There are other ways of knowing whether your numbers are truly off or not. Each quarter, the manufacturers release shipped numbers which in some cases can show whether your numbers were correct or not. Of course shipped doesn't equal sold, but there's still something to judge numbers against without NPD.
Again, just asking for some examples. Can you point me to somewhere (give me a link, not just your assertion that NPD was wrong) where one of the console manufacturers has posted their own numbers which conflict with the NPD ones? If NPD is so wrong, why are the NPD numbers THE values quoted in all of the manufacturers' press releases? The only way there can be a difference is to use the "shipped vs. sold" argument, and we really don't want to start down that tired path...
How do you think NPD judges if their numbers were correct too? They have around 60% of the market covered, which is obviously not enough for perfect estimates. There's plenty of historical data and news reports which help everyone make better estimates.
Statistics. You've apparently never taken a class on business statistics. Contrary to popular game-blog-commenter belief, NPD does not need to survey 100% of retailers to project an accurate estimation of product sales. Just like you can't/don't have to measure every vibration of an atom to gain significant information from it. Mathematicians use models for a very good reason. In fact, from a statistical point of view, having 60% market coverage to work with is far more than they actually need to make reliable estimates. Sure, the results won't be perfect down to the absolute single unit for each product, but the results will be close enough that anybody who knows better will accept them as accurate. Again, that's why the major manufacturers use the NPD numbers in all of their press releases. NPD does product tracking professionally. They have their sales models which have been tweaked and adjusted over time to be as close to perfect as anyone could possibly get. As for the "historical data and news reports," if you trace those back far enough, you'll find that almost all of them come from (surprise, surprise) NPD's original data.
NPD is not the be all end all of game sales. Vgchartz's owner actually said that he would stop taking NPD's numbers as gospel after he had to undo corrections he did due to NPD (which was wrong). As I said, they failed at tracking the Wii and DS more than Vgchartz did in the last quarter.
Yes NPD is not the absolute authority. Only God knows the actual sales data down to the smallest detail. But, NPD is a professional third-party (that is, independent of manufacturer bias) organization with a significant history of accurate reporting and the trust of the major industry players. If they were as bad as you claim they are, then the businesses that depend on their data would stop paying for it, and the company would quickly fold. Funny thing is, that hasn't happened yet, and doesn't look like it will anytime soon. Mistakes may happen, but they are infrequent and quickly addressed.
VGchartz, on the other hand, is one website run by a guy who is likely very good with statistics but simply does not have the time and resources necessary to accurately derive the data that his website sorely depends on. It has a history of frequent revisionism and routinely disagrees with the professionally derived data. Now, whether the website owner decides to believe NPD over his own calculations is a decision purely up to him.
Which finally brings me back to the original question... aside from your own assertions and the personal testimony of one person with a vested interest in the success of Vgchartz, what proof do you have that it is in fact more reliable than NPD? By what standard did NPD "fail" on reporting Wii/DS sales numbers? Links, anyone? Searching for press releases and news reports of NPD errors and corrections only brings up news from last year over how they counted sales of Twilight Princess.
Try re-reading the parent post. His claim is that VGchartz is less than half RELIABLE, not half ACCURATE. If VGcharts was reliable, then they would not always be revising their numbers to match the industry-accepted NPD numbers.
So... to check reliability, count the number of months where VGchartz's initially published numbers have been acceptably close to the NPD numbers, and then count the number of months where they had to make adjustments after the fact. I'm willing to bet that their initial guesses were on the mark much less than half the time.
As pointed out in other threads here... without the monthly NPD numbers, all VGcharts has to go on is their wild prediction method which is wrong more often than not, and they won't have any way of fixing those wrong numbers until the quarterly/annual NPD results get published.
And just out of curiosity, how do you know that VGchartz was "more reliable" than NPD last quarter? Did NPD goof up and change their results? Do you have access the the absolute true numbers that both organizations are only approximating? What metric are you going by for this reliability claim?
Okay. I'll admit, I didn't read the article (blocked by filter at work). But I would still be very surprised if Iwata wasn't thinking about both the DS and the Wii when making the comments.
Well, if Nintendo can put out a new console two years from now that is just as good as a PS3 is today and still sell it for only $250, I would think that they were making a pretty smart business move. Iwata was talking about how Nintendo aims to hit the technology "sweet spot" with each release. Currently, Sony has overshot the sweet spot by putting too much into the ps3 to create a console with lots of potential, because they can't sell it very well because people either don't want to drop $500 at once on a console, or don't yet have a high-def television to justify the graphical horsepower (or they can't afford both the PS3 and the TV to play it on). However, in two years HDTVs will most likely be cheap and plentiful. So...
option 1 = pay $250 now for interesting games my current TV, and $750 later ($500 for a good TV, $250 for a WiiWii) for interesting games in HD. option 2 = pay $1500 now ($1000 for a good TV, and $500 for a good PS3) for a handful of HD games that look really nice, but just aren't that interesting (because shiny games are expensive to make, and thus to profit must cater to the lowest common denominator)
And, maybe once Nintendo gets around to releasing the WiiWii, the dust will have settled on the whole blu-ray/hd-dvd mess, and they can use whichever drive becomes the standard for other high-def media.
