only difference right now is the software.
"Movie attendance has been suffering, DVD sales are slumping..."
I thought movie attendance had actually picked up this year over last. Maybe not a huge increase, but it's not "suffering" --- and DVD sales are not slumping. Their rate of increase has been slowing down, but that's a measure of acceleration, not speed or distance.
Pokémon Red Pokémon Blue Pokémon Green Pokémon Yellow Pokémon Gold Pokémon Silver Pokémon Crystal Pokémon Ruby Pokémon Sapphire Pokémon Emerald Pokémon FireRed Pokémon LeafGreen Pokémon Colosseum Pokémon XD Pokémon Ranger Pokémon Pinball Pokémon Pinball: Ruby and Sapphire Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Pokémon Trozei Pokémon Stadium Pokémon Stadium 2 Pokémon Snap Pokémon Dash
Mind you, this isn't over the entire history of the company. This is the last ten years. In the US, it's a Pokémon game, on average, every four months. And side from the occasional pinball or racing game, the games were popular not for new game mechanics but for new Pokémon (or as I call it, "new episodic content").
And no in-game advertising? The entire game is advertising... for itself! The pile of money made from the sales of Pokémon cards, carrying cases, movies, books, toys is enough to suffocate anyone.
Now... I'm actually a big Nintendo fan. A HUGE one. I even liked Pokémon to an extent (Pokémon Stadium 2 has great party games). But I have to call out someone on their BS, even if it's a Nintendo exec.
"A lot of the other video game movies that have come out before this haven't had the budgets..."
(Note: All numbers adjusted for inflation).
Ahh, yes, lack of money. Let's look at some video game movie budgets. Resident Evil: Apocalypse was $44MM. The recent Silent Hill was $50MM. The charming Super Mario Bros. was about $57MM. Oh, and we all liked that Doom movie: it cost $70MM. And who could forget Tomb Raider at a whopping $87MM.
Now, I've sat through most of these movies. At no point did I look into the screen and say... "Wow, if they only had more money, this would've been so much better."
I'm not in any way an SNK expert. Most of my love for the system came from having a friend who was very much into it. It's my understanding that the Neo-Geo had nothing to do with the demise of SNK. SNK simply couldn't move beyond the Neo-Geo and carry its audience into a new system. The Neo Geo CD and the Neo Geo CDZ were absolute failures; they were especially crippled by bad hardware design including extremely bad load times. SNK also tried to enter the handheld market - twice. That too failed to generate enough interest to keep the project afloat. Oh, and they also launched the Neo Geo 64, which was a failed arcade system.
Millions of dollars put into R&D and production for these five failed systems and SNK finally was overwhelmed financially. Through it all, the Neo Geo kept them alive. The Neo Geo wasn't a failure; SNK just failed to move beyond it.
Neo-Geo like it's co-"competitor" the SNES, was arguably the console with the longest lifespan. It debuted in 1990 and the last game for it was released in 2004, a full four years after the original company (SNK) had declared bankruptcy. And some of the games that came out late in the system's life, including Metal Slug 3, King of Fighters '98, and Mark of the Wolves are some of the best games in their respective genres. Neo-Geo also had two main two systems: the AES (the regular Neo-Geo) and the MVS (the arcade system). Both of these were basically the same hardware, and software could run on either. Even if your favorite arcade game never reached the home system, with some soldering you could easily make a home-version of the game from the arcade one.
The price was always prohibitive, sadly. Old AES systems, even today, command a premium and most new games had an MSRP of $200-$300 each, if not more. Specific versions of old carts can go in the four figures.
Thankfully, the Neo-Geo lives on. There's still a very healthy market for it among collectors (see above), emulation of the hardware is almost arcade-perfect, and the most popular series (King of Fighters, Metal Slug) have been appearing as re-issues for more popular systems (Xbox, PS2, etc.).
Out of all the high-priced systems of the past, Neo-Geo was definitely the most popular and lasting, a credit to the game-centric (but ultimately unprofitable) ideology of its creators.
