Nintendo's games are just basically, IMO carbon copy sequels.
Okay, three options here: You have never played Nintendo games and simply don't know what youre talking about; you're a Sony/MS fanboy who choses to ignore reality; you're insane.
Take your pick.
Nintendo generally doesn't actually do sequels. They do franchises.
Now, first of all, let's get the sequels out of the way: there are Nintendo published sequels. Pikmin 2, Metroid Prime 2, Super Mario Bros 2 (Lost Levels, not the US/EU doki doki panic version), lots of the Pokémon games.
But most of Nintendo's so-called sequels actually aren't.
Is Super Mario 64 a sequel to Super Mario World? Is Wind Waker a sequel to Ocarina of Time? They re-use gameplay mechanics, they re-use characters and storylines, but they're totally different games. This is not "Madden 2004 vs. Madden 2005." Lots of these "Nintendo sequels" actually get tons of heat because they're too different from the previous versions - Double Dash, for example. And what about all the wholly new franchises which Nintendo creates?
Yeah, Nintendo re-uses its characters a lot. There's a Mario entry in every genre except first person shooters. That doesn't mean these games are "carbon copy sequels," and this is not a matter of opinion, either.
If you want to learn how to cook, get Cooking Mama.
Not sure if you're serious, but in case anyone got the wrong impression: Cooking Mama doesn't teach you how to cook. It's a game along the lines of Wario Ware with cooking-themed microgames.
You don't actually learn how to cook.
But yeah, Cooking Mama is a game where you cook stuff, so David Chase is kind of wrong.
I don't get how anyone could think going with slower hardware is a GOOD thing
Slower hardware isn't a good thing. It's also not a bad thing. It has positive and negative effects. The main negative effect is, of course, that the games won't look as good as on other consoles. Positive effects include cheaper games and more room for smaller games and smaller publishers/developers.
As with everything in life, it's a trade-off.
the cost to develop games will always be changing
Yep, and with the Wii, they're changing downwards.
The fact is if you provide the developers hardware *they will find ways to use it for something* even if that is not graphics!!
Exactly. And finding and impelmenting those things costs money.
Exta processing power does not always have to be about graphics...
Technically, you're right. In reality, not so much.
I'm getting a litle tired of the "so the graphicss aren't as good, who cares?" well what about things we don't see "visually" that the game developers use the extra processing power for?
Like the crowd in Assassin's Creed? You know, most developers don't invest time in things like these, and even if they do: It's unclear whether it matters. Will the PS3 version be better than the 360 version because the crowd acts less stupidly? I have no idea.
So, what about the things that developers do with the Wii controller? Isn't that a more immediate effect than a crowd that behaves more intelligently?
But they're spending that money anyways to get the game to also run on the 360 and PS3
Interestingly, this doesn't seem to be the case so far. A lot of the Wii games are Wii exclusive, and even most of the franchises that are ported to the Wii seem to be totally different games from their 360/PS3 counterparts.
Exactly. About 10% (or more, depending on who you ask) of all "household energy" is used by devices in standby mode. It's not a lot of money for every single household, but it is a lot of energy if you add it up.
As an example, if you use your Xbox for two hours a week and keep it in standby for the rest of the week, it uses more energy in standby than during the two hours you use it - and the only thing you gain from it is that you can turn it on using the remote.
So if you do have devices which keep their settings even if they aren't plugged in (and most devices do), please do unplug them.
None of Nintendo's games require you to do anything approaching an exercise. You can play them while sitting in your sofa. It seems that you can jump around and wave your Wiimote, but you don't have to.
Well, the 360 comment wasn't part of the analogy... My point was, if you don't want bluray, you don't want a PS3.
That point makes no sense. Nobody wants a PS3. Nobody wants Bluray. People want to play games which run on a PS3.
To do that, they need a PS3.
So instead of including a cheaper drive, Sony included a Bluray drive, which - in a kind of way - forces people who want to play these games to buy a Bluray drive, even though most of these games would work just as well (or better) if they were released on DVD.
In this light, Sony forces customers to buy Bluray drives in order to make Bluray the successfull standard.
Yeah, "to force" is not meant literal. Sony doesn't come to your house and hits you with a baseball bat until you buy the PS3. But everyone understood perfectly well in what context the word was used.
At this point, none of the Sony games are listing for more than $60 while many of the 360 titles are $70.
Right. And considering how the 360 is a year old, not as fast as the PS3, has worse HD support and ships games on DVD instead of on the bigger Bluray disks (somebody has to make all the cutscenes, HD textures, music and whatnot to fill these things:-), it's no stretch to expect PS3 games to generally cost more than 360 games.