You should care, because in general profitable consoles for the parent company lead to better (or at least more diverse) games for the platform.
Complex hardware is expensive. Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss, because they expect to make back a profit on licensing of the games. The game publishers then are forced with increasing fees and hardware complexity, and their general response is to either increase the prices of the games, only invest in games with a guaranteed return on their investment, or both. The publishers would be crazy stupid to NOT react in this way. So, the end result for the customers is that we get to privilege of paying more each generation for the same old sequels. The publishers all know that despite how much we may whine and complain online, at the end of the day we'll still go and buy the same crap over and over again because we're familiar and comfortable with it.
Yes, Nintendo is also guilty of creating numerous sequels for their more popular franchises (again, it's good business, and they would be stupid to not do so). But, at the same time, the amount of risk associated with developing on their systems is much lower, in no small part due to the way in which the hardware was designed to be profitable (simpler) from the get-go. As a result, they and other publishers have the freedom to try out new things. Sure, most of the attempts will be flops and/or shovelware, but given enough games to sort through there will also be some truly delightful and innovative games. Look back at the last generation, where the PS2 was the cheap and easy platform to develop for. There were lots and lots of crap titles developed for it, but it was also where we found many games that were initially considered risky but are now covered in heaps of praise... Katamari Daimacy, Okami, Psychonauts, Guitar Hero (and DDR and the rest of the music/rythm genre), etc. I could keep going on, but the point is that cheap development leads to better games. However, cheap development only comes when financial risk is minimized, and until a console can be sold at a profit the console manufacturer cannot even begin to consider subsidizing that risk.
Now, as to the question of whether company profits affect my (or anyone else's) purchasing decisions... directly, no. But when I go to the store and see shelf after shelf full of games for one system, and only a handful for another, I will tend to go with the system with more (and cheaper) choices. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only person out there that considers quantity and/or quirkyness availability as a strong deciding factor on when or what game system to buy.
Heh. Petty as the "job and a family" line may be, you'll be amazed at how your perspective on life changes once you get one. Although given your current attitude towards work and family, I feel sorry for anyone considering you for their future. Doubly so for anyone that depends on you now.
But moving beyond the pointless personal attacks... the fact still remains that Nintendo is selling boatloads of their products because they alone were able to break out of the "hardcore" microcosm that the gaming community had become, and made something that is fun for everyone out in the "real world."
I can't understand why the Wii is flying off shelves so fast... there really aren't many good reasons to have one at this time... my only guess is that it has that "Oh so sweet" factor that everyone is buying into. I know many are excited about the wii... but I would LOVE to stop hearing people declare the Wii a revolution and the new breakthrough in gaming that will usher in a new era of interactivity. I just haven't seen it...
It's pretty simple to explain why you don't understand the Wii's success and can't see the new era it has brought in. You're a gamer. You already know how to use a controller and you already know what you like and don't like. The Wii, however, was designed from the ground up for people who are either not already gamers, or are "burned out" gamers looking for something completely different. Old gamers see value in paying more for HD graphics. Non-gamers (or new-gamers) are more concerned about dropping a lot of money on something they are not sure that they will use regularly.
The wiimote is a success not because the motion controls are more immersive than a traditional controller, but because it is simpler to understand and less intimidating than a two-fisted "thing" covered in buttons and knobs. Also, the simpler controls allow for a wider range of ages to play together, providing more incentive for families to choose the Wii over the other "traditional" consoles. Again, lowering the barrier to entry for people who would otherwise never consider buying or playing games.
In my personal experience, this approach by Nintendo is paying off. My sister-in-law is not a gamer, yet she bought a wii for her family. Then she went and got several of HER friends to buy wiis for their families. For most of her friends, the wii is their first game console ever. Nintendo realized that selling video games to the untapped soccer-mom crowd has so much more potential than selling to the highly competitive and highly critical established-gamer crowd.
So, yeah, you don't get it, but that's okay. Someday you'll have a job and a family and then you'll realize the value of having a system that everyone can understand, that everyone can play together, and doesn't require a large investment in time or money.
Maybe next time, instead of just "sitting here thinking of reasons" you should get out and do some research...
1) Yes, there is a fire/explosion potential. There are also fire/explosion potentials with conventional hydrocarbon fuels and batteries. In fact, ANY system in which energy is stored has the potential to be a hazard. However, when you quantify the potential hazards in terms of flammability/explosion concentration limits, and the physical properties of materials such as vaporization and diffusion rates, it turns out that hydrogen is just as safe if not safer than gasoline.
2) Yes, metal hydrides do take a long time to charge. BUT, if you are using such a system, it tends to negate all the hazards you listed in point number 1. You can't claim both disadvantages at the same time. However, in practice (for those lucky few who have FC cars already), filling a compressed hydrogen tank is just as fast (if not faster) than filling a car with gasoline.