Have you tried Milo? It's an originally Australian chocolate malt fortified drink mix (think Ovaltine/Quik) that is now produced by Nestlé worldwide. In North America, try looking for it in Hispanic or East Asian markets, or in those sections of your local supermarket or Wal-Mart.
It tastes a lot better than almost any chocolate milk I've ever had. As a bonus, the mix is so coarse that granules will often float on the top of your glass of milk, making the experience sort of like eating a wet but still crunchy chocolate cookie.
Now, chocolate milk is pretty sugary. Not so Milo. Let's compare a 12 oz. glass of Milo (organic milk with two tablespoons of the mix) with a 12 oz. of your average soda (I'll use Vanilla Coke as a reference).
Your 12 oz. glass of milk with Milo has:
Less sugar. About 28 grams compared to 42 grams.
More protein. About 15g compared to soda's 0 grams.
Vitamins and minerals. Vitamin A: 30%. Calcium: 55%. Vitamin D: 60%. Niacin: 30%. Phosphorous: 50%. Iron: 15%. Thiamin: 25%. Vitamin B6: 15% as well as some small amounts of Magnesium, B12, etc.
More fat. Milo has about 2.5g of fat, 1.5g of which is saturated fat (no trans).
More calories. About 60 more.
If you are to believe Wikipedia, Milo also has a low GI (about 35), so the energy it delivers is not spiked but rather continuous for a longer period of time.
Swith to water every other drink and add something like this as a replacement. I can tell you that I (and my body) craves Milo much more than any soda. If you need caffeine, adding a bit of black coffee to it does not damage its taste.
I've used this to succesfully wean myself off soda but when I do want some, I rely on the very small (8 oz.) cans that you get if you're on an airplane. I use a tall but thin glass, fill it with ice, and I get two "glasses" out of it. It feels like I've had two big sodas, but I really haven't.
Looking on Google for 'UMD sales', the first results paint a rosy picture: "Sales strong" proclaims one headline, "UMD sales take off" says another. But all those articles are from mid-2005.
If you take that same search term to Google news, you see words like "bleak" and "future unclear" being used.
If you ask me, the PSP launched a bit too early. UMDs, ideally, should've been 8cm mini Blu-Ray discs. Play them on a regular Blu-Ray player, and you get a full-length, complete DVD, as 8cm BRDs hold about the same as a DVD. So, buying the UMD let you watch movies on the go and at home at a standard that's more than OK for most people. If this compatibility moved over to the PS3, then the PSP would be a killer ap. Watch movies at home, play games at home, then take them with you on the go. Sure PSP games would be underpowered compared to a PS3 native game, but that's an advantage that Nintendo does not have (yet).
Now, nothing is preventing Sony from doing this with the PSP2 (if such a thing is planned), so I only hope they finally learn the error of their ways.
Under that logic, Xbox Live will be better than PS3's live services because these people won't be around. And as an occasional Live Halo 2 player, I can tell you that's not the case.
There's only one catch-- MILLIONS of blu-ray readers will already be in the clutches of PS3 owners. They'll get a next generation HD format with the bonus of a next-generation game machine. Stand alone players will cost $600 to $800 at the time the PS3 launches but you won't get a game machine with those. And because this all comes standard on BOTH the low and high end PS3, it's a winner. If this was optional equipment I wouldn't be singing the same tune. HD-DVD will not win the format war because SONY will have blu-ray standard on the PS3. End of story.
Re: The format war.
First off, the low-end PS3 does not have HDMI output. If the studios choose to enable the ICT (on a per-title basis) Blu-Ray movies will NOT be watchable at full HD resolution. At best, you get 720p resolution over component cables. At worst, you get DVD resolution, making your investment into a movie player worthless.
Second, Blu-Ray is an extremely new and extremely untested technology. To compare it to DVD ca. fall 2000 is a fallacy.
A. Timeline. By the time the PS2 came out, DVD players were not $50, but the format had been established for years. You could buy thousands of DVDs. When the PS3 is out, Blu-Ray discs (BRDs) will be out for a few months, and you can buy maybe a 100 titles. Selection will be similar to UMD, and we know how well that does.
