That still doesn't solve the issue of how you're going to get your consoles into those game stores who are now pissed off with you cutting into their margins though.
And you think publishers will care? Case in point. Virtual Console. Locking you used games potentially improves their ability to re-sell you those exact same games at a future date.
Realistically, blocking the ability of gamers to sell their used games isn't likely to be that much of a concern. PC gamers have already shown they're willing to accept that when coupled with reasonably sensible pricing schemes (eg. Practically any PC game download service, such as Steam).
The real problem for a company trying to implement something like this is going to be with the stores. Historically, stores such as Gamestop have only minimal margins on the sales of actual gaming consoles. (The Wii is a rare and notable exception there, and the Wii U is unlikely to be different on that score.) It's the same kind of razor & blades business model that Microsoft and Sony use selling them the consoles in the first place (though not as extreme, since Microsoft and Sony usually lose money on each console sold.) This is why many stores try to up-sell you to a bundle when you're buying a console, since they make so much more on the margin of those games (even the ones that they seemingly discount dramatically for the purpose of the bundle).
If you eliminate the possibility of these stores selling used games on a console, then you're leaving them only with new games (average margins) and consoles (minimal margins). What do you think will be the result of that? Most likely, they'll shift shelf space to something with better margins, if not eliminate the product line from their stores entirely. After all, when a games store sells you a console, they're hoping to continue to make money from you from game sales in the future. If you can't buy used games from them, then your value as a customer to them has just decreased dramatically.
Don't forget, SOPA was *not* shelved in the end.
on
SOPA and PIPA So Far
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Going back and looking at the news stories of the time, the issue *was* with units breaking, because after refurbishment of units broken down, Sony would have them "upgraded" to the latest firmware removing Other OS.
They don't give a damn about Other OS, because other than Slashdot, nobody else noticed or cared about it's absence.
The US Air Force was pretty upset about it, as I recall. They used (or still use?) a network of around 2,000 PlayStation 3 units running Linux for research. They'd only had it a few months before the Other OS option went away.
I'd like to think that Bulbapedia has graduated from "a" to "the" by now.;p
If I've posted nonsense, kindly point out where instead of making unsubstantiated claims. Anyone who cares to do a google search on anything I've said (or anything others such as Azuaron and mjwx have said above) will find the sales data to back it up.
Sales of the 3DS underwhelming? At the initial price point, before its flagship titles had been launched, sure. At the current price point, with those flagship Mario titles now released, the 3DS is absolutely *flogging* the opposition. By the beginning of December, the 3DS had already passed the 1st year sales of the original DS. What's more, the 3DS has sold more in its first 9 months than the *Wii* did in its first 9 months. The idea that the 3DS is doomed is preposterous.
The way you're painting things with the "war on two fronts", and Nintendo being able to "fall back on" handheld sales, you make it seem as if Nintendo lost the home console war to the PS3 and XBox360. Just in case you missed it with the howling of "hardcore gamers" and fanboys, the Wii thoroughly flogged them.
Seriously, Nintendo is in no danger at this point. I'm not saying Nintendo's done everything perfect, there's plenty of things they could have done a lot better. But their financials aren't really an issue. Nintendo made a loss, and people are making a big issue out of it, but it's really a red herring. Hell, a huge reason (if not the main reason) for that loss was the strong yen, not the sales performance of the 3DS.
I could actually understand being able to patent the basic appearance of something if that shape itself was
a) Something intimately associated with the product/brand
b) Not generic
The iPad passes test a, but fails miserably on test b. The Coke contour bottle would be an example of something that could potentially pass both tests. While the idea of a bottle is itself fairly generic, it's also one that lends itself to many variations, unlike the basic rectangle of tablet computers. Patenting one very specific bottle shape doesn't really hinder competitors in any meaningful way, except to prevent copycats.