3) Fucking is only expensive when you pay a prostitute for it. Instead, you should find a nice person, make a lifelong commitment, and get married. A relationship in which love and commitment come first - and the fucking is an expression of that love and commitment - is much more meaningful and much less expensive. Same thing with energy. If people would make a commitment to understanding hydrogen and supporting it, then the eventually the costs would not be prohibitive, and the overall experience would be better as the technology matures.
4) Burning hydrogen? So are you trying to put down the fuel cell technology, or the hydrogen combustion engine? Both are emerging technologies, but only the latter can be compared directly with hydrocarbon combustion engines. The real fact is that although an "equivalent gallon" of hydrogen (which BTW is how it gets sold at the pump so that the government can charge a fuel tax without having to think too hard) is more expensive than gasoline or ethanol, fuel cells are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE efficient than combustion engines, making the cost-per-mile significantly cheaper. From the carbon waste standpoint, consuming significantly less fuel per mile driven equates to less carbon per mile, wherever the carbon is used in the hydrogen production cycle. Additionally, here's a question for you: since carbon emission is a growing problem, and one of the promising solutions is carbon capture and sequestration, which will be easier - capturing carbon at a few large hydrocarbon to hydrogen plants, or capturing the carbon at millions of individual tailpipes? Eventually scale will favor the hydrogen economy. It's just a matter of time and patience.
5) False. There is a vibrant industry right now which is developing the technology for transportation, storage, and pumping. What is missing is the infrastructure. However, this industry is still in its infancy, and like any infant it needs nurture and support if it is going to grow.
6) Again, not necessarily true. There are issues with trying to move hydrogen through existing lines with existing technology (which would be the preferred method since it is cheaper to use existing infrastructure) but technology does exist to transport and store hydrogen as either gas or liquid. It just has to be installed, and nobody will pay for it until the demand arises. It's a whole chicken-and-the-egg problem, but once the public gets a taste of convenient, clean energy, the demand will grow. Kinda like how years ago putting a high-speed internet connection in every home was a ridiculous idea, and fiber to the house doubly so, yet here we are with the telecom companies finally rolling out the infrastructure now that the general public can't live without their flow of information. We also can't live without energy and transportation, so once the demand comes, the energy companies will reluctantly roll out the new pipes as well.
7) As several posters have pointed out, its no different than if other fuel tanks were in the same situation. Tanks and infr
And not just price cuts... News of newer, better models will also publicly be denied until the time that company XYZ wants the news to be released.
Anyone remember Nintendo with the DS Lite announcement? Nintendo was vehemently denying all rumors (and a lot of rumors at that) right up to the day before they made their grand announcement of the newer model.
This latest series of rumors and denials does tell us something though: The price drop is coming, and it is coming soon. Like the early contraction pangs of a woman in labor, there are simply too many rumors and too much corroborating evidence for it to be otherwise. However, by constantly denying the rumors in public, Microsoft is able to keep the rumors from being published in the mainstream media as news. That is where the real damage would come. Hardcore gamers and geeks who follow all the gaming blogs and news sites have either already bought a 360 or are resolved to hold out for the price drop. It doesn't really matter too much if they catch wind of the price drop early. But for the sake of investors and the more casual gamers sitting on the fence and considering investing their money in the 360, Microsoft has to keep the rumor rumbles as quiet as possible for as long as possible.
I assume that you are trying to imply that the same game can be completely different for two people? Yes, this is true.
However, Zonk's assertion that Elebits is a 5-hour game is still entirely false. How can I say this? Because each level of the game has a time limit. Although you can pass a level and quit before the time limit is up, the game is designed to encourage the player to use the full alotted time for the level.
So, assuming that a person played the entire story mode one time, played each level for the full time limit, and passed each level on the first try, it would still take almost six hours of active play time just to complete the story mode. And that's not counting any of the time at menus, results screens between levels, watching the "story" scenes between levels etc.
Like I said before, completing the story mode is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you add in the time for unlocking additional modes, completing the challenge levels, playing multiplayer, and building your own levels with the level editor (Edit mode = infinite play time right there!) The game easily becomes just as "big" as any other game out there.
First, I don't think that Zonk has actually played all the way through the game. His estimation of 5 hours to get through the story is a bit on the short side. Most of the later missions will take 15-20 minutes each to complete. And then there are a couple missions that you WILL fail on the first try, thus requiring more time. For me, it probably took closer to 10-12 hours to complete the basic story mode.
Then, once the basic story is finished, there is a LOT or replayability in the form of finding special items/elebits to unlock additional modes, and then trying to beat the challenge missions. Taking the entire game into consideration, there is easily 30-40 hours of gameplay.
Of course, you also have to factor fatigue into the equation. Frantically clicking the zap buttons for 20-30 minutes straight will actually wear out your hand, so while it may be possible to "beat" the game in a theoretical five hours, few individuals will be able to actually do it that quickly without stopping to rest the hands.
Also, Zonk's description of multiplayer is not entirely accurate. The camera control is not always attached to player one. Player one is the default camera control, but during the multiplayer game setup, you have the ability to chooose another player to control, or you can choose for the control to randomly switch between players every 10/30/60 seconds. This switching of camera during play can be a little confusing at first, but once you get used to it yields a more balanced and ultimately more fun multiplayer arrangement.