B. Incremental benefits. DVD offered clear benefits over VHS.
DVD benefits over the previous format winner (VHS):
Better picture and audio quality without the need of expensive equipment upgrade.
More convenience than the previous tape-based format: chapter skipping, etc.
Extra features beyond just the basic film on most titles.
Easier storage of packaging for consumers and retailers.
Considerably cheaper pricing for new releases (remember, VHS had the rental window).
How many of those benefits are delivered by BRD and HD-DVD? Zero. Read through that list again. If anything, BRD/HD-DVD will introduce higher pricing for new releases ($5-$10 more on average) and have more DRM.
To suggest that people are buying PS3s as replacements for Blu-Ray players is nothing short of insane. For years, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be fringe technology enjoyed by the same people who have D-VHS tapes, SACD players, Kaleidescapes, laserdiscs, and 7.1 surround systems today. Consider that the top selling movies on HD-DVD barely crack the top 600 DVDs sold for the day. This will continue once BRD players hit the street.
Look at Amazon's page on the BDP-S1, (Sony's flagship BRD player) under "What do customers ultimately buy after viewing items like this?"
- 5% buy the Sony player - 23% buy the HD-DVD player - 63% buy a regular DVD player
That to me says, very strongly... "Oh... movies on HD are here. Wait, I don't care."
You seem to share the same blind optimism that Sony has.
Sony's profits are extremely weak (if at all existent) in the consumer electronics, non-game division. The games division has done extremely well for them recently. But their most profitable operation, if you measure profits over revenue?
Sony Financial Services: i.e. Sony Insurance, etc. Who would've thought.
My Personal Highlight
on
The E3 of 1995
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"Booth 4124 is occupied by Abco Distributors, who bought up a great big chunk of space to advertise their hot new title: Cooking with Dom DeLuise, a 2-disc CD-ROM cooking reference."
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. From excitement.
If anyone can get away for charging a premium on their hardware, it's Sony. When we look at their other consumer lines, it's not so out of place.
Their consumer TVs? Circuit City right now has several 32" conventional TVs to choose from. At the low-end you have a Sylvania for $340. Other brands, like Sharp, Magnavox, Phillips and RCA, command up to $499. The Sony TV? $649.
What about MP3 players? Sony has their bean-shaped Walkman players (1GB) available for $120-$160 depending on features. Compare that to an iPod shuffle for $100 or an iPod Nano for $140.
Sony has, through a combination of marketing and engineering, managed to convince a lot of people that their products are of a certain quality and demand a premium. It doesn't mean their worth the extra price, it just means people are convinced (In the same way that Mercedes-Benz, Starbucks, Bose, and Banana Republic customers are convinced).
Outside of consoles, paying 50% to 200% more for something with Sony in the title is commonplace. So I can see how they can continue to expect that. Whether consumers will follow suit is another story completely. I'm thoroughly convinced that if the PS3 launched at $899 with LuminesBlu and Ridge Racer 7, they would sell out of their initial 3 million in shipments. Whether they reach 100 million in shipments again is an entirely different matter.
I'm not going to bash any of the designs. I think they're all very clean and clear. But I can bet that Taco picked them because they were basically Slashdot with some slight drop-shadows and some fades here and there. So, overall, they're kind of bland. Like your Grandma tells you she wants suggestions for new candy in her dried, crusty candy bowl and instead of getting something you like she gets the same thing, only wrapped so it doesn't dry as quickly.
Disclaimer: I design.
As such, I know it's not that these guys have no creativity. I am putting the blame on the client. Taco asked for little more than a fresh coat of paint on the site, and that's what he got. It would be nice if he was less constrictive and opened himself up to other ideas besides something that automatically constricted the contestants to have results almost exactly like the site you're looking at right now.
I also can't fault people for choosing the design simply because it's what a lot of other sites look like nowadays. But in a couple of years, when the whole "Web 2.0 Soft Gradients" thing loses its sheen, the site is going to look dated yet again.
I do think the finalists all have a strong, clear foundation on spacing and placement so the designs aren't bad. They're just not enough of a change.
