The casual charge of technology thief is rife with bias and laziness.
And claiming that there was no theft is the same, but doubly so:-)
Honestly, claiming that Americans did not "steal" ideas and knowledge from Europe is somewhere between absurd and preposterous. Of course they did steal those things. They didn't start from zero. Somebody mentioned Samuel Slater, the US did not respect European patents, and there are probably countless other examples of ideas which originated in Europe and where then "stolen" by the USA.
I don't think there's anything wrong with stealing ideas. That's what you're supposed to do. Steal the damn ideas and improve upon them. That's how humanity has always progressed. Patents hurt those nations which respect them. So, frankly, I don't see why you're so defensive about it.
Obviously, "stealing" implies something that already existed. Listing a number of new inventions (which were, if premise holds true, based on stolen ideas) does not contradict the given premise.
Perhaps the Russian people did the same. If 96% of the Russian population said that they wanted to block this group from television access, then a typical American political philosophy (which endorses democracy and populism) would have to say "well, ok then, they'd better block it". That would be a valid reason.
Hopefully, a typical American political philosophy would not say that. Banning a specific group from appearing on TV due to a majority vote seems to be dictatorship by the majority. The usual way would be to go through legislation. You would make a law which governs what can appear on TV. Then, the group in question would be tested by the rules in the law, and if it is found that the group can not appear on TV, it would have the option to contest that in front of a court.
Yes, in fact, I did read it. Although only after posting - I still don't understand what the poster is trying to say, given that the discussion was that Mac users are locked in to... something. And you are right, it is a "fucking" subject, although I personally would not go as far as insulting the person who wrote the subject.
Do you mean "who'll use this"? Me. Usual scenario: A few friends are over. "Have you seen that weird YouTube clip?" "No, let's check it out." Looking at web pages with pals works very well with the Wii, much better than getting everyone to see the screen of my notebook.
1. Does Youtube work? Does it handle streaming audio/video? I haven't found anyone who will (or can, see #2) comment on it. If not "interesting" but meaningless if some of the best reasons to browse stuff on a TV doesn't work. No one is dying to read/. on their Wii.
Have you actually asked anyone? It has supported YouTube since the beginning.
2. When will Nintendo get around to actually selling people a Wii? Again these features are "interesting" but entirely meaningless if too few people actually have to hardware to enjoy it.
They're selling plenty. In fact, they will soon catch up with the 360. The issue isn't that they're selling small numbers, the issue is that demand is even higher than their production capacities. They are now looking for a second manufacturer, but these things take time.
Look, everything is either a gimmick, or a genuinely useful feature, and the only way to "prove" the difference is to measure the staying power.
That sentence makes no sense. If something is either a gimmick or a genuinely useful feature, then something is shown to not be a gimmick due to its useful nature. As I said, play Godfather on the Wii. This shows that the Wii Remote isn't just some gimmick only useful for games like Wii Tennis or Bowling.
You might as well say "Duck Hunt" proves the Light Gun isn't a gimmick.
If I had used Wii Sports to show that the Remote isn't a gimmick, your argument would make sense. Geez, look at the games available for the Wii. It's clearly proof that traditional games can be enhanced by the Wii Remote (see Godfather), and that innovative new games are possible (see Elebits).
Comparing the Wii Remote to a peripheral with only one clearly defined use - such as a dancepad, or a light gun - makes no sense at all.
I was wrong about the Amiga too.
Dunno, I think the Amiga 500 was one of the most successfull computers ever.
People play with the Wii because they want to. Because it's an accessible and fun. No amount of good PS3 games can change this.
Nonsense. Some amount of good games can change it.. the question is not if, but at what point? Obviously it's relative to the number and quality of titles put out for the Wii. I don't think the concept is sustainable, but again, Wii'll see.