I'll agree that the game isn't necessarily the best that we will ever see on the Wii, but is is a good solid launch title and should be rated more like 4 out of 5. Definitely worth a rental, especially if you're a fan of the Katamari games.
For example, try my zip code (92656) on the ebgames store list and you have to go 22 miles before you get a store that has any in stock for the 60GB model , or 10 miles for the 20GB. The drive for the 20GB isn't that bad, but it'd be a pretty dedicated person who'd drive from here to the stores with the 60GB to buy one.
At first, I thought you were crazy for thinking that 22 miles was a long way to go. Then I looked at your zip code, and realized that you're simply crazy for living in southern CA.
In the REST of the USA (except for maybe NYC, Chicago, DFW, etc) a 22 mile drive is nothing major at all. As other posters note, MANY people drive this far (or further) in their commute every single day. As for myself (zip code 14802) its over 30 mile as the crow flies to the nearest gamestop/EB regardless of whether they have units in stock, and the roads around here are anything but straight. Realistically, it's a 40-60 mile drive depending on which area I want to look for one. Fortunately the traffic is such that the drive only takes an hour or so.
Anyway, the point is that if a person is dedicated, they CAN find a PS3 today in the vast majority of the lower 48 states if they really want to. The same thing can't necessarily be said for the Wii. For one of those, you could spend an entire day going from store to store and still not find one.
So how exactly are you supposed to accurately count the readership of a blog? By the number of web hits? Comments? "Friends"? Death threats? What if the two people who do read your blog print off your rants and distribute them to thousands of people that you have no idea are reading your blog?
Maybe it's just a common sense judgement because the 500 people figure falls in the valley between having a blog that anyone cares about, and having a blog that you really, really, wished anyone would care about.
After taking a few international trips, I've decided that Energizer's non-rechargable lithium batteries are essential for my digital camera. They may cost 4-5 times as much as traditional alkalines, but they also last 4-5 times longer and weigh significantly less. I can easily take a few thousand pictures on only a dozen batteries purchased from Sams Club for ~$18, and I don't have to worry at all about self-discharge or plug/voltage issues with chargers.
Now we need to come up with a term for what will eventually prove to be its opposite. Corporate sabotage that seeks to inspire negative propoganda for another company.
At my local wal-mart, they're expecting more units early this week. I got this info from one of the sales guys in electronics who was rather dissapointed that he had to work the launch instead of waiting to buy one himself, so he has both the means and motive to find out when the next batch will be coming in.
Well, actually the "game industry" opinions DO matter. Consumers will have a hard time playing games on a system if most of the developers don't make games for that system.
Actually, the real problem in this whole thread which nobody seems to realize is that if someone buys a PS3 but without any games or movies "to hurt sony," the real hurt is going to be on THEM, because they just spent $600 on a really big expensive paperweight.
"It's only supposed to make the viewer _feel_ like they are clever and "got it". It's like the Matrix. There isn't anything to get. Philosophy and art 101, with a masturbation option"
heh. I like that description. It's a shame I already posted in this story so I can't use my mod points to bump you up.
Of course I always though "Art 101 w/ masturbation option" was a person sitting in the back row of the library shelves ogling some ancient stone boobies.
Short answer: Because it's made by advertising people, not gamers.
Long answer: How many people in the Ad business do you know that are also hardcore gamers? Not many. In general, advertising people are artists - right brained folks, while gamers tend to be more technical and logical left brainers. Especially at places like slashdot. This guy is talking about trying to appeal to emotions in the advertisements, but he's doing it in a way that is fairly abstract. Logical people either don't get it or don't like it. Average Joe Sixpack tends to be neither artistic nor logical. He just wants to laugh, and the ps3 ads are nowhere close to the humor of the average superbowl beer commercial.
So, unless Sony is trying to reach out to the artistic - creative people and convince them to buy a PS3, the current advertising is not going to be that effective. After all, how many artists are going to be emotionally moved by the crying baby AND have enough spare cash sitting around to afford a PS3?
That's a good reason to make the reflectors with a self-cleaning coating. Pretty much every major glass manufaturer makes at least one product with this feature. It shouldn't be too hard to incorporate self-cleaning glass into the reflectors and/or collectors. Then all you need is an occasional rain shower or a couple guys with a hose and the mirrors will be as bright as new.
So, how exactly did you arrive at the "super cheap" value of $20 per square foot?
The materials for reflectors are much much cheaper than that, and the cost of motors/software to move them decreases significantly as the scale of the device increases. Land prices are pretty cheap in the areas where the plants would be built (desert in the middle of nowhere) and would only add some thousands of dollars to the cost of a multi-million dollar project. And as for cleaning the lenses, that's not too much of a problem now that there are companies engineering self-cleaning surfaces.
The only real issue I see with these plants is one of geography and climate - building somewhere with enough sunlight to generate a predictable and stable load.
Ultimately, it is the developer that sets the price... but only after lots of consultation and suggestion from Microsoft? How much of a cut does MS get from each sale? Does that cut change depending on what the price of the software is?