(Take my criticism with a grain of salt as I haven't submitted anything).
I consider myself extremely well-versed in games (compared to a regular person, not a gamer), and I have no fucking clue why I need to buy Spore. I know it's like Civ, but you start out as an amoeba and work up to being a space traveling species. All the videos I "need" to see are 10 minutes longer or more.
If the game is so complex it needs to be sold to me over the course of an infomercial, that's going to be a hard sell. If anyone can point me to a concise, 5-minute video which gets me excited over this game, then I'd love to see it.
And here you're right. The first-generation Blue-Ray players are rumored to go on sale for $999. This makes the PS3 a very valuable option compared to a stand-alone player, with the exception that the PS3 is not going to have the same performance when playing Blu-Ray discs that a stand-alone player has. Witness, for example, the horrid DVD performance (in a home theatre setting) that the PS2 has.
So, a BR player that also happens to be a PlayStation for $599 is a fantastic option if you're not extremely particular about your playback. The problem is, if you're seriously considering buying a next-gen disc player you're on the bleeding edge and probably want something very good, not something merely adequate. After all, when the differences between DVD and HD-DVD/BR are so hard for an average person to notice, you want every advantage you can get.
DVDs were different, as they were a major quality upgrade over the default VHS format and they were a major convenience upgrade as well, plus, besides a player, you didn't need any specific hardware to be able to tell the difference.
In the past 30 years, the big breakthroughs in music and movie media for consumers were VHS, CD (CD-R), DVD, and MP3/AAC/etc. At most, two of those were a technically superior format. The thing that tied all of them together was convenience.
I really do want one of the new formats to win and do well because it will make high-def content more accessible to everyone. I just don't see a clear road to victory for the format so I downplay the importance of the disc player.
A while back there was a similar question posed in a gaming forum; rather, the question was "What bothers you most in a game?" and the answer was AI related. One of the main gripes in gaming period was bad AI on NPCs you need to protect. For example, in the military shooter, you need to escort one of the generals to safety. Or in the RPG, you need to escort the squire back to the castle. This was the most frustrating for a great number of people.
I would like to see more interaction with NPCs, especially in RPGs. I'm particularly miffed when playing (for example, Oblivion), and I can't simply ask someone to come over here, or stay put. Sure, if you're a complete stranger the NPC will probably ignore you, and that's fine, because it's realistic. But if you're well-known (for better or for worse) and you break into someone's house at 2AM and you're carrying a bloodied sword and your chainmail has some neural matter on it, I think the NPC may want to pay attention to what you have to say. In this way, more choices make the experience a bit better.
But there's a caveat. There's always a caveat. I've never much enjoyed playing the Tom Clancy games because they relied so much on co-combatant AI and the AI wasn't very good. On top of that, because many times you had to make decisions in the heat of battle, it was frustrating to have to pull up a submenu of eight different commands to give to your team. (At least this is how I remember it). Well, in GR:AW, you're limited to a matrix of four options: make your team aggressive or passive, move/attack or stop moving/attacking. The AI, in general, will figure out the rest, knowing if they need to be quiet or bust down a door, which targets to take out first, etc. In this way, a simpler control kept all your choices open and made your experience better. But that was only because the AI was pretty good.
I'd also ask the NSA, who is sponsoring this competition, to see how many American coders and mathematicians they have on their payroll. I tried to ask but they blackbagged me and I woke up in the middle of a junkyard in Guatemala, so I know better now than to ask questions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's on Comedy Central, which is pay cable, and not free. Thankfully, it's coming out on DVDs so I will catch it when it comes out then.
Yes, but how many football fields can a Volkswagen travel on that energy?
(Assume it is dragging the Library of Congress).
That's an unfair comparison. A fair comparison would be to compare the DVD that has been released with what's available on iTunes.
What you have is more than likely a torrent of a HD rip. That, by its nature, will be superior to DVD because HD broadcasts have higher resolution. Because of file size, I don't see HD downloads being commonplace for a few years, and not de rigueur for 5-7 years, if not more. Yes, Comcast in the US has HD on-demand but the selection is paltry and limited and the quality is questionable (since it depends on available bandwidth).