It's not a parent on the form, though they are saying it's their intellectual property. Specifically, they're asserting it's trade dress, that consumers use that specific form factor to identify their product in the market. It's true that they might have acquired the "secondary meaning" in the market for that form factor, but given that they were hardly the first to release a product in that form factor I think it's ridiculous that they should be able to claim trade dress for it.
You're right. It's not the home screen at all, it's the applications list screen in grid mode. On the home screen, there's a button to the application list where the home button appears in that picture.
From the rumblings I've been hearing, rather than adding a new R18+ rating about the MA15+ rating, what they may be intending to do is simply to change the current MA15+ rating into an R18+ rating. All the games currently ending up as refused classification because they go beyond what's allowed for the MA15+ rating would still be refused classification. Such a change would be fairly dangerous for our marketplace, I'd think. With the way the general public treats R ratings for film and TV, an R18+ sticker would be a death sentence to games that would have gotten an MA15+ before, where they would have expected good sales to teens. Under that kind of situation, we could potentially see games even more dramatically cut here in Australia, so they could scrape in with an M or even a PG rating.
The actual court order is over on Chilling Effects
http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=2160
It expressly says that Google is to remove the links "from all their sites". So...yeah, the publishers got what they wished for, they just didn't realise what that would really imply.
Which does raise some interesting questions about how Google works on the backend. I wonder if it's actually possible for a news site to appear on one and not the other with how Google's search database is setup. If you do a regular Google search, one of the ways you can narrow things down in the left sidebar is news. I'm getting the idea that for a website to be correctly indexed so that it appears when you narrow down the search to news, it would also appear in Google News aggregated feeds. So technically it should therefore be possible to index the site without it appearing on Google News, however it'd also mean that Google can't actually then filter them properly on their search results.
Sounds to me like that court order pretty much required Google to do what they did. I assume the newspapers simply didn't realise exactly what it was they were really asking for when they made that attack, and I'm sure their competitors are loving them for it right now.
Nope, it's theistic evolution. Both viewpoints essentially say that "god created the universe", however intelligent design goes a step further in claiming that "life was created (by god but we won't use that word) and hasn't changed". while theistic evolution is more "god designed the laws that govern life, the universe and everything, and thus the process of evolution is part of his/her/its unknowable grand plan, with god having set off in some way the chain of events which led to the eventual creation of life".
I do have to wonder, what would give anyone the impression that HDTV capability wouldn't be included? In 2005, HDTV's were still rare, and the components were expensive. Now, they're a lot more common, most new TV's are HDTV compatible, and the components to throw it in a console would be cheap, easily allowing them to include it without impacting on the profit margins of the console. There's no business reason for Nintendo to exclude it, and plenty to include it, so why is there this impression amongst some that they wouldn't? A vestige of the old "Nintendo is for kiddies" crowd, not believing Nintendo could ever put something in a console that would appeal to (supposed) "grown-ups"?
As this generation has shown, I think it's fair to say that while it may be profitable over a longer term, there's less lifetime of product profits to be had from it. In the case of Sony, I'd imagine they would have been willing to eat any less of potential profits on the gaming side in exchange for synergies with their movie business. Getting more of their Blu-ray drives out there helped them to win that format war and gave them a revenue stream that they wouldn't have had previously, so even as losers in the gaming race, they're still coming out well ahead as a company overall. Nintendo doesn't have those same external business concerns to worry about however.
And it's these kind of posts which just reinforce my feeling that the attitudes against the Wiimote for FPS are based on a faulty understanding of exactly how to use the controller. I will admit, Nintendo did shoot themselves in the foot with their advertisements depicting people holding their arm up perfectly straight and pointed at the screen. It looks awesome in an ad, but no one would find the Wiimote comfortable if they had to do that. However, that's simply not how anyone who's really sat down and played with these for extended periods would use it.