If Microsoft is actively influence the developers and making more money when developers raise the prices and/or split software into multiple pieces, then yes, we are justified in blaming MS for being too greedy.
It looks to me like MS got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and is now trying to find a scapegoat to pin the blame on.
Slashdot Mirror
There are other ways of knowing whether your numbers are truly off or not. Each quarter, the manufacturers release shipped numbers which in some cases can show whether your numbers were correct or not. Of course shipped doesn't equal sold, but there's still something to judge numbers against without NPD.
Again, just asking for some examples. Can you point me to somewhere (give me a link, not just your assertion that NPD was wrong) where one of the console manufacturers has posted their own numbers which conflict with the NPD ones? If NPD is so wrong, why are the NPD numbers THE values quoted in all of the manufacturers' press releases? The only way there can be a difference is to use the "shipped vs. sold" argument, and we really don't want to start down that tired path...
How do you think NPD judges if their numbers were correct too? They have around 60% of the market covered, which is obviously not enough for perfect estimates. There's plenty of historical data and news reports which help everyone make better estimates.
Statistics. You've apparently never taken a class on business statistics. Contrary to popular game-blog-commenter belief, NPD does not need to survey 100% of retailers to project an accurate estimation of product sales. Just like you can't/don't have to measure every vibration of an atom to gain significant information from it. Mathematicians use models for a very good reason. In fact, from a statistical point of view, having 60% market coverage to work with is far more than they actually need to make reliable estimates. Sure, the results won't be perfect down to the absolute single unit for each product, but the results will be close enough that anybody who knows better will accept them as accurate. Again, that's why the major manufacturers use the NPD numbers in all of their press releases. NPD does product tracking professionally. They have their sales models which have been tweaked and adjusted over time to be as close to perfect as anyone could possibly get. As for the "historical data and news reports," if you trace those back far enough, you'll find that almost all of them come from (surprise, surprise) NPD's original data.
NPD is not the be all end all of game sales. Vgchartz's owner actually said that he would stop taking NPD's numbers as gospel after he had to undo corrections he did due to NPD (which was wrong). As I said, they failed at tracking the Wii and DS more than Vgchartz did in the last quarter.
Yes NPD is not the absolute authority. Only God knows the actual sales data down to the smallest detail. But, NPD is a professional third-party (that is, independent of manufacturer bias) organization with a significant history of accurate reporting and the trust of the major industry players. If they were as bad as you claim they are, then the businesses that depend on their data would stop paying for it, and the company would quickly fold. Funny thing is, that hasn't happened yet, and doesn't look like it will anytime soon. Mistakes may happen, but they are infrequent and quickly addressed.
VGchartz, on the other hand, is one website run by a guy who is likely very good with statistics but simply does not have the time and resources necessary to accurately derive the data that his website sorely depends on. It has a history of frequent revisionism and routinely disagrees with the professionally derived data. Now, whether the website owner decides to believe NPD over his own calculations is a decision purely up to him.
Which finally brings me back to the original question... aside from your own assertions and the personal testimony of one person with a vested interest in the success of Vgchartz, what proof do you have that it is in fact more reliable than NPD? By what standard did NPD "fail" on reporting Wii/DS sales numbers? Links, anyone? Searching for press releases and news reports of NPD errors and corrections only brings up news from last year over how they counted sales of Twilight Princess.
Try re-reading the parent post. His claim is that VGchartz is less than half RELIABLE, not half ACCURATE. If VGcharts was reliable, then they would not always be revising their numbers to match the industry-accepted NPD numbers.
So... to check reliability, count the number of months where VGchartz's initially published numbers have been acceptably close to the NPD numbers, and then count the number of months where they had to make adjustments after the fact. I'm willing to bet that their initial guesses were on the mark much less than half the time.
As pointed out in other threads here... without the monthly NPD numbers, all VGcharts has to go on is their wild prediction method which is wrong more often than not, and they won't have any way of fixing those wrong numbers until the quarterly/annual NPD results get published.
And just out of curiosity, how do you know that VGchartz was "more reliable" than NPD last quarter? Did NPD goof up and change their results? Do you have access the the absolute true numbers that both organizations are only approximating? What metric are you going by for this reliability claim?
Okay. I'll admit, I didn't read the article (blocked by filter at work). But I would still be very surprised if Iwata wasn't thinking about both the DS and the Wii when making the comments.
Well, if Nintendo can put out a new console two years from now that is just as good as a PS3 is today and still sell it for only $250, I would think that they were making a pretty smart business move. Iwata was talking about how Nintendo aims to hit the technology "sweet spot" with each release. Currently, Sony has overshot the sweet spot by putting too much into the ps3 to create a console with lots of potential, because they can't sell it very well because people either don't want to drop $500 at once on a console, or don't yet have a high-def television to justify the graphical horsepower (or they can't afford both the PS3 and the TV to play it on). However, in two years HDTVs will most likely be cheap and plentiful. So...
option 1 = pay $250 now for interesting games my current TV, and $750 later ($500 for a good TV, $250 for a WiiWii) for interesting games in HD.
option 2 = pay $1500 now ($1000 for a good TV, and $500 for a good PS3) for a handful of HD games that look really nice, but just aren't that interesting (because shiny games are expensive to make, and thus to profit must cater to the lowest common denominator)
And, maybe once Nintendo gets around to releasing the WiiWii, the dust will have settled on the whole blu-ray/hd-dvd mess, and they can use whichever drive becomes the standard for other high-def media.