Now, on to pricing...
The problem is that $9.99 per movie, across the board, is a terrible idea. When was the last time Steve Jobs shopped for a DVD? At the very low-end (not counting public domain titles), we have Wal-Mart sales for movies for under $4 each. And these are for movies which are well-known and popular and put out by the big studios. At the other end, we have publishers/distributors that sell single movies for $20-$50 regularly. (Terry Gilliam's Brazil for example, is a big box set for $59.95).
Movie prices, especially since the advent of the DVD, have been dropping steadily. For bigger movies now (say, Munich, Chronicles of Narnia, King Kong, Walk the Line), you have at least two different products on release day: one for the budget minded (MSRP $20-30), one for the collectors (MSRP $30-$40) -- some markets, especially Japan, get insanely expensive editions in the $100+ range. The less expensive version gradually keeps dropping in price, with many movies ending with a final price of $7-$15, when they were $20 or more before. (For a recent example, see The Constant Gardener). These aren't sales --- the studio is dropping the actual price.
You generally don't see that with albums. Not only is most music from $10 to $16 new, but you don't see it drop in price as time passes. Amazon has Hotel Rwanda (the movie) for $7.88, but the soundtrack is still $14.98. A year ago the movie was more expensive than the soundtrack, whose price has not dropped.
I'd say the studios have the pricing thing a bit more figured out than Apple. Now it's just a matter of time to see if Steve will use his Disney ownership to pull some weight in re: their movies. I frankly don't see Disney EVER selling every animated movie of theirs for $9.99.
That's not funny, that's incredible. Knowing Slashdot, I expected to see this article anywhere between next Wednesday to October 2007.
The MSRP of the Toshiba HD-A1 is actually only $499.99. So it's about half the price for a player that delivers similar results. The only difference right now is the software.
"Movie attendance has been suffering, DVD sales are slumping..."
I thought movie attendance had actually picked up this year over last. Maybe not a huge increase, but it's not "suffering" --- and DVD sales are not slumping. Their rate of increase has been slowing down, but that's a measure of acceleration, not speed or distance.
I have a couple of words for Nintendo:
Pokémon Red
Pokémon Blue
Pokémon Green
Pokémon Yellow
Pokémon Gold
Pokémon Silver
Pokémon Crystal
Pokémon Ruby
Pokémon Sapphire
Pokémon Emerald
Pokémon FireRed
Pokémon LeafGreen
Pokémon Colosseum
Pokémon XD
Pokémon Ranger
Pokémon Pinball
Pokémon Pinball: Ruby and Sapphire
Pokémon Diamond and Pearl
Pokémon Trozei
Pokémon Stadium
Pokémon Stadium 2
Pokémon Snap
Pokémon Dash
Mind you, this isn't over the entire history of the company. This is the last ten years. In the US, it's a Pokémon game, on average, every four months. And side from the occasional pinball or racing game, the games were popular not for new game mechanics but for new Pokémon (or as I call it, "new episodic content").
And no in-game advertising? The entire game is advertising... for itself! The pile of money made from the sales of Pokémon cards, carrying cases, movies, books, toys is enough to suffocate anyone.
Now... I'm actually a big Nintendo fan. A HUGE one. I even liked Pokémon to an extent (Pokémon Stadium 2 has great party games). But I have to call out someone on their BS, even if it's a Nintendo exec.
(Note: All numbers adjusted for inflation).
Ahh, yes, lack of money. Let's look at some video game movie budgets. Resident Evil: Apocalypse was $44MM. The recent Silent Hill was $50MM. The charming Super Mario Bros. was about $57MM. Oh, and we all liked that Doom movie: it cost $70MM. And who could forget Tomb Raider at a whopping $87MM.
Now, I've sat through most of these movies. At no point did I look into the screen and say... "Wow, if they only had more money, this would've been so much better."