Best way to understand it is to think of staring down your arm and the Wiimote to aim as equivalent of you zooming while using a sniper rifle. You don't go walking around doing that every single instant of playing an FPS game, I'm sure. Most of the time, you're really going to be shooting from the hip, as it were, relying on your targeting reticule to aim. We do the exact same thing with the Wiimote. Most of the time, you would keep your hand either on an arm rest or in your lap (exactly the same posture you use for a traditional controller is perfectly fine, and perhaps even optimal), moving more with your wrist than anything else. You certainly shouldn't be getting any shoulder strain, because your shoulder shouldn't even be in use there. Nor would you need to stand up. When you relax and play like this, the pointer effectively becomes the same as a mouse cursor, and it doesn't take long to get used to the range of movements you'll need to make to move that cursor around.
They may not be swear words, but I never said they were. I would imagine however that you do consider their use fairly crude, and not something acceptable in polite, professional company. Over here....no one would give a damn.
Yes, and it's that install base that counts. The Wii is essentially in the same position (or better) that the PS2 was in at the end of last generation. If PS3 is currently the top seller, it's because the Wii has already reached saturation point. In other words, many of those PS3 owners already own a Wii, and probably bought it years ago at that.
Not the expectations of "gamers", because "gamers" is a much much broader demographic than it was even 5 years ago. "Self-described hardcore gamers" maybe, but even there you'll find that there's not a universal demand for photorealistic graphics. There's plenty of game genres out there which simply do not require them. When it comes down to it, what gamers really are looking for are games that are *fun*, not eye candy. Pretty graphics are nice, but it's only really when poor graphics actually hampers gameplay and the fun factor that they would really factor into the decision making processes of most gamers.
Did you not read the linked articles at all then? They certainly brought up the fact.
Personally, as a Nintendo fan, I ask why it is that the other companies in the industry insist on razor-and-blades models, selling at a loss? Nintendo's quite comprehensively proven in this hardware generation that it's far far far more profitable to go for a technology level that's able to be mass produced at a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
That still doesn't solve the issue of how you're going to get your consoles into those game stores who are now pissed off with you cutting into their margins though.
And you think publishers will care? Case in point. Virtual Console. Locking you used games potentially improves their ability to re-sell you those exact same games at a future date.
...that the US would plummet on World Press Freedom rankings given that Fox News literally won the right in court to lie to its viewers.
Realistically, blocking the ability of gamers to sell their used games isn't likely to be that much of a concern. PC gamers have already shown they're willing to accept that when coupled with reasonably sensible pricing schemes (eg. Practically any PC game download service, such as Steam).
The real problem for a company trying to implement something like this is going to be with the stores. Historically, stores such as Gamestop have only minimal margins on the sales of actual gaming consoles. (The Wii is a rare and notable exception there, and the Wii U is unlikely to be different on that score.) It's the same kind of razor & blades business model that Microsoft and Sony use selling them the consoles in the first place (though not as extreme, since Microsoft and Sony usually lose money on each console sold.) This is why many stores try to up-sell you to a bundle when you're buying a console, since they make so much more on the margin of those games (even the ones that they seemingly discount dramatically for the purpose of the bundle).
If you eliminate the possibility of these stores selling used games on a console, then you're leaving them only with new games (average margins) and consoles (minimal margins). What do you think will be the result of that? Most likely, they'll shift shelf space to something with better margins, if not eliminate the product line from their stores entirely. After all, when a games store sells you a console, they're hoping to continue to make money from you from game sales in the future. If you can't buy used games from them, then your value as a customer to them has just decreased dramatically.
It's going to resume in February. http://judiciary.house.gov/news/01172012.html
Going back and looking at the news stories of the time, the issue *was* with units breaking, because after refurbishment of units broken down, Sony would have them "upgraded" to the latest firmware removing Other OS.
They don't give a damn about Other OS, because other than Slashdot, nobody else noticed or cared about it's absence.
The US Air Force was pretty upset about it, as I recall. They used (or still use?) a network of around 2,000 PlayStation 3 units running Linux for research. They'd only had it a few months before the Other OS option went away.