Newsflash: The 360 also costs too much. Yeah, this generation isn't the same. One of the consoles is priced okay, one costs too much and one costs so much that only freaking prince abdulla from saudi-arabia can afford one if he also wants to get a few controllers and a few games and maybe a TV that actually, you know, works (as in: doesn't look just the same as his old console) with his new console.
And we don't yet know how the pricing situation will turn out. Except that the PS3 games will cost more than the Wii games. If the studios can't be profitable with games at 60 bucks, the games will cost more. And if Sony can't produce (or sell) enough consoles, studios won't be able to sell enough games to become profitable.
My guess is that at least the top-tier games for the PS3 will eventually cost more than 60 bucks.
Unless, of course, you have a link to Kaz making the statement you claim he made.
But of course I do. Check out your own damn link. You cut out the interesting part of that quote: "So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don't ding me, but, again, I don't expect it to be $100."
Kaz expects prices to be "a bit higher than 59$," and you can bet your, uhm, something bettable that you own which is worth a lot... You can bet that worthy thing that "a bit higher than 59" doesn't mean "60."
The PS3 is 600 bucks. Without a game. The Wii is 250. With a game. It's not 700 vs. 200, but it's pretty damn close.
And Kaz Hirai himself said that games will cost between US$60 and US$100 (what he said amounted to "probably higher than 60 bucks, but less than 100"). That's not a rumor.
Nor was my reply, entirey. Aside from one dig at you for being overly supportive of the 360.
Uhm... What the hell are you talking about? The entry you just replied to was the first thing I've said in this thread.
Let's go through this thread:
MeanMF says: "Crappy frame rate (in a 2-d game!) and kind of interesting for about five minutes. Not quite Geometry Wars, sorry guys."
Please note that he's talking about the Flash game. Nothing about the PS3.
You reply:
Yest another moronic anti-PS3 post (...) Does hating Sony kill brain cells? It would appear so.
MeanMF then writes that he did not say anything about the PS3, and that the game would "suck just as much" on the 360. Hence, he's pointing out that his post wasn't in fact a "moronic anti-PS3 post," as you so nicely put it.
To that, you reply (and I'm not making this up):
Re-read my comment where I stated they would probably spruce it up for a console.
This makes absolutely no sense. MeanMF did not say anything about the console version of the game. He did not say that the game would suck on the PS3. He simply said that the Flash version sucked. I pointed this out: The original post wasn't about the PS3 (or about anything to do with consoles at all). Then you wrote:
Nor was my reply, entirey. Aside from one dig at you for being overly supportive of the 360. Put that aside and my comment was neutral as well, it would apply equally if Flow were being put out on Live. You seem to miss the basic fact that the online game is very, very old and a proof of concept, not a finished product.
I can't see how the original commenter (who, again, was not me) was "overly supportive of the 360." He simply pointed out that the Flash game was crappy (which it is) and that it wasn't as good as Geometry Wars (which it isn't). He probably mentioned Geometry Wars because people compared the game to it. Maybe the finished version will be as good as Geometry wars (I wouldn't know, I don't own a 360 and have never played the game). Nobody is "missing any basic facts." In fact, it's absurd to claim that we miss the "basic fact" that the game is old - since that is exactly what everyone has been saying all along.
MeanMF probably isn't a 360 fanboy (I wouldn't know from these two posts), but you sure as hell sound like a moronic Sony fanboy jumping at everything you think could be interpreted as criticism of the PS3.
People that I've talked to, including staunch PlayStation supporters, have said that they don't plan on buying a PS3 because of the high price point
I have to agree. I wonder who the hell he asked about these "magic price points." I have no doubt that the PS3 will sell out during its first few months, but the console race isn't a first-few-months affair. Most of my friends could afford a PS3, but guess what? Nobody I know has even bought an Xbox 360 - even those who own and love the old Xbox.
Both the 360 and the PS3 simply cost too much for what they deliver.
Most gamers want games and value, not brand alone. Sure, the Playstation brand is strong, but if it's the only thing you got, you ain't got enough. The PSP showed that.
Zonk couldn't make this stuff up if he wanted to. Did Zonk make Kutaragi say stupid crap? Did Zonk force Sony to price the PS3 at 600 bucks? Did Zonk personally buy every DS in order to make sure that the PSP sold less? Did Zonk plant the Rootkit in the Sony CDs? Did Zonk personally program GT HD? Did Zonk switch Sony's controller with one that mimics some of the functionality of the Wii controller? Did Zonk write the script to the RIIIDGE RAAAAACER/giant crabs from Japan's history presentations?
Yeah, so it really isn't that big of an issue
on
Will the Wii Work?
·
· Score: 1
Cheaper doesn't mean it's reasonably priced.
Ah, but that is an interesting question. What does "reasonably priced" mean? Does it mean "What I want to pay for it"? Or maybe "The most we can charge while still selling as much as we can during the first few months"? Or could it be "Not too much so we won't cost more than the others, but not too little either so people won't perceive our console as 'cheap'"?
