"It uses more power. Big deal. I'd wager that there is not a single person on the planet that will not buy a PS3 because of power consumption. Not one."
The higher an electronic device's power consumption, the more heat generated, since heat is a byproduct of using all that power. The more heat a device generates, the more likely it might... OVERHEAT. You know, like the article mentioned? That is one reason why this being discussed, and one that has the potential to affect PS3 owners, no matter how rich...
Another reason this is likely being discussed is that overheating Xbox power supplies have been known to cause fires, as have more than Sony laptop batteries. I'd also wager that a PS3 owner, no matter how rich, would like to be sure their console won't catch fire.
Yet another reason that this is being discussed is that after the rootkit scandal, the fire-hazard laptop batteries, if the PS3 is also plagued with hardware problems, it is a big nail in the coffin of Sony's reputation as creator of super-dependable products. Sony needs the PS3 to go off without a hitch to make people forget about their recent problems. This is why any percieved issue is being exampled under a microscope.
None of that has anything to do with the article though. The article implies what Zonk posted. PERHAPS there is another article that says something differently-I don't know. Another possibility is that the GP poster read it wrong himself. He didn't provide a link that disputes the above article, so I don't know.
I read the original article and it's wording also implies that Sony is saying that the entire game sector is weak:
Sony's chief financial officer, Nobuyuki Oneda, has warned that the games sector "is weak" and presents "a major challenge" after the company posted a drop in profit of more than 90 per cent.
The article seems to be referring to the games sector as a whole, not just Sony's games division. Don't blame Zonk, he's just reposting what that article said. The article may be misquoting or deceptively quoting the Sony rep, but again, that's not Zonk's fault.
I dunno, the Gears hype is working, I think. After seeing yet another cover story on Gears of War, I mused on getting it and a 360... ultimately, I doubt I will, but I am probably more stingy than many consumers. I'm sure it will sell some 360s. Not 4 million, though.
I agree that all of those things cost, and can add up. I DISAGREE with your statement that the radio that I bought cost $300 to manufacture, which is what your original statement said: "A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them."
Nowhere in there do you address retail or dealership commissions, so I didn't address that. You simply said that the reciever would cost $300 if they didn't subsidise them, which I still don't believe is true, nor did what you paste imply is true, either.
Once you add in the other elements from what you just pasted, such as rental cars, automakers, retail stuff, sure - but none of those apply to the cost of MY player, since I didn't get it with a car, nor from a retail store.
Again - find me something that says the basic, non car model radio would cost $300 just for the equipment, and I stand corrected. Otherwise, correct your own original statement to include factors that you didn't mention. Until then, I find it very hard to believe that this player cost $300+ to manufacture.
And you still didn't refute any of my other points...
IF you RTFA you will note that his company is based in California, and he lives in California now.
Re:Perhaps this will make you feel better:
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Myspace is fine, if you only add friends you know in real life, enable the "you must know my email address or my full name to add me as a friend" setting, and have ad block turned on. It's even better if you disable macromedia Flash.
When I listen to Master Tape Theater (the old tapes show) content from KROC, the content is uncensored. Content from WNBC might still be censored though, maybe, because I think the only archives they have of that stuff is from air check tapes. An air check tape would probably contain the audio feed that goes out to the antenna, not one right from the board - I don't remember, I've been out of radio way too long now:)
Anyway, I don't remember the bit you are referring to, so I dunno when that was from.
No new content is censored, however, which is why I listen to the show - the live show, not the old tapes. Today was great, actually, Artie had made a bet with the gay wrestler that was fired from the WWE that if the Yankees didn't win the world series, he'd make out with Blue Iris, a 80 year old porn star. Well, today he paid off the bet... funny radio. Artie is definitely the heart of the show now. Howard is the ringleader/enabler, but Artie is the heart.
But yeah, if you don't like the content, don't subscribe - that's a no-brainer. A lot of people do like it, though. Myself included. Makes my commute bearable.
I see where the confusion comes from. A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them.
There is NO WAY the reciever I have is worth $300. Post some facts that prove this. It's a circuit board, a basic LCD, and a plastic housing. No way the circuit to recieve the satellite signal costs $280, and there is nothing else there that could possibly be worth more than $20- the LCD is what you'd get on a clock radio or something, the audio and DC power chips components have to be cheap since you can get discmans that play audio and run on DC power for $25. The antenna is just a standard passive antenna, as well. Are you really saying the satellite reciever chip is worth $280?