I'd like to think that Bulbapedia has graduated from "a" to "the" by now. ;p
If I've posted nonsense, kindly point out where instead of making unsubstantiated claims. Anyone who cares to do a google search on anything I've said (or anything others such as Azuaron and mjwx have said above) will find the sales data to back it up.
Sales of the 3DS underwhelming? At the initial price point, before its flagship titles had been launched, sure. At the current price point, with those flagship Mario titles now released, the 3DS is absolutely *flogging* the opposition. By the beginning of December, the 3DS had already passed the 1st year sales of the original DS. What's more, the 3DS has sold more in its first 9 months than the *Wii* did in its first 9 months. The idea that the 3DS is doomed is preposterous. The way you're painting things with the "war on two fronts", and Nintendo being able to "fall back on" handheld sales, you make it seem as if Nintendo lost the home console war to the PS3 and XBox360. Just in case you missed it with the howling of "hardcore gamers" and fanboys, the Wii thoroughly flogged them. Seriously, Nintendo is in no danger at this point. I'm not saying Nintendo's done everything perfect, there's plenty of things they could have done a lot better. But their financials aren't really an issue. Nintendo made a loss, and people are making a big issue out of it, but it's really a red herring. Hell, a huge reason (if not the main reason) for that loss was the strong yen, not the sales performance of the 3DS.
I could actually understand being able to patent the basic appearance of something if that shape itself was a) Something intimately associated with the product/brand b) Not generic The iPad passes test a, but fails miserably on test b. The Coke contour bottle would be an example of something that could potentially pass both tests. While the idea of a bottle is itself fairly generic, it's also one that lends itself to many variations, unlike the basic rectangle of tablet computers. Patenting one very specific bottle shape doesn't really hinder competitors in any meaningful way, except to prevent copycats.
It's not a parent on the form, though they are saying it's their intellectual property. Specifically, they're asserting it's trade dress, that consumers use that specific form factor to identify their product in the market. It's true that they might have acquired the "secondary meaning" in the market for that form factor, but given that they were hardly the first to release a product in that form factor I think it's ridiculous that they should be able to claim trade dress for it.
You're right. It's not the home screen at all, it's the applications list screen in grid mode. On the home screen, there's a button to the application list where the home button appears in that picture.
From the rumblings I've been hearing, rather than adding a new R18+ rating about the MA15+ rating, what they may be intending to do is simply to change the current MA15+ rating into an R18+ rating. All the games currently ending up as refused classification because they go beyond what's allowed for the MA15+ rating would still be refused classification. Such a change would be fairly dangerous for our marketplace, I'd think. With the way the general public treats R ratings for film and TV, an R18+ sticker would be a death sentence to games that would have gotten an MA15+ before, where they would have expected good sales to teens. Under that kind of situation, we could potentially see games even more dramatically cut here in Australia, so they could scrape in with an M or even a PG rating.
The actual court order is over on Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=2160 It expressly says that Google is to remove the links "from all their sites". So...yeah, the publishers got what they wished for, they just didn't realise what that would really imply.
Which does raise some interesting questions about how Google works on the backend. I wonder if it's actually possible for a news site to appear on one and not the other with how Google's search database is setup. If you do a regular Google search, one of the ways you can narrow things down in the left sidebar is news. I'm getting the idea that for a website to be correctly indexed so that it appears when you narrow down the search to news, it would also appear in Google News aggregated feeds. So technically it should therefore be possible to index the site without it appearing on Google News, however it'd also mean that Google can't actually then filter them properly on their search results.
Sounds to me like that court order pretty much required Google to do what they did. I assume the newspapers simply didn't realise exactly what it was they were really asking for when they made that attack, and I'm sure their competitors are loving them for it right now.