Iwata is admitting that the Wii isn't as powerful as it should be, so we shouldn't be surprised when the next Nintendo console gets released "early".
You should care, because in general profitable consoles for the parent company lead to better (or at least more diverse) games for the platform.
Complex hardware is expensive. Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss, because they expect to make back a profit on licensing of the games. The game publishers then are forced with increasing fees and hardware complexity, and their general response is to either increase the prices of the games, only invest in games with a guaranteed return on their investment, or both. The publishers would be crazy stupid to NOT react in this way. So, the end result for the customers is that we get to privilege of paying more each generation for the same old sequels. The publishers all know that despite how much we may whine and complain online, at the end of the day we'll still go and buy the same crap over and over again because we're familiar and comfortable with it.
Yes, Nintendo is also guilty of creating numerous sequels for their more popular franchises (again, it's good business, and they would be stupid to not do so). But, at the same time, the amount of risk associated with developing on their systems is much lower, in no small part due to the way in which the hardware was designed to be profitable (simpler) from the get-go. As a result, they and other publishers have the freedom to try out new things. Sure, most of the attempts will be flops and/or shovelware, but given enough games to sort through there will also be some truly delightful and innovative games. Look back at the last generation, where the PS2 was the cheap and easy platform to develop for. There were lots and lots of crap titles developed for it, but it was also where we found many games that were initially considered risky but are now covered in heaps of praise... Katamari Daimacy, Okami, Psychonauts, Guitar Hero (and DDR and the rest of the music/rythm genre), etc. I could keep going on, but the point is that cheap development leads to better games. However, cheap development only comes when financial risk is minimized, and until a console can be sold at a profit the console manufacturer cannot even begin to consider subsidizing that risk.
Now, as to the question of whether company profits affect my (or anyone else's) purchasing decisions... directly, no. But when I go to the store and see shelf after shelf full of games for one system, and only a handful for another, I will tend to go with the system with more (and cheaper) choices. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only person out there that considers quantity and/or quirkyness availability as a strong deciding factor on when or what game system to buy.
Heh. Petty as the "job and a family" line may be, you'll be amazed at how your perspective on life changes once you get one. Although given your current attitude towards work and family, I feel sorry for anyone considering you for their future. Doubly so for anyone that depends on you now.
But moving beyond the pointless personal attacks... the fact still remains that Nintendo is selling boatloads of their products because they alone were able to break out of the "hardcore" microcosm that the gaming community had become, and made something that is fun for everyone out in the "real world."
It's pretty simple to explain why you don't understand the Wii's success and can't see the new era it has brought in. You're a gamer. You already know how to use a controller and you already know what you like and don't like. The Wii, however, was designed from the ground up for people who are either not already gamers, or are "burned out" gamers looking for something completely different. Old gamers see value in paying more for HD graphics. Non-gamers (or new-gamers) are more concerned about dropping a lot of money on something they are not sure that they will use regularly.
The wiimote is a success not because the motion controls are more immersive than a traditional controller, but because it is simpler to understand and less intimidating than a two-fisted "thing" covered in buttons and knobs. Also, the simpler controls allow for a wider range of ages to play together, providing more incentive for families to choose the Wii over the other "traditional" consoles. Again, lowering the barrier to entry for people who would otherwise never consider buying or playing games.
In my personal experience, this approach by Nintendo is paying off. My sister-in-law is not a gamer, yet she bought a wii for her family. Then she went and got several of HER friends to buy wiis for their families. For most of her friends, the wii is their first game console ever. Nintendo realized that selling video games to the untapped soccer-mom crowd has so much more potential than selling to the highly competitive and highly critical established-gamer crowd.
So, yeah, you don't get it, but that's okay. Someday you'll have a job and a family and then you'll realize the value of having a system that everyone can understand, that everyone can play together, and doesn't require a large investment in time or money.
Maybe next time, instead of just "sitting here thinking of reasons" you should get out and do some research...
1) Yes, there is a fire/explosion potential. There are also fire/explosion potentials with conventional hydrocarbon fuels and batteries. In fact, ANY system in which energy is stored has the potential to be a hazard. However, when you quantify the potential hazards in terms of flammability/explosion concentration limits, and the physical properties of materials such as vaporization and diffusion rates, it turns out that hydrogen is just as safe if not safer than gasoline.
2) Yes, metal hydrides do take a long time to charge. BUT, if you are using such a system, it tends to negate all the hazards you listed in point number 1. You can't claim both disadvantages at the same time. However, in practice (for those lucky few who have FC cars already), filling a compressed hydrogen tank is just as fast (if not faster) than filling a car with gasoline.