And, even if that $130 figure you keep throwing around is due to the reciever, my above post remains unrefuted by you... namely, the fact that after the first 10 months of my subscription they've paid nothing extra to "keep" me, so years 2 and beyond of my subscription is gravy for them.
Buying another receiver doesn't help them out, it actually costs them money.
I strongly doubt this, since they offer a plan that lets you get a second reciever for an extra $3 a month (plus the cost of the reciever). They wouldn't do this if they were losing money on the deal.
I doubt they make much money on those recievers, but between the recievers and and the accessory packs such as the boombox, they are at the very least breaking even, and I expect, making something back. There's no way you can say they are losing money on a $80 "boombox" that is just speakers, a battery compartment, and a slot to stick your reciever. Or on a car kit which is $50 and is just various glue strips and a passive car antennna. If you can break down how they could possibly be losing money on either of those items, I'd be interested in hearing it.
One of the things people aren't taking into account about all the new subscriptions is the fact they're being generated by bulk sales to auto manufacturers. Stern is a distant second when it comes to the reason for new subscribers.
Is this a FACT, or a spin? You have some hard numbers to back that up?
Plus Stern's not doing anything new or innovative considering his newfound freedom from his arch-nemesis of the FCC. He's coasting until his contract is up in 2011 so he can retire.
I dunno, his show on satellite is wildly entertaining, and his channels are also quite entertaining. Six minutes of commercials versus 24+ on KROC is innovative enough for me. Especially since the show is one two channels at once (with a coastal time delay) so when the commercials play, I can switch to the other coast for a few minutes and never hear them at all.
Also great is the fact that you can HEAR THE BITS. Everything was so censored on KROC that sometimes you couldn't even understand the stories the guests were telling. Now it's great, because if nothing else, Stern is good at getting juicy stories out of his guests...
I'm a longtime fan of the show and now it's better than it's been since I first started listening in the mid 90s... maybe better, actually because Artie Lange is the best member of the cast he's ever had.
Sirius just released its third-quarter subscriber data: more than 5.1 million subscribers. That more than doubles the 2.2 million subscribers Sirius reported a year ago. Sirius claims it's out-grown competitor XM Satellite Radio for four straight quarters.
It was about two years ago that Howard Stern and Sirius announced their deal. Recently I blogged about Stern's lower ad rates on sat radio compared with his old terrestrial radio net. As several readers pointed out, that's only part of the formula.
Sirius currently charges $12.95 a month for a subscription. So every thousand subs means another $155,400 in revenue for Sirius. As cable TV does, sat radio gets two major revenue streams: subs and ads.
So what's the magic number? When does Howard Stern become a profitmaker for Sirius? We may have passed that number some time ago. Stern and his production staff reportedly cost Sirius $100 million a year. That's roughly the income from 644,000 subs at the current monthly rate.
So, there you go. Assuming that # is correct, as long as around 650,000 people subscribe (and continue toi do so) expressly because of Stern, he is paying for himself.
Sure, but in 5 years, once I have paid in $780, how much extra have they paid to keep me signed up?
The answer is nothing. And it doesn't cost them ANYTHING extra to transmit to me. Their signal goes out just the same, either way.
So in five years, I will have generated them $650. Possibly more as I imagine I will have bought a second reciever by then.
Multiple that $650 by a few million other people and you have a business model that is similar to Cable Tv, which also probably generated tremendous losses in the beginning.
Speaking of that, how much of that $130 figure you keep quoating is defrayed by the $100 i spent on my reciever + accessories. Not the full $100, of course, but some of that must have made it back to Sirius.
Sirius isn't even breaking even on cash flow, so after the 10 months it takes them to pay off the subscriber for showing up, they still lose money on every subscriber every month.
Not true, at least not teh way you have phrased it. After they pay off what it costs to acquire subscribers, they do NOT lose money on every subscriber, they lose money overall. It doesn't cost them any extra to transmit to 6,000,000 people than it would to 600. Thus, there must be a point where if they have X subscribers, they will have positive cashflow. Their costs are fixed, but the # of subscribers is not.