Nope, it's theistic evolution. Both viewpoints essentially say that "god created the universe", however intelligent design goes a step further in claiming that "life was created (by god but we won't use that word) and hasn't changed". while theistic evolution is more "god designed the laws that govern life, the universe and everything, and thus the process of evolution is part of his/her/its unknowable grand plan, with god having set off in some way the chain of events which led to the eventual creation of life".
Considering that the standard placebo is a sugar pill, it's certainly something that should be investigated.
I do have to wonder, what would give anyone the impression that HDTV capability wouldn't be included? In 2005, HDTV's were still rare, and the components were expensive. Now, they're a lot more common, most new TV's are HDTV compatible, and the components to throw it in a console would be cheap, easily allowing them to include it without impacting on the profit margins of the console. There's no business reason for Nintendo to exclude it, and plenty to include it, so why is there this impression amongst some that they wouldn't? A vestige of the old "Nintendo is for kiddies" crowd, not believing Nintendo could ever put something in a console that would appeal to (supposed) "grown-ups"?
As this generation has shown, I think it's fair to say that while it may be profitable over a longer term, there's less lifetime of product profits to be had from it. In the case of Sony, I'd imagine they would have been willing to eat any less of potential profits on the gaming side in exchange for synergies with their movie business. Getting more of their Blu-ray drives out there helped them to win that format war and gave them a revenue stream that they wouldn't have had previously, so even as losers in the gaming race, they're still coming out well ahead as a company overall. Nintendo doesn't have those same external business concerns to worry about however.
And it's these kind of posts which just reinforce my feeling that the attitudes against the Wiimote for FPS are based on a faulty understanding of exactly how to use the controller. I will admit, Nintendo did shoot themselves in the foot with their advertisements depicting people holding their arm up perfectly straight and pointed at the screen. It looks awesome in an ad, but no one would find the Wiimote comfortable if they had to do that. However, that's simply not how anyone who's really sat down and played with these for extended periods would use it. Best way to understand it is to think of staring down your arm and the Wiimote to aim as equivalent of you zooming while using a sniper rifle. You don't go walking around doing that every single instant of playing an FPS game, I'm sure. Most of the time, you're really going to be shooting from the hip, as it were, relying on your targeting reticule to aim. We do the exact same thing with the Wiimote. Most of the time, you would keep your hand either on an arm rest or in your lap (exactly the same posture you use for a traditional controller is perfectly fine, and perhaps even optimal), moving more with your wrist than anything else. You certainly shouldn't be getting any shoulder strain, because your shoulder shouldn't even be in use there. Nor would you need to stand up. When you relax and play like this, the pointer effectively becomes the same as a mouse cursor, and it doesn't take long to get used to the range of movements you'll need to make to move that cursor around.
They may not be swear words, but I never said they were. I would imagine however that you do consider their use fairly crude, and not something acceptable in polite, professional company. Over here....no one would give a damn.
Yes, and it's that install base that counts. The Wii is essentially in the same position (or better) that the PS2 was in at the end of last generation. If PS3 is currently the top seller, it's because the Wii has already reached saturation point. In other words, many of those PS3 owners already own a Wii, and probably bought it years ago at that.
Not the expectations of "gamers", because "gamers" is a much much broader demographic than it was even 5 years ago. "Self-described hardcore gamers" maybe, but even there you'll find that there's not a universal demand for photorealistic graphics. There's plenty of game genres out there which simply do not require them. When it comes down to it, what gamers really are looking for are games that are *fun*, not eye candy. Pretty graphics are nice, but it's only really when poor graphics actually hampers gameplay and the fun factor that they would really factor into the decision making processes of most gamers.
Did you not read the linked articles at all then? They certainly brought up the fact. Personally, as a Nintendo fan, I ask why it is that the other companies in the industry insist on razor-and-blades models, selling at a loss? Nintendo's quite comprehensively proven in this hardware generation that it's far far far more profitable to go for a technology level that's able to be mass produced at a profit.