I'm not in any way an SNK expert. Most of my love for the system came from having a friend who was very much into it. It's my understanding that the Neo-Geo had nothing to do with the demise of SNK. SNK simply couldn't move beyond the Neo-Geo and carry its audience into a new system. The Neo Geo CD and the Neo Geo CDZ were absolute failures; they were especially crippled by bad hardware design including extremely bad load times. SNK also tried to enter the handheld market - twice. That too failed to generate enough interest to keep the project afloat. Oh, and they also launched the Neo Geo 64, which was a failed arcade system.
Millions of dollars put into R&D and production for these five failed systems and SNK finally was overwhelmed financially. Through it all, the Neo Geo kept them alive. The Neo Geo wasn't a failure; SNK just failed to move beyond it.
A bit of a defense for the Neo-Geo...
Neo-Geo like it's co-"competitor" the SNES, was arguably the console with the longest lifespan. It debuted in 1990 and the last game for it was released in 2004, a full four years after the original company (SNK) had declared bankruptcy. And some of the games that came out late in the system's life, including Metal Slug 3, King of Fighters '98, and Mark of the Wolves are some of the best games in their respective genres. Neo-Geo also had two main two systems: the AES (the regular Neo-Geo) and the MVS (the arcade system). Both of these were basically the same hardware, and software could run on either. Even if your favorite arcade game never reached the home system, with some soldering you could easily make a home-version of the game from the arcade one.
The price was always prohibitive, sadly. Old AES systems, even today, command a premium and most new games had an MSRP of $200-$300 each, if not more. Specific versions of old carts can go in the four figures.
Thankfully, the Neo-Geo lives on. There's still a very healthy market for it among collectors (see above), emulation of the hardware is almost arcade-perfect, and the most popular series (King of Fighters, Metal Slug) have been appearing as re-issues for more popular systems (Xbox, PS2, etc.).
Out of all the high-priced systems of the past, Neo-Geo was definitely the most popular and lasting, a credit to the game-centric (but ultimately unprofitable) ideology of its creators.
It tastes a lot better than almost any chocolate milk I've ever had. As a bonus, the mix is so coarse that granules will often float on the top of your glass of milk, making the experience sort of like eating a wet but still crunchy chocolate cookie.
Now, chocolate milk is pretty sugary. Not so Milo. Let's compare a 12 oz. glass of Milo (organic milk with two tablespoons of the mix) with a 12 oz. of your average soda (I'll use Vanilla Coke as a reference).
Your 12 oz. glass of milk with Milo has:
If you are to believe Wikipedia, Milo also has a low GI (about 35), so the energy it delivers is not spiked but rather continuous for a longer period of time.
Swith to water every other drink and add something like this as a replacement. I can tell you that I (and my body) craves Milo much more than any soda. If you need caffeine, adding a bit of black coffee to it does not damage its taste.
I've used this to succesfully wean myself off soda but when I do want some, I rely on the very small (8 oz.) cans that you get if you're on an airplane. I use a tall but thin glass, fill it with ice, and I get two "glasses" out of it. It feels like I've had two big sodas, but I really haven't.
Looking on Google for 'UMD sales', the first results paint a rosy picture: "Sales strong" proclaims one headline, "UMD sales take off" says another. But all those articles are from mid-2005.
If you take that same search term to Google news, you see words like "bleak" and "future unclear" being used.
If you ask me, the PSP launched a bit too early. UMDs, ideally, should've been 8cm mini Blu-Ray discs. Play them on a regular Blu-Ray player, and you get a full-length, complete DVD, as 8cm BRDs hold about the same as a DVD. So, buying the UMD let you watch movies on the go and at home at a standard that's more than OK for most people. If this compatibility moved over to the PS3, then the PSP would be a killer ap. Watch movies at home, play games at home, then take them with you on the go. Sure PSP games would be underpowered compared to a PS3 native game, but that's an advantage that Nintendo does not have (yet).
Now, nothing is preventing Sony from doing this with the PSP2 (if such a thing is planned), so I only hope they finally learn the error of their ways.
Under that logic, Xbox Live will be better than PS3's live services because these people won't be around. And as an occasional Live Halo 2 player, I can tell you that's not the case.