Do the math. For every subscriber if your numbers are right he earns 100 bucks and more as you say.
So? Do the math yourself. I signed up for Stern. I've now been a member for 14 months.
14 months x $13 = $182 they've made off me that they wouldn't have without Stern.
His $500 million salary is spead over 5 years, that means in 5 years Sirius will have gotten $780 from me (and the same from other Stern fans), without paying anything extra to Stern.
ANY subscription based business is a long term prospect. Assuming subscriptions keep growing at even a modest rate, and assumming Stern fans still like Stern enough to keep their accounts, I'm sure they will do fine.
Again, I feel it's likely the two satellite companies will merge, but I don't really care about that, as I'm not a stockholder. I just want to keep listening to the content I like, with as little commercials as possible, in my car (since I have a long commute).
Probably/maybe now vs DEFINITELY before. Out of the two companies, Sirius is looking like a better bet at the moment, XM's subscriber rate is slowing while Sirius is growing.
I don't really care, since I don't have stock in either. I imagine ultimately one will buy the other out.
Generally when some says you get a "select" anything, they mean a selection of choices from a larger group. In this case, the poster meant exactly that. A select talk channel is... one of a group of channels that are streamed. Not all channels are streamed - I believe this is because many of them probably have their own internet streaming audio, like the various NPR stations.
He moved to Sirius, which jumped from 600,000 subscribers before he was on it, to 6,000,000 subscribers now.
He is credited with basically saving Sirius from going out of business, and at the same time making himself $500,000,000 (and more, probably, with stock options).
Because the vast majority of US sports fans won't buy a realistic football game unless it has NFL or US colleg. players/stats/logos/etc. Blitz differentiates itself since it's in no way realistic. In this way, you are right that the NFL connection was holding it back, as now they can probably do moves and violnce levels that the NFL may have objected to before. However, the the NFL2K# and Madden series are both geared toward fans who want to replicate the games they watch on TV.
There's no way the developer would do anything but lose money trying to make a CFL game with the same production values as NFL2K#
If the only cost difference between a DVD drive and a Blu Ray drive was $20, the Blu Ray players on the market would not be $800-1000. They would be much closer to standard DVD prices. There are a lot of components, including the blue lasers which according to many news stories have really low yields. Plus R&D recouping, of course.
From a video entertainment perspective, Sony's strategy is bold. The Blu-ray drive alone is responsible for the majority of the price gap between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Wolfgang Schlichting, an analyst with IDC, believes that the cost of the PS3's Blu-ray drive is around US$200-300 per unit, while Merrill Lynch put the cost at US$350. My own contacts in manufacturing believe that the Lynch estimate is too high, but no one believes that the entire Blu-ray drive mechanism can be had for less than US$200 right now. - ars technica story
I would guess that these paid analysts, while probably just in the right ballpark, probably have better sources than a random slashdot poster.
You aren't forced, but game exclusivity does push people to buy consoles that have features they might not want.
If someone just wants to play the new Metal Gear Solid game, to do so they must by a PS3. If they have no desire to ever put a movie in this PS3, it's gonna be exclusively for MGS4(or whatever version is the new one)... I can see being annoyed at the extra price to pay. After all, last gen they could play their beloeved MGS for $300 + $50. Now it's $500/600 + $60.
That's all the original poster was getting at - it's annoying to some that people who don't care about Blu Ray can't buy one without it for less.
Personally, it doesn't annoy me, I am going to simply wait until the price comes down to one I consider"worth it" before I buy one. If I was huge fan of any Sony-exclusive franchises, maybe I would be tempted to splurge, but I am not as hardcore of a gamer as I once was.
While I do think counting the new series' episodes in the tally is unfair, there is no way Stargate has been running longer than the original Dr. Who ran. It started in the early 60s and and ended in the late 80s or early 90s. It was in black and white for the first several seasons, even!
Re:I think it will work for the price point
on
Will the Wii Work?
·
· Score: 1
"The Revolution games are going to be very expensive initially - probably about $60 or so if history is any guide."
They already announced the prices for the launch games. They range from $40-50.
Most people I know with PSPs are techies that use them to play movies they downloaded from the net, or emulators.
Most people I know with DSes play games on them... mostly casual type stuff liek tetris or nintendogs, also.