The whole premise of your argument is utterly devoid of reason. You're basically saying that people would rather have a PS3, but since there are no games, they buy the Wii. This is, in a word, absurd. People buy the Wii because they want to play Wii Sports. I've seen non-gamers buy a console for the first time in their lives because they saw Wii Bowling. No game on the PS3 could ever convince them of buying a PS3. They have no interest in the PS3, and they would never even touch a PS3 controller (which I know because I own both a PS3 and a Wii). Yet they bought the Wii.
These are also not the people who need to buy a new game every week. The fact that Nintendo hasn't released an A-list Wii game for a few weeks now does not matter to them. It matters to me, but I doubt I'm the typical Wii owner.
I think that the PS3 and the Wii serve different markets, and there's only a very small overlap between these two markets. Most people who are interested in the Wii quite simply do not have the slightest interest in the PS3, and most people who are interested in both consoles will happily buy both. The PS3 can't harm the Wii. I can harm the 360, though.
I don't think any gamer who plays modern FPS can honestly say that it didn't desensitize him (or her, of couse) to a certain degree. It became really obvious when I went to see "children of men" with some of the people I work with. The non-gamers could hardly stand the violence, and some had to look away during some scenes, while the gamers thought it was cool, and even somewhat funny.
When I was in the army, gun training was on targets shaped like humans. They do that to get you used to shooting at humans. Do you really think that shooting at human-shaped figures in games does not influence you at all?
Do violent games turn you into a murderer? Of course not. Do they have a negative influence on you? It's not impossible - personally, I would guess that they do.
Of course, being adults, we should be perfectly free to fuck with our own minds. But if I had a child, I would not let him or her play realistic, violent games like GTA.
I don't understand where the production bottle neck is
The Cube sold what, 20 million consoles in 5 years? The Wii sold 6 millions in a few months. There's your problem. Production capacitiy is not where it should be, considering the demand. Can't really blame Nintendo, though. Nobody expected that kind of success.
Godfather on the Wii is awesome. It's easily the most violent game I've ever played.
That may sound somewhat strange, but it's true. While the level of graphic violence can't approach games like Manhunt, the very fact that you're basically doing this with your own hands makes it so tactile and real that you can't help but feel the violence. Knocking somebody to his knees, then picking him up and throwing him through a window just feels so... right... It's scary.
There have been over 10 Zeldas, five MarioRPG games and three WarioWare games before the Wii even launched, oh, and Mario, MetroidPrime and SmashBros aren't exactly new either.
Are you intentionally missing the whole point of the Wii?
Last time I looked the XBox360 still had a 4mio lead to the Wii.
I think "pretty" is the wrong word. Yes, a game being pretty ads to the fun. But "pretty" does not equal "lots of polygons." Games like Okami or Paper Mario are very pretty, yet the graphics can't compare with more "advanced" games such as Gears of War. Art direction makes a game pretty, not polygon count.
For most people, the 360 is quite simply not a valid replacement for the Wii. Both are game consoles, but they're really quite different game consoles.
(Danger, car comparisons ahead!) If you decide to buy a Smart car because parking space is scarce, and you then figure out that all Smarts are sold out, you aren't going to buy a Hummer instead.
If it's cross-platform, then it will likely be the least appealing on the most underpowered console -- the Wii.
Bullshit. One word: Godfather.
I own a Wii and a PS3. I would never buy a golf or tennis or bowling or boxing game for the PS3. The Wii has spoiled those genres for me. Either it's on the Wii, or it doesn't exist to me. I don't care if Virtua Tennis looks so real it'll blow my brains out of my ears. I don't want to play it unless I can use the Wii Remotes.
And what shakeup would that be? A gimmicky controller? Offering existing technology at a lower price point than its cutting edge counterparts? Unfortunately, I think consumers have looked at the bottom line and little else.
There is absolutely not evidence to back that up. During the last generation, the Gamecube was the cheapest console. The PS2 still won. People don't just run out and buy the cheapest console. People buy the Wii because it is genuinely a lot of fun to play with it.
That's really all there is to it.
If you still call the Wii controller "gimmicky," you do nothing but betray your fanboyism. Have you played "The Godfater: Blackhand Edition"? This game alone is proof that the Wii controller is anything but a gimmick.