It's absolutely as big of a deal as I make it, because I'm not buying a Wii due to the price
So that would be "option 1" then. "As much as I want to pay". Unfortunately, Nintendo doesn't care about you in particular. Which is precisely why, while it might be a big deal for you, it's not for Nintendo, or for anyone else.
The Wii's price will come down. Buy it then if you don't want to buy it now.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, three options here: You have never played Nintendo games and simply don't know what youre talking about; you're a Sony/MS fanboy who choses to ignore reality; you're insane.
Take your pick.
Nintendo generally doesn't actually do sequels. They do franchises.
Now, first of all, let's get the sequels out of the way: there are Nintendo published sequels. Pikmin 2, Metroid Prime 2, Super Mario Bros 2 (Lost Levels, not the US/EU doki doki panic version), lots of the Pokémon games.
But most of Nintendo's so-called sequels actually aren't.
Is Super Mario 64 a sequel to Super Mario World? Is Wind Waker a sequel to Ocarina of Time? They re-use gameplay mechanics, they re-use characters and storylines, but they're totally different games. This is not "Madden 2004 vs. Madden 2005." Lots of these "Nintendo sequels" actually get tons of heat because they're too different from the previous versions - Double Dash, for example. And what about all the wholly new franchises which Nintendo creates?
Yeah, Nintendo re-uses its characters a lot. There's a Mario entry in every genre except first person shooters. That doesn't mean these games are "carbon copy sequels," and this is not a matter of opinion, either.
Not sure if you're serious, but in case anyone got the wrong impression: Cooking Mama doesn't teach you how to cook. It's a game along the lines of Wario Ware with cooking-themed microgames.
You don't actually learn how to cook.
But yeah, Cooking Mama is a game where you cook stuff, so David Chase is kind of wrong.
MDK was developed and published by Shiny. MDK2 was developed by Bioware.
Remember Harmony?
Slower hardware isn't a good thing. It's also not a bad thing. It has positive and negative effects. The main negative effect is, of course, that the games won't look as good as on other consoles. Positive effects include cheaper games and more room for smaller games and smaller publishers/developers.
As with everything in life, it's a trade-off.
Yep, and with the Wii, they're changing downwards.
Exactly. And finding and impelmenting those things costs money.
Technically, you're right. In reality, not so much.
Like the crowd in Assassin's Creed? You know, most developers don't invest time in things like these, and even if they do: It's unclear whether it matters. Will the PS3 version be better than the 360 version because the crowd acts less stupidly? I have no idea.
So, what about the things that developers do with the Wii controller? Isn't that a more immediate effect than a crowd that behaves more intelligently?
Interestingly, this doesn't seem to be the case so far. A lot of the Wii games are Wii exclusive, and even most of the franchises that are ported to the Wii seem to be totally different games from their 360/PS3 counterparts.
Exactly. About 10% (or more, depending on who you ask) of all "household energy" is used by devices in standby mode. It's not a lot of money for every single household, but it is a lot of energy if you add it up.
As an example, if you use your Xbox for two hours a week and keep it in standby for the rest of the week, it uses more energy in standby than during the two hours you use it - and the only thing you gain from it is that you can turn it on using the remote.
So if you do have devices which keep their settings even if they aren't plugged in (and most devices do), please do unplug them.
None of Nintendo's games require you to do anything approaching an exercise. You can play them while sitting in your sofa. It seems that you can jump around and wave your Wiimote, but you don't have to.
Madden isn't a Nintendo game.
Well, seems like they got at least one thing right.
Andy Ihnatko wrote a nice rant about Windows and Macs after writing his book on iPods. Well worth a read.
That point makes no sense. Nobody wants a PS3. Nobody wants Bluray. People want to play games which run on a PS3.
To do that, they need a PS3.
So instead of including a cheaper drive, Sony included a Bluray drive, which - in a kind of way - forces people who want to play these games to buy a Bluray drive, even though most of these games would work just as well (or better) if they were released on DVD.
In this light, Sony forces customers to buy Bluray drives in order to make Bluray the successfull standard.
Yeah, "to force" is not meant literal. Sony doesn't come to your house and hits you with a baseball bat until you buy the PS3. But everyone understood perfectly well in what context the word was used.
That would certainly be a most welcome outcome, but I don't really expect it.
Right. And considering how the 360 is a year old, not as fast as the PS3, has worse HD support and ships games on DVD instead of on the bigger Bluray disks (somebody has to make all the cutscenes, HD textures, music and whatnot to fill these things :-), it's no stretch to expect PS3 games to generally cost more than 360 games.
Newsflash: The 360 also costs too much. Yeah, this generation isn't the same. One of the consoles is priced okay, one costs too much and one costs so much that only freaking prince abdulla from saudi-arabia can afford one if he also wants to get a few controllers and a few games and maybe a TV that actually, you know, works (as in: doesn't look just the same as his old console) with his new console.