The PSP is a slick looking device, but it doesn't seem appeal very much to people who don't know/want to be bothered with homebrew/emulation. The official PS1 game download service thing might change that though. More games would also help - or if they could convince rockstar to not release LCS and VCS for the PS2 for $30 less than the PSP price, that would help too.
All the Wii controller does is replace the two thumbsticks of the X-Box with a controller which you can either move or tilt.
Uhhhh no. The Wiimote + Nunchaku has a thumbstick + move and tilt on the wiimote + move and tilt on the nunchaku + mouse/lightgun-type functionality via the sensor bar. You can be moving the nunchaku up (say to raise your shield in zelda) while using the thumbstick to move your character, while moving the wiimote in 3D space (say to slash your sword), while pressing a button on the wiimote (say to activate a power up for your sword slash). That's more freedom than just two thumb sticks.
If nothing else, the Wiimote will be able to simulate a mouse-like interface far better than a gamepad. But there are many possibilities beyond that - the much heralded rumor that LucasArts will make a lightsaber fighting game where you use the wiimote as your saber, for example.
One thing that I thought of that would be an interesting use of this controller setup for FPSes is if they use the nunchaku to control movement, and the wiimote for weapons... you use the wiimote to aim and fire, and the nunchaku thumbstick could be your directional movement, with it's buttons being crouch/jump/etc, AND the degree to which you tilt the nunchaku could make your character lean over to look around a corner, lean back to try and dodge (a la that scene in the matrix where neo leans over backwards to dodge bullets), etc.
However, this all assumes the controller works well. I haven't played one yet, nor have many people that aren't developers, so few people really know if it works as advertised. If it doesn't work well, or is annoying to use for longer than 30 minutes, I doubt the wii will be a success.
The only difference is that you need to wave your arms around like somebody doing Tai Chi with a sever muscle disorder in order to manipulate your on-screen character.
This is misinformation. IGN has a video from Leipzig of an IGN staffer playing several games, and he barely has to move his arms to do all game functions on a variety of games. I'm sure Wario Ware and Sports will require more wild motions, but that's because of the kind of games those are - party games have always required you to do dumb stuff. Mario Party had a warning on it about repetative motion, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
"It uses more power. Big deal. I'd wager that there is not a single person on the planet that will not buy a PS3 because of power consumption. Not one."
The higher an electronic device's power consumption, the more heat generated, since heat is a byproduct of using all that power. The more heat a device generates, the more likely it might... OVERHEAT. You know, like the article mentioned? That is one reason why this being discussed, and one that has the potential to affect PS3 owners, no matter how rich...
Another reason this is likely being discussed is that overheating Xbox power supplies have been known to cause fires, as have more than Sony laptop batteries. I'd also wager that a PS3 owner, no matter how rich, would like to be sure their console won't catch fire.
Yet another reason that this is being discussed is that after the rootkit scandal, the fire-hazard laptop batteries, if the PS3 is also plagued with hardware problems, it is a big nail in the coffin of Sony's reputation as creator of super-dependable products. Sony needs the PS3 to go off without a hitch to make people forget about their recent problems. This is why any percieved issue is being exampled under a microscope.
Non-fanboy sites such as FORBES are full of negative articles about Sony lately... it's not just Slashdot.
None of that has anything to do with the article though. The article implies what Zonk posted. PERHAPS there is another article that says something differently-I don't know. Another possibility is that the GP poster read it wrong himself. He didn't provide a link that disputes the above article, so I don't know.
I read the original article and it's wording also implies that Sony is saying that the entire game sector is weak:
Sony's chief financial officer, Nobuyuki Oneda, has warned that the games sector "is weak" and presents "a major challenge" after the company posted a drop in profit of more than 90 per cent.
The article seems to be referring to the games sector as a whole, not just Sony's games division. Don't blame Zonk, he's just reposting what that article said. The article may be misquoting or deceptively quoting the Sony rep, but again, that's not Zonk's fault.
I dunno, the Gears hype is working, I think. After seeing yet another cover story on Gears of War, I mused on getting it and a 360... ultimately, I doubt I will, but I am probably more stingy than many consumers. I'm sure it will sell some 360s. Not 4 million, though.
I agree that all of those things cost, and can add up. I DISAGREE with your statement that the radio that I bought cost $300 to manufacture, which is what your original statement said: "A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them."