3) Fucking is only expensive when you pay a prostitute for it. Instead, you should find a nice person, make a lifelong commitment, and get married. A relationship in which love and commitment come first - and the fucking is an expression of that love and commitment - is much more meaningful and much less expensive. Same thing with energy. If people would make a commitment to understanding hydrogen and supporting it, then the eventually the costs would not be prohibitive, and the overall experience would be better as the technology matures.
4) Burning hydrogen? So are you trying to put down the fuel cell technology, or the hydrogen combustion engine? Both are emerging technologies, but only the latter can be compared directly with hydrocarbon combustion engines. The real fact is that although an "equivalent gallon" of hydrogen (which BTW is how it gets sold at the pump so that the government can charge a fuel tax without having to think too hard) is more expensive than gasoline or ethanol, fuel cells are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE efficient than combustion engines, making the cost-per-mile significantly cheaper. From the carbon waste standpoint, consuming significantly less fuel per mile driven equates to less carbon per mile, wherever the carbon is used in the hydrogen production cycle. Additionally, here's a question for you: since carbon emission is a growing problem, and one of the promising solutions is carbon capture and sequestration, which will be easier - capturing carbon at a few large hydrocarbon to hydrogen plants, or capturing the carbon at millions of individual tailpipes? Eventually scale will favor the hydrogen economy. It's just a matter of time and patience.
5) False. There is a vibrant industry right now which is developing the technology for transportation, storage, and pumping. What is missing is the infrastructure. However, this industry is still in its infancy, and like any infant it needs nurture and support if it is going to grow.
6) Again, not necessarily true. There are issues with trying to move hydrogen through existing lines with existing technology (which would be the preferred method since it is cheaper to use existing infrastructure) but technology does exist to transport and store hydrogen as either gas or liquid. It just has to be installed, and nobody will pay for it until the demand arises. It's a whole chicken-and-the-egg problem, but once the public gets a taste of convenient, clean energy, the demand will grow. Kinda like how years ago putting a high-speed internet connection in every home was a ridiculous idea, and fiber to the house doubly so, yet here we are with the telecom companies finally rolling out the infrastructure now that the general public can't live without their flow of information. We also can't live without energy and transportation, so once the demand comes, the energy companies will reluctantly roll out the new pipes as well.
7) As several posters have pointed out, its no different than if other fuel tanks were in the same situation. Tanks and infr
And not just price cuts... News of newer, better models will also publicly be denied until the time that company XYZ wants the news to be released.
Anyone remember Nintendo with the DS Lite announcement? Nintendo was vehemently denying all rumors (and a lot of rumors at that) right up to the day before they made their grand announcement of the newer model.
This latest series of rumors and denials does tell us something though: The price drop is coming, and it is coming soon. Like the early contraction pangs of a woman in labor, there are simply too many rumors and too much corroborating evidence for it to be otherwise. However, by constantly denying the rumors in public, Microsoft is able to keep the rumors from being published in the mainstream media as news. That is where the real damage would come. Hardcore gamers and geeks who follow all the gaming blogs and news sites have either already bought a 360 or are resolved to hold out for the price drop. It doesn't really matter too much if they catch wind of the price drop early. But for the sake of investors and the more casual gamers sitting on the fence and considering investing their money in the 360, Microsoft has to keep the rumor rumbles as quiet as possible for as long as possible.
I assume that you are trying to imply that the same game can be completely different for two people? Yes, this is true.
However, Zonk's assertion that Elebits is a 5-hour game is still entirely false. How can I say this? Because each level of the game has a time limit. Although you can pass a level and quit before the time limit is up, the game is designed to encourage the player to use the full alotted time for the level.
So, assuming that a person played the entire story mode one time, played each level for the full time limit, and passed each level on the first try, it would still take almost six hours of active play time just to complete the story mode. And that's not counting any of the time at menus, results screens between levels, watching the "story" scenes between levels etc.
Like I said before, completing the story mode is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you add in the time for unlocking additional modes, completing the challenge levels, playing multiplayer, and building your own levels with the level editor (Edit mode = infinite play time right there!) The game easily becomes just as "big" as any other game out there.
First, I don't think that Zonk has actually played all the way through the game. His estimation of 5 hours to get through the story is a bit on the short side. Most of the later missions will take 15-20 minutes each to complete. And then there are a couple missions that you WILL fail on the first try, thus requiring more time. For me, it probably took closer to 10-12 hours to complete the basic story mode.
Then, once the basic story is finished, there is a LOT or replayability in the form of finding special items/elebits to unlock additional modes, and then trying to beat the challenge missions. Taking the entire game into consideration, there is easily 30-40 hours of gameplay.
Of course, you also have to factor fatigue into the equation. Frantically clicking the zap buttons for 20-30 minutes straight will actually wear out your hand, so while it may be possible to "beat" the game in a theoretical five hours, few individuals will be able to actually do it that quickly without stopping to rest the hands.
Also, Zonk's description of multiplayer is not entirely accurate. The camera control is not always attached to player one. Player one is the default camera control, but during the multiplayer game setup, you have the ability to chooose another player to control, or you can choose for the control to randomly switch between players every 10/30/60 seconds. This switching of camera during play can be a little confusing at first, but once you get used to it yields a more balanced and ultimately more fun multiplayer arrangement.