And we don't yet know how the pricing situation will turn out. Except that the PS3 games will cost more than the Wii games. If the studios can't be profitable with games at 60 bucks, the games will cost more. And if Sony can't produce (or sell) enough consoles, studios won't be able to sell enough games to become profitable.
My guess is that at least the top-tier games for the PS3 will eventually cost more than 60 bucks.
But of course I do. Check out your own damn link. You cut out the interesting part of that quote: "So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don't ding me, but, again, I don't expect it to be $100."
Kaz expects prices to be "a bit higher than 59$," and you can bet your, uhm, something bettable that you own which is worth a lot... You can bet that worthy thing that "a bit higher than 59" doesn't mean "60."
The PS3 is 600 bucks. Without a game. The Wii is 250. With a game. It's not 700 vs. 200, but it's pretty damn close.
And Kaz Hirai himself said that games will cost between US$60 and US$100 (what he said amounted to "probably higher than 60 bucks, but less than 100"). That's not a rumor.
It seems they're only going after usages that are not "goods and services offered in the podcasting field".
Seems like people shouldn't be too concerned about this right now.
Uhm... What the hell are you talking about? The entry you just replied to was the first thing I've said in this thread.
Let's go through this thread:
Please note that he's talking about the Flash game. Nothing about the PS3.
You reply:
MeanMF then writes that he did not say anything about the PS3, and that the game would "suck just as much" on the 360. Hence, he's pointing out that his post wasn't in fact a "moronic anti-PS3 post," as you so nicely put it.
To that, you reply (and I'm not making this up):
This makes absolutely no sense. MeanMF did not say anything about the console version of the game. He did not say that the game would suck on the PS3. He simply said that the Flash version sucked. I pointed this out: The original post wasn't about the PS3 (or about anything to do with consoles at all). Then you wrote:
I can't see how the original commenter (who, again, was not me) was "overly supportive of the 360." He simply pointed out that the Flash game was crappy (which it is) and that it wasn't as good as Geometry Wars (which it isn't). He probably mentioned Geometry Wars because people compared the game to it. Maybe the finished version will be as good as Geometry wars (I wouldn't know, I don't own a 360 and have never played the game). Nobody is "missing any basic facts." In fact, it's absurd to claim that we miss the "basic fact" that the game is old - since that is exactly what everyone has been saying all along.
MeanMF probably isn't a 360 fanboy (I wouldn't know from these two posts), but you sure as hell sound like a moronic Sony fanboy jumping at everything you think could be interpreted as criticism of the PS3.
Long post. Sorry, but I'm bored.
The original comment was not about the PS3.
I have to agree. I wonder who the hell he asked about these "magic price points." I have no doubt that the PS3 will sell out during its first few months, but the console race isn't a first-few-months affair. Most of my friends could afford a PS3, but guess what? Nobody I know has even bought an Xbox 360 - even those who own and love the old Xbox.
Both the 360 and the PS3 simply cost too much for what they deliver.
Most gamers want games and value, not brand alone. Sure, the Playstation brand is strong, but if it's the only thing you got, you ain't got enough. The PSP showed that.
Zonk couldn't make this stuff up if he wanted to. Did Zonk make Kutaragi say stupid crap? Did Zonk force Sony to price the PS3 at 600 bucks? Did Zonk personally buy every DS in order to make sure that the PSP sold less? Did Zonk plant the Rootkit in the Sony CDs? Did Zonk personally program GT HD? Did Zonk switch Sony's controller with one that mimics some of the functionality of the Wii controller? Did Zonk write the script to the RIIIDGE RAAAAACER/giant crabs from Japan's history presentations?
Don't kill the messenger.
Don't worry, there's a plain text version :-D
Seriously, though, MDJ and MWJ are by far the best, most in-depth publications on Apple and the Mac. Check out the trial subscriptions.
One note: There's been a problem with the ventilation system in the macjournal's publisher's headquarters, so they're pretty taking an unscheduled vacation right now.
Ah, but that is an interesting question. What does "reasonably priced" mean? Does it mean "What I want to pay for it"? Or maybe "The most we can charge while still selling as much as we can during the first few months"? Or could it be "Not too much so we won't cost more than the others, but not too little either so people won't perceive our console as 'cheap'"?
So that would be "option 1" then. "As much as I want to pay". Unfortunately, Nintendo doesn't care about you in particular. Which is precisely why, while it might be a big deal for you, it's not for Nintendo, or for anyone else.
The Wii's price will come down. Buy it then if you don't want to buy it now.
There is. Now pay :-)
Meh. That was a publicity stunt. Doesn't make the articles any less interesting (or any less true :-)