Nowhere in there do you address retail or dealership commissions, so I didn't address that. You simply said that the reciever would cost $300 if they didn't subsidise them, which I still don't believe is true, nor did what you paste imply is true, either.
Once you add in the other elements from what you just pasted, such as rental cars, automakers, retail stuff, sure - but none of those apply to the cost of MY player, since I didn't get it with a car, nor from a retail store.
Again - find me something that says the basic, non car model radio would cost $300 just for the equipment, and I stand corrected. Otherwise, correct your own original statement to include factors that you didn't mention. Until then, I find it very hard to believe that this player cost $300+ to manufacture.
And you still didn't refute any of my other points...
IF you RTFA you will note that his company is based in California, and he lives in California now.
Myspace is fine, if you only add friends you know in real life, enable the "you must know my email address or my full name to add me as a friend" setting, and have ad block turned on. It's even better if you disable macromedia Flash.
When I listen to Master Tape Theater (the old tapes show) content from KROC, the content is uncensored. Content from WNBC might still be censored though, maybe, because I think the only archives they have of that stuff is from air check tapes. An air check tape would probably contain the audio feed that goes out to the antenna, not one right from the board - I don't remember, I've been out of radio way too long now :)
Anyway, I don't remember the bit you are referring to, so I dunno when that was from.
No new content is censored, however, which is why I listen to the show - the live show, not the old tapes. Today was great, actually, Artie had made a bet with the gay wrestler that was fired from the WWE that if the Yankees didn't win the world series, he'd make out with Blue Iris, a 80 year old porn star. Well, today he paid off the bet... funny radio. Artie is definitely the heart of the show now. Howard is the ringleader/enabler, but Artie is the heart.
But yeah, if you don't like the content, don't subscribe - that's a no-brainer. A lot of people do like it, though. Myself included. Makes my commute bearable.
I see where the confusion comes from. A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them.
There is NO WAY the reciever I have is worth $300. Post some facts that prove this. It's a circuit board, a basic LCD, and a plastic housing. No way the circuit to recieve the satellite signal costs $280, and there is nothing else there that could possibly be worth more than $20- the LCD is what you'd get on a clock radio or something, the audio and DC power chips components have to be cheap since you can get discmans that play audio and run on DC power for $25. The antenna is just a standard passive antenna, as well. Are you really saying the satellite reciever chip is worth $280?
And, even if that $130 figure you keep throwing around is due to the reciever, my above post remains unrefuted by you... namely, the fact that after the first 10 months of my subscription they've paid nothing extra to "keep" me, so years 2 and beyond of my subscription is gravy for them.
Buying another receiver doesn't help them out, it actually costs them money.
I strongly doubt this, since they offer a plan that lets you get a second reciever for an extra $3 a month (plus the cost of the reciever). They wouldn't do this if they were losing money on the deal.
I doubt they make much money on those recievers, but between the recievers and and the accessory packs such as the boombox, they are at the very least breaking even, and I expect, making something back. There's no way you can say they are losing money on a $80 "boombox" that is just speakers, a battery compartment, and a slot to stick your reciever. Or on a car kit which is $50 and is just various glue strips and a passive car antennna. If you can break down how they could possibly be losing money on either of those items, I'd be interested in hearing it.
One of the things people aren't taking into account about all the new subscriptions is the fact they're being generated by bulk sales to auto manufacturers. Stern is a distant second when it comes to the reason for new subscribers.
Is this a FACT, or a spin? You have some hard numbers to back that up?
Plus Stern's not doing anything new or innovative considering his newfound freedom from his arch-nemesis of the FCC. He's coasting until his contract is up in 2011 so he can retire.
I dunno, his show on satellite is wildly entertaining, and his channels are also quite entertaining. Six minutes of commercials versus 24+ on KROC is innovative enough for me. Especially since the show is one two channels at once (with a coastal time delay) so when the commercials play, I can switch to the other coast for a few minutes and never hear them at all.
Also great is the fact that you can HEAR THE BITS. Everything was so censored on KROC that sometimes you couldn't even understand the stories the guests were telling. Now it's great, because if nothing else, Stern is good at getting juicy stories out of his guests...
I'm a longtime fan of the show and now it's better than it's been since I first started listening in the mid 90s... maybe better, actually because Artie Lange is the best member of the cast he's ever had.