Re: The format war.
First off, the low-end PS3 does not have HDMI output. If the studios choose to enable the ICT (on a per-title basis) Blu-Ray movies will NOT be watchable at full HD resolution. At best, you get 720p resolution over component cables. At worst, you get DVD resolution, making your investment into a movie player worthless.
Second, Blu-Ray is an extremely new and extremely untested technology. To compare it to DVD ca. fall 2000 is a fallacy.
A. Timeline. By the time the PS2 came out, DVD players were not $50, but the format had been established for years. You could buy thousands of DVDs. When the PS3 is out, Blu-Ray discs (BRDs) will be out for a few months, and you can buy maybe a 100 titles. Selection will be similar to UMD, and we know how well that does.
B. Incremental benefits. DVD offered clear benefits over VHS.
DVD benefits over the previous format winner (VHS):
How many of those benefits are delivered by BRD and HD-DVD? Zero. Read through that list again. If anything, BRD/HD-DVD will introduce higher pricing for new releases ($5-$10 more on average) and have more DRM.
To suggest that people are buying PS3s as replacements for Blu-Ray players is nothing short of insane. For years, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be fringe technology enjoyed by the same people who have D-VHS tapes, SACD players, Kaleidescapes, laserdiscs, and 7.1 surround systems today. Consider that the top selling movies on HD-DVD barely crack the top 600 DVDs sold for the day. This will continue once BRD players hit the street.
Look at Amazon's page on the BDP-S1, (Sony's flagship BRD player) under "What do customers ultimately buy after viewing items like this?"
- 5% buy the Sony player
- 23% buy the HD-DVD player
- 63% buy a regular DVD player
That to me says, very strongly... "Oh... movies on HD are here. Wait, I don't care."
You seem to share the same blind optimism that Sony has.
Sony's profits are extremely weak (if at all existent) in the consumer electronics, non-game division. The games division has done extremely well for them recently. But their most profitable operation, if you measure profits over revenue?
Sony Financial Services: i.e. Sony Insurance, etc. Who would've thought.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. From excitement.
If anyone can get away for charging a premium on their hardware, it's Sony. When we look at their other consumer lines, it's not so out of place.
Their consumer TVs? Circuit City right now has several 32" conventional TVs to choose from. At the low-end you have a Sylvania for $340. Other brands, like Sharp, Magnavox, Phillips and RCA, command up to $499. The Sony TV? $649.
What about MP3 players? Sony has their bean-shaped Walkman players (1GB) available for $120-$160 depending on features. Compare that to an iPod shuffle for $100 or an iPod Nano for $140.
Sony has, through a combination of marketing and engineering, managed to convince a lot of people that their products are of a certain quality and demand a premium. It doesn't mean their worth the extra price, it just means people are convinced (In the same way that Mercedes-Benz, Starbucks, Bose, and Banana Republic customers are convinced).
Outside of consoles, paying 50% to 200% more for something with Sony in the title is commonplace. So I can see how they can continue to expect that. Whether consumers will follow suit is another story completely. I'm thoroughly convinced that if the PS3 launched at $899 with LuminesBlu and Ridge Racer 7, they would sell out of their initial 3 million in shipments. Whether they reach 100 million in shipments again is an entirely different matter.
From the looks of their site, I'm guessing they're running on a Sony server, eh?
I'm not going to bash any of the designs. I think they're all very clean and clear. But I can bet that Taco picked them because they were basically Slashdot with some slight drop-shadows and some fades here and there. So, overall, they're kind of bland. Like your Grandma tells you she wants suggestions for new candy in her dried, crusty candy bowl and instead of getting something you like she gets the same thing, only wrapped so it doesn't dry as quickly.
Disclaimer: I design.
As such, I know it's not that these guys have no creativity. I am putting the blame on the client. Taco asked for little more than a fresh coat of paint on the site, and that's what he got. It would be nice if he was less constrictive and opened himself up to other ideas besides something that automatically constricted the contestants to have results almost exactly like the site you're looking at right now.