People play with the Wii because they want to. Because it's an accessible and fun. No amount of good PS3 games can change this. The people who love to play Wii quite simply won't switch to the PS3 for games like FF or MGS.
And yes, if you can't see the change in game design philosophy from the GBA/PS1/PS2 to the DS/Wii, you're blind.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try, Troll.
Then why are we arguing???
And claiming that there was no theft is the same, but doubly so :-)
Honestly, claiming that Americans did not "steal" ideas and knowledge from Europe is somewhere between absurd and preposterous. Of course they did steal those things. They didn't start from zero. Somebody mentioned Samuel Slater, the US did not respect European patents, and there are probably countless other examples of ideas which originated in Europe and where then "stolen" by the USA.
I don't think there's anything wrong with stealing ideas. That's what you're supposed to do. Steal the damn ideas and improve upon them. That's how humanity has always progressed. Patents hurt those nations which respect them. So, frankly, I don't see why you're so defensive about it.
No. Jobs has pretty much ruled out that option. Apple wants no DRM on music, and they will not license FairPlay.
Dude. That's what I said.
Obviously, "stealing" implies something that already existed. Listing a number of new inventions (which were, if premise holds true, based on stolen ideas) does not contradict the given premise.
Hopefully, a typical American political philosophy would not say that. Banning a specific group from appearing on TV due to a majority vote seems to be dictatorship by the majority. The usual way would be to go through legislation. You would make a law which governs what can appear on TV. Then, the group in question would be tested by the rules in the law, and if it is found that the group can not appear on TV, it would have the option to contest that in front of a court.
Argument: "Lots of people stole stuff."
Counter-Argument: "You're wrong: Persons A, B and C did not steal stuff."
Do you see the logical fallacy in your arugment?
Yes, in fact, I did read it. Although only after posting - I still don't understand what the poster is trying to say, given that the discussion was that Mac users are locked in to... something. And you are right, it is a "fucking" subject, although I personally would not go as far as insulting the person who wrote the subject.
What you're complaining about is being locked out, not being locked in. How does your problem affect Mac users?
Do you mean "who'll use this"? Me. Usual scenario: A few friends are over. "Have you seen that weird YouTube clip?" "No, let's check it out." Looking at web pages with pals works very well with the Wii, much better than getting everyone to see the screen of my notebook.
Have you actually asked anyone? It has supported YouTube since the beginning.
2. When will Nintendo get around to actually selling people a Wii? Again these features are "interesting" but entirely meaningless if too few people actually have to hardware to enjoy it.They're selling plenty. In fact, they will soon catch up with the 360. The issue isn't that they're selling small numbers, the issue is that demand is even higher than their production capacities. They are now looking for a second manufacturer, but these things take time.
That sentence makes no sense. If something is either a gimmick or a genuinely useful feature, then something is shown to not be a gimmick due to its useful nature. As I said, play Godfather on the Wii. This shows that the Wii Remote isn't just some gimmick only useful for games like Wii Tennis or Bowling.
If I had used Wii Sports to show that the Remote isn't a gimmick, your argument would make sense. Geez, look at the games available for the Wii. It's clearly proof that traditional games can be enhanced by the Wii Remote (see Godfather), and that innovative new games are possible (see Elebits).
Comparing the Wii Remote to a peripheral with only one clearly defined use - such as a dancepad, or a light gun - makes no sense at all.
Dunno, I think the Amiga 500 was one of the most successfull computers ever.
The whole premise of your argument is utterly devoid of reason. You're basically saying that people would rather have a PS3, but since there are no games, they buy the Wii. This is, in a word, absurd. People buy the Wii because they want to play Wii Sports. I've seen non-gamers buy a console for the first time in their lives because they saw Wii Bowling. No game on the PS3 could ever convince them of buying a PS3. They have no interest in the PS3, and they would never even touch a PS3 controller (which I know because I own both a PS3 and a Wii). Yet they bought the Wii.