Sirius just released its third-quarter subscriber data: more than 5.1 million subscribers. That more than doubles the 2.2 million subscribers Sirius reported a year ago. Sirius claims it's out-grown competitor XM Satellite Radio for four straight quarters.
It was about two years ago that Howard Stern and Sirius announced their deal. Recently I blogged about Stern's lower ad rates on sat radio compared with his old terrestrial radio net. As several readers pointed out, that's only part of the formula.
Sirius currently charges $12.95 a month for a subscription. So every thousand subs means another $155,400 in revenue for Sirius. As cable TV does, sat radio gets two major revenue streams: subs and ads.
So what's the magic number? When does Howard Stern become a profitmaker for Sirius? We may have passed that number some time ago. Stern and his production staff reportedly cost Sirius $100 million a year. That's roughly the income from 644,000 subs at the current monthly rate.
link
So, there you go. Assuming that # is correct, as long as around 650,000 people subscribe (and continue toi do so) expressly because of Stern, he is paying for himself.
Sure, but in 5 years, once I have paid in $780, how much extra have they paid to keep me signed up?
The answer is nothing. And it doesn't cost them ANYTHING extra to transmit to me. Their signal goes out just the same, either way.
So in five years, I will have generated them $650. Possibly more as I imagine I will have bought a second reciever by then.
Multiple that $650 by a few million other people and you have a business model that is similar to Cable Tv, which also probably generated tremendous losses in the beginning.
Speaking of that, how much of that $130 figure you keep quoating is defrayed by the $100 i spent on my reciever + accessories. Not the full $100, of course, but some of that must have made it back to Sirius.
Sirius isn't even breaking even on cash flow, so after the 10 months it takes them to pay off the subscriber for showing up, they still lose money on every subscriber every month.
Not true, at least not teh way you have phrased it. After they pay off what it costs to acquire subscribers, they do NOT lose money on every subscriber, they lose money overall. It doesn't cost them any extra to transmit to 6,000,000 people than it would to 600. Thus, there must be a point where if they have X subscribers, they will have positive cashflow. Their costs are fixed, but the # of subscribers is not.
Do the math. For every subscriber if your numbers are right he earns 100 bucks and more as you say.
So? Do the math yourself. I signed up for Stern. I've now been a member for 14 months.
14 months x $13 = $182 they've made off me that they wouldn't have without Stern.
His $500 million salary is spead over 5 years, that means in 5 years Sirius will have gotten $780 from me (and the same from other Stern fans), without paying anything extra to Stern.
ANY subscription based business is a long term prospect. Assuming subscriptions keep growing at even a modest rate, and assumming Stern fans still like Stern enough to keep their accounts, I'm sure they will do fine.
Again, I feel it's likely the two satellite companies will merge, but I don't really care about that, as I'm not a stockholder. I just want to keep listening to the content I like, with as little commercials as possible, in my car (since I have a long commute).
Probably/maybe now vs DEFINITELY before. Out of the two companies, Sirius is looking like a better bet at the moment, XM's subscriber rate is slowing while Sirius is growing.
I don't really care, since I don't have stock in either. I imagine ultimately one will buy the other out.
WTF is a "select" talk channel?
Generally when some says you get a "select" anything, they mean a selection of choices from a larger group. In this case, the poster meant exactly that. A select talk channel is... one of a group of channels that are streamed. Not all channels are streamed - I believe this is because many of them probably have their own internet streaming audio, like the various NPR stations.
He moved to Sirius, which jumped from 600,000 subscribers before he was on it, to 6,000,000 subscribers now.
He is credited with basically saving Sirius from going out of business, and at the same time making himself $500,000,000 (and more, probably, with stock options).
Because the vast majority of US sports fans won't buy a realistic football game unless it has NFL or US colleg. players/stats/logos/etc. Blitz differentiates itself since it's in no way realistic. In this way, you are right that the NFL connection was holding it back, as now they can probably do moves and violnce levels that the NFL may have objected to before. However, the the NFL2K# and Madden series are both geared toward fans who want to replicate the games they watch on TV.