I also can't fault people for choosing the design simply because it's what a lot of other sites look like nowadays. But in a couple of years, when the whole "Web 2.0 Soft Gradients" thing loses its sheen, the site is going to look dated yet again.
I do think the finalists all have a strong, clear foundation on spacing and placement so the designs aren't bad. They're just not enough of a change.
(Take my criticism with a grain of salt as I haven't submitted anything).
I consider myself extremely well-versed in games (compared to a regular person, not a gamer), and I have no fucking clue why I need to buy Spore. I know it's like Civ, but you start out as an amoeba and work up to being a space traveling species. All the videos I "need" to see are 10 minutes longer or more.
If the game is so complex it needs to be sold to me over the course of an infomercial, that's going to be a hard sell. If anyone can point me to a concise, 5-minute video which gets me excited over this game, then I'd love to see it.
And here you're right. The first-generation Blue-Ray players are rumored to go on sale for $999. This makes the PS3 a very valuable option compared to a stand-alone player, with the exception that the PS3 is not going to have the same performance when playing Blu-Ray discs that a stand-alone player has. Witness, for example, the horrid DVD performance (in a home theatre setting) that the PS2 has.
So, a BR player that also happens to be a PlayStation for $599 is a fantastic option if you're not extremely particular about your playback. The problem is, if you're seriously considering buying a next-gen disc player you're on the bleeding edge and probably want something very good, not something merely adequate. After all, when the differences between DVD and HD-DVD/BR are so hard for an average person to notice, you want every advantage you can get.
DVDs were different, as they were a major quality upgrade over the default VHS format and they were a major convenience upgrade as well, plus, besides a player, you didn't need any specific hardware to be able to tell the difference.
In the past 30 years, the big breakthroughs in music and movie media for consumers were VHS, CD (CD-R), DVD, and MP3/AAC/etc. At most, two of those were a technically superior format. The thing that tied all of them together was convenience.
I really do want one of the new formats to win and do well because it will make high-def content more accessible to everyone. I just don't see a clear road to victory for the format so I downplay the importance of the disc player.
"These dim dwarf galaxies..."
I know Gimli wasn't particularly clever but I think this is borderline offensive. Lousy dwarfist editors. You deserve a kick in the gloin.
*groan*
A while back there was a similar question posed in a gaming forum; rather, the question was "What bothers you most in a game?" and the answer was AI related. One of the main gripes in gaming period was bad AI on NPCs you need to protect. For example, in the military shooter, you need to escort one of the generals to safety. Or in the RPG, you need to escort the squire back to the castle. This was the most frustrating for a great number of people.
I would like to see more interaction with NPCs, especially in RPGs. I'm particularly miffed when playing (for example, Oblivion), and I can't simply ask someone to come over here, or stay put. Sure, if you're a complete stranger the NPC will probably ignore you, and that's fine, because it's realistic. But if you're well-known (for better or for worse) and you break into someone's house at 2AM and you're carrying a bloodied sword and your chainmail has some neural matter on it, I think the NPC may want to pay attention to what you have to say. In this way, more choices make the experience a bit better.
But there's a caveat. There's always a caveat. I've never much enjoyed playing the Tom Clancy games because they relied so much on co-combatant AI and the AI wasn't very good. On top of that, because many times you had to make decisions in the heat of battle, it was frustrating to have to pull up a submenu of eight different commands to give to your team. (At least this is how I remember it). Well, in GR:AW, you're limited to a matrix of four options: make your team aggressive or passive, move/attack or stop moving/attacking. The AI, in general, will figure out the rest, knowing if they need to be quiet or bust down a door, which targets to take out first, etc. In this way, a simpler control kept all your choices open and made your experience better. But that was only because the AI was pretty good.
"I plan on waiting a few (but only a few) decades."
For the sex or for the AI?
I'd also ask the NSA, who is sponsoring this competition, to see how many American coders and mathematicians they have on their payroll. I tried to ask but they blackbagged me and I woke up in the middle of a junkyard in Guatemala, so I know better now than to ask questions.