These are also not the people who need to buy a new game every week. The fact that Nintendo hasn't released an A-list Wii game for a few weeks now does not matter to them. It matters to me, but I doubt I'm the typical Wii owner.
I think that the PS3 and the Wii serve different markets, and there's only a very small overlap between these two markets. Most people who are interested in the Wii quite simply do not have the slightest interest in the PS3, and most people who are interested in both consoles will happily buy both. The PS3 can't harm the Wii. I can harm the 360, though.
I'm using windows. Both Linux and Macs have windows. Oh, you mean Windows! Windows works? Since when? I must have missed the memo ;-)
How are the iPhone and AppleTV not computers? They even run OS X.
If games did have a negative effects on you kids, you would probably not notice it immediately.
I don't think any gamer who plays modern FPS can honestly say that it didn't desensitize him (or her, of couse) to a certain degree. It became really obvious when I went to see "children of men" with some of the people I work with. The non-gamers could hardly stand the violence, and some had to look away during some scenes, while the gamers thought it was cool, and even somewhat funny.
When I was in the army, gun training was on targets shaped like humans. They do that to get you used to shooting at humans. Do you really think that shooting at human-shaped figures in games does not influence you at all?
Do violent games turn you into a murderer? Of course not. Do they have a negative influence on you? It's not impossible - personally, I would guess that they do.
Of course, being adults, we should be perfectly free to fuck with our own minds. But if I had a child, I would not let him or her play realistic, violent games like GTA.
Damn. Yet another car analogy gone down the drain :-)
The Cube sold what, 20 million consoles in 5 years? The Wii sold 6 millions in a few months. There's your problem. Production capacitiy is not where it should be, considering the demand. Can't really blame Nintendo, though. Nobody expected that kind of success.
Godfather on the Wii is awesome. It's easily the most violent game I've ever played.
That may sound somewhat strange, but it's true. While the level of graphic violence can't approach games like Manhunt, the very fact that you're basically doing this with your own hands makes it so tactile and real that you can't help but feel the violence. Knocking somebody to his knees, then picking him up and throwing him through a window just feels so... right... It's scary.
Don't play that game. I think it's dangerous :-)
Are you intentionally missing the whole point of the Wii?
Oh, I get it, you're a fanboy.
I think "pretty" is the wrong word. Yes, a game being pretty ads to the fun. But "pretty" does not equal "lots of polygons." Games like Okami or Paper Mario are very pretty, yet the graphics can't compare with more "advanced" games such as Gears of War. Art direction makes a game pretty, not polygon count.
For most people, the 360 is quite simply not a valid replacement for the Wii. Both are game consoles, but they're really quite different game consoles.
(Danger, car comparisons ahead!)
If you decide to buy a Smart car because parking space is scarce, and you then figure out that all Smarts are sold out, you aren't going to buy a Hummer instead.
Bullshit. One word: Godfather.
I own a Wii and a PS3. I would never buy a golf or tennis or bowling or boxing game for the PS3. The Wii has spoiled those genres for me. Either it's on the Wii, or it doesn't exist to me. I don't care if Virtua Tennis looks so real it'll blow my brains out of my ears. I don't want to play it unless I can use the Wii Remotes.
There is absolutely not evidence to back that up. During the last generation, the Gamecube was the cheapest console. The PS2 still won. People don't just run out and buy the cheapest console. People buy the Wii because it is genuinely a lot of fun to play with it.
That's really all there is to it.
If you still call the Wii controller "gimmicky," you do nothing but betray your fanboyism. Have you played "The Godfater: Blackhand Edition"? This game alone is proof that the Wii controller is anything but a gimmick.
People play with the Wii because they want to. Because it's an accessible and fun. No amount of good PS3 games can change this. The people who love to play Wii quite simply won't switch to the PS3 for games like FF or MGS.
And yes, if you can't see the change in game design philosophy from the GBA/PS1/PS2 to the DS/Wii, you're blind.