There's no way the developer would do anything but lose money trying to make a CFL game with the same production values as NFL2K#
If the only cost difference between a DVD drive and a Blu Ray drive was $20, the Blu Ray players on the market would not be $800-1000. They would be much closer to standard DVD prices. There are a lot of components, including the blue lasers which according to many news stories have really low yields. Plus R&D recouping, of course.
From a video entertainment perspective, Sony's strategy is bold. The Blu-ray drive alone is responsible for the majority of the price gap between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Wolfgang Schlichting, an analyst with IDC, believes that the cost of the PS3's Blu-ray drive is around US$200-300 per unit, while Merrill Lynch put the cost at US$350. My own contacts in manufacturing believe that the Lynch estimate is too high, but no one believes that the entire Blu-ray drive mechanism can be had for less than US$200 right now. - ars technica story
I would guess that these paid analysts, while probably just in the right ballpark, probably have better sources than a random slashdot poster.
You aren't forced, but game exclusivity does push people to buy consoles that have features they might not want.
If someone just wants to play the new Metal Gear Solid game, to do so they must by a PS3. If they have no desire to ever put a movie in this PS3, it's gonna be exclusively for MGS4(or whatever version is the new one)... I can see being annoyed at the extra price to pay. After all, last gen they could play their beloeved MGS for $300 + $50. Now it's $500/600 + $60.
That's all the original poster was getting at - it's annoying to some that people who don't care about Blu Ray can't buy one without it for less.
Personally, it doesn't annoy me, I am going to simply wait until the price comes down to one I consider"worth it" before I buy one. If I was huge fan of any Sony-exclusive franchises, maybe I would be tempted to splurge, but I am not as hardcore of a gamer as I once was.
While I do think counting the new series' episodes in the tally is unfair, there is no way Stargate has been running longer than the original Dr. Who ran. It started in the early 60s and and ended in the late 80s or early 90s. It was in black and white for the first several seasons, even!
"The Revolution games are going to be very expensive initially - probably about $60 or so if history is any guide."
They already announced the prices for the launch games. They range from $40-50.
Most people I know with PSPs are techies that use them to play movies they downloaded from the net, or emulators.
Most people I know with DSes play games on them... mostly casual type stuff liek tetris or nintendogs, also.
The PSP is a slick looking device, but it doesn't seem appeal very much to people who don't know/want to be bothered with homebrew/emulation. The official PS1 game download service thing might change that though. More games would also help - or if they could convince rockstar to not release LCS and VCS for the PS2 for $30 less than the PSP price, that would help too.
All the Wii controller does is replace the two thumbsticks of the X-Box with a controller which you can either move or tilt.
Uhhhh no. The Wiimote + Nunchaku has a thumbstick + move and tilt on the wiimote + move and tilt on the nunchaku + mouse/lightgun-type functionality via the sensor bar. You can be moving the nunchaku up (say to raise your shield in zelda) while using the thumbstick to move your character, while moving the wiimote in 3D space (say to slash your sword), while pressing a button on the wiimote (say to activate a power up for your sword slash). That's more freedom than just two thumb sticks.
If nothing else, the Wiimote will be able to simulate a mouse-like interface far better than a gamepad. But there are many possibilities beyond that - the much heralded rumor that LucasArts will make a lightsaber fighting game where you use the wiimote as your saber, for example.
One thing that I thought of that would be an interesting use of this controller setup for FPSes is if they use the nunchaku to control movement, and the wiimote for weapons... you use the wiimote to aim and fire, and the nunchaku thumbstick could be your directional movement, with it's buttons being crouch/jump/etc, AND the degree to which you tilt the nunchaku could make your character lean over to look around a corner, lean back to try and dodge (a la that scene in the matrix where neo leans over backwards to dodge bullets), etc.
However, this all assumes the controller works well. I haven't played one yet, nor have many people that aren't developers, so few people really know if it works as advertised. If it doesn't work well, or is annoying to use for longer than 30 minutes, I doubt the wii will be a success.
The only difference is that you need to wave your arms around like somebody doing Tai Chi with a sever muscle disorder in order to manipulate your on-screen character.
This is misinformation. IGN has a video from Leipzig of an IGN staffer playing several games, and he barely has to move his arms to do all game functions on a variety of games. I'm sure Wario Ware and Sports will require more wild motions, but that's because of the kind of games those are - party games have always required you to do dumb stuff. Mario Party had a warning on it about repetative motion, for example.