I'll agree that the game isn't necessarily the best that we will ever see on the Wii, but is is a good solid launch title and should be rated more like 4 out of 5. Definitely worth a rental, especially if you're a fan of the Katamari games.
At first, I thought you were crazy for thinking that 22 miles was a long way to go. Then I looked at your zip code, and realized that you're simply crazy for living in southern CA.
In the REST of the USA (except for maybe NYC, Chicago, DFW, etc) a 22 mile drive is nothing major at all. As other posters note, MANY people drive this far (or further) in their commute every single day. As for myself (zip code 14802) its over 30 mile as the crow flies to the nearest gamestop/EB regardless of whether they have units in stock, and the roads around here are anything but straight. Realistically, it's a 40-60 mile drive depending on which area I want to look for one. Fortunately the traffic is such that the drive only takes an hour or so.
Anyway, the point is that if a person is dedicated, they CAN find a PS3 today in the vast majority of the lower 48 states if they really want to. The same thing can't necessarily be said for the Wii. For one of those, you could spend an entire day going from store to store and still not find one.
So how exactly are you supposed to accurately count the readership of a blog? By the number of web hits? Comments? "Friends"? Death threats? What if the two people who do read your blog print off your rants and distribute them to thousands of people that you have no idea are reading your blog?
Maybe it's just a common sense judgement because the 500 people figure falls in the valley between having a blog that anyone cares about, and having a blog that you really, really, wished anyone would care about.
After taking a few international trips, I've decided that Energizer's non-rechargable lithium batteries are essential for my digital camera. They may cost 4-5 times as much as traditional alkalines, but they also last 4-5 times longer and weigh significantly less. I can easily take a few thousand pictures on only a dozen batteries purchased from Sams Club for ~$18, and I don't have to worry at all about self-discharge or plug/voltage issues with chargers.
How about "Astroturding"?
At my local wal-mart, they're expecting more units early this week. I got this info from one of the sales guys in electronics who was rather dissapointed that he had to work the launch instead of waiting to buy one himself, so he has both the means and motive to find out when the next batch will be coming in.
Well, actually the "game industry" opinions DO matter. Consumers will have a hard time playing games on a system if most of the developers don't make games for that system.
Actually, the real problem in this whole thread which nobody seems to realize is that if someone buys a PS3 but without any games or movies "to hurt sony," the real hurt is going to be on THEM, because they just spent $600 on a really big expensive paperweight.
"It's only supposed to make the viewer _feel_ like they are clever and "got it". It's like the Matrix. There isn't anything to get. Philosophy and art 101, with a masturbation option"
heh. I like that description. It's a shame I already posted in this story so I can't use my mod points to bump you up.
Of course I always though "Art 101 w/ masturbation option" was a person sitting in the back row of the library shelves ogling some ancient stone boobies.
Short answer: Because it's made by advertising people, not gamers.
Long answer: How many people in the Ad business do you know that are also hardcore gamers? Not many. In general, advertising people are artists - right brained folks, while gamers tend to be more technical and logical left brainers. Especially at places like slashdot. This guy is talking about trying to appeal to emotions in the advertisements, but he's doing it in a way that is fairly abstract. Logical people either don't get it or don't like it. Average Joe Sixpack tends to be neither artistic nor logical. He just wants to laugh, and the ps3 ads are nowhere close to the humor of the average superbowl beer commercial.
So, unless Sony is trying to reach out to the artistic - creative people and convince them to buy a PS3, the current advertising is not going to be that effective. After all, how many artists are going to be emotionally moved by the crying baby AND have enough spare cash sitting around to afford a PS3?
That's a good reason to make the reflectors with a self-cleaning coating. Pretty much every major glass manufaturer makes at least one product with this feature. It shouldn't be too hard to incorporate self-cleaning glass into the reflectors and/or collectors. Then all you need is an occasional rain shower or a couple guys with a hose and the mirrors will be as bright as new.
So, how exactly did you arrive at the "super cheap" value of $20 per square foot?
The materials for reflectors are much much cheaper than that, and the cost of motors/software to move them decreases significantly as the scale of the device increases. Land prices are pretty cheap in the areas where the plants would be built (desert in the middle of nowhere) and would only add some thousands of dollars to the cost of a multi-million dollar project. And as for cleaning the lenses, that's not too much of a problem now that there are companies engineering self-cleaning surfaces.
The only real issue I see with these plants is one of geography and climate - building somewhere with enough sunlight to generate a predictable and stable load.
Ultimately, it is the developer that sets the price... but only after lots of consultation and suggestion from Microsoft? How much of a cut does MS get from each sale? Does that cut change depending on what the price of the software is?
If Microsoft is actively influence the developers and making more money when developers raise the prices and/or split software into multiple pieces, then yes, we are justified in blaming MS for being too greedy.
It looks to me like MS got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and is now trying to find a scapegoat to pin the blame on.
Ahhh... so THAT explains it! Someone get the man some Midol!