"How would you even get reliable numbers for PS2 online gamers in the US?"
From Sony. I assume their data collection method involves either just going by the number of Network Adapters sold (which is as reliable a method as going by one-time Xbox Live logins), or by requesting data on the number of unique user registrations made to third party Network Play games.
"This is ignoring the fact that the two audiences aren't remotely comparable (one of them subscribes, the other is free, PS2 has roughly seven times more consoles sold, etc.)."
So it's not fair for Sony to have made network gaming more popular, just because their approach is more consumer- and developer-friendly? Great logic there.
"And with the critical support (most videogame jouralists love it)"
Most videogame 'journalists' say what they're told. See article.
"economic support (most publishers make use of it now)"
Aside from those publishers whose output consists mainly of racing games and shooters, where it's become an expected feature (even though most people will never use it), pretty much every publisher made the minimum contractually required number of Live-supporting games and then never touched it again.
"and popular support (people who use Live for a while learn to swear by it)"
All 1.4 million of them.
"calling it "an unmitigated disaster" is pretty silly"
It's not made anyone any money, it's not made online console gaming a mainstream activity (fewer than 10% of Xbox owners have signed up to it), and it's actively prevented the platform's network capabilites from being used to their promised potential.
Where are the massively multiplayer games? Why are pretty much all the games limited to 16 players max? Why can't I use a keyboard? Why can't I set up a server on a PC? Why can't I play PSO against users in other countries? Why can't I play against PC and PS2 owners in the same game?
MS have painted themselves into a corner. If the PS3 / N5 have network capability out of the box (and that will really mean out of the box, not 'unlockable' by taking out a subscription launched one year after the console), Xbox Live in its present form will die as inevitably as services like CompuServe died in the wake of the WWW. All the content providers will take their games to where people can actually play them.
MS should enjoy the unwarranted good PR Xbox Live has had so far while they can.
The statement looks even less impressive when you consider that the PS2, a machine that is (in many people's experience) no walk in the park to get online, has over 2.6 million online users in the US alone - with virtually no marketing support for this feature.
"Fansites beat the shit out of gamespot and gamespy."
Unless you want to download media (including original/exclusive video content, interviews, conference coverage, etc) or read even vaguely literate review copy (on Gamespot at least).
Lumping Gamespot and Gamespy together doesn't exactly add credibility to your argument.
games.slashdot.org: Clueless editors posting non-stories submitted by yammering teenage fanboy idiots. With the added bonus of breezily missing the point of the source article in most cases.
Completely FACTUALLY FUCKING INACCURATE or just plain worthless stories consistently drift off the front page without ever being corrected. Because it's just games, and accurate reporting doesn't matter, right?
Why do they continue with this farce at all when it's plainly obvious to anyone with the faintest interest in games that they can't be bothered to do it properly?
Has Xbox Live managed to break the worldwide 1m users mark yet?
Hey wait, if 6m people bought Halo 2, then most of them aren't playing it online. Is that because online console gaming isn't a big deal after all, or because consumers don't want a hideously crippled online gaming 'service' which third parties are loath to support? Or both?
Infinium's bad public image was generated from adolescent chest-beating and hack journalism. What did they actually do that so offended the sensibilities of their detractors? Apparently, it's enough to want to enter a market where there are already established players to offend these petty, bickering children. The fact that this went all the way to court is enough to show that it isn't a victory for anyone with any respect for gaming.
Well, it's not exactly ambiguous that Infinium were libelled- it should be obvious to all but the most credulous observer (read: an observer whose version of events came from/. comments or Penny Arcade) that the hardocp articles fell far below expected journalistic standards, even for a fansite.
I don't understand the mentality of the responses that Infinium have provoked among the most vocal (i.e. teenage American male) armchair pundits. It's not the case in law that only companies with an established product on the market can have any legal protection from libel. Hostility towards Infinium's entirely uncontroversial and fairly modest business model (which explicitly isn't aimed at current gamers in the first place) seems completely irrational and inexplicable to me. Are non-contributing bottom feeders like Penny Arcade really that threatened by the idea of free enterprise? I guess IL can't shower them with freebies and send them on press junkets at the drop of a hat, so must be pushed out of the market before they have a chance to show anyone their product.
I'm not a betting man, Infinium could have terrible lawyers for all I know. To automatically assume that the lawsuit is frivolous just because Infinium aren't swinging hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing clout like the established platform vendors (and this is the ONLY reason for any hostility, as far as I can see) is ridiculous.
Your righteous indignation is hilarious. How old are you, twelve?
"It's another thing to ACTIVELY PROMOTE this type of company by putting them in your trade show booth."
What type of company? Can you provide a reasoned argument as to why nVidia shouldn't deal with Infinium, one that doesn't lazily cite pre-formed opinions handed down from puerile comic strips and angry loners?
"Who's side are you on? The nice guys, or the litigation prone?"
Do you think for one second that nVidia, or any even vaguely professional company, wouldn't (rightly) resort to litigation if it was libelled by an "enthusiest" (sic) site?
By using the term 'tech demo' you've immediately flagged that you don't know what you're talking about. Presumably you refer to previous Id games as tech demos. So all the millions of people who have played countless hours of their games and penned almost universally positive press about them for the last decade are just bedazzled hardware nerds. Of course.
Indeed. Nintendo have even been selling video on the GBA for some time. This move seems to have little to do with the PSP/Gizmondo/etc - nobody is going to buy a GBA or DS for the primary purpose of watching video on the low-ish res screen. It's a nice bonus feature, not a serious attempt to turn the GBA into a media centre.
"Seriously, wouldn't it be great to see John Carmack present an award? Or get to listen to a Wil (sic) Wright acceptance speech?"
Why? What purpose would this serve? What cause would this further? Serious criticism of games is being held back by over-protective critics unable to treat the form as anything other than a monolithic entity, whose representation in the media is somehow expected to reflect their taste.
The 'Spike' awards weren't aimed at people who take games seriously. Broadcast television is very rarely a suitable platform for serious high-minded discussion. Zonk's commentary is really barking up entirely the wrong tree.
Maybe the interactive entertainment BAFTAs would be less offensive to his sensibilities?
"Yeah, I enjoy video games... They let me empty my mind after a long day at work. But if it starts pissing me off, rather than relaxing me - Hey, look, a power button!"
It's difficult to see how *any* form of writing, short of chew-proof books with big cardboard pages and colourful pictures, can manage to limbo under the bar you've set there.
"Someone made a picture of a "hypothetical" Gameboy spinoff, which would have been far more realistic a goal. Minidisc drive, cartridge port, dual analog sticks, d-pad and twin shoulder buttons."
Minidisc as in Sony? I can see some problems there, quite aside from the technical unsuitability of a minidisc drive as a storage device for a handheld. Dual analog sticks? Do you wonder why pretty much *no* portable has these, even the PSP? They're not very easy to make durable.
"The second screen isn't necessary."
It's the easiest way to get more screen real estate and keep the machine compact. I expect a 'Nintendo DS SP' will turn up at some point with the screens fused back into one (although I'm not sure what the form factor would be. Maybe they'd just up the dpi of the screen).
"If Nintendo had any sense, they would market the DS as a PDA that has the additional bonus of playing high resolution 3D games, which, most PDA/Smart Phone manufacturers have yet to claim."
Slashdot Mirror
"How would you even get reliable numbers for PS2 online gamers in the US?"
From Sony. I assume their data collection method involves either just going by the number of Network Adapters sold (which is as reliable a method as going by one-time Xbox Live logins), or by requesting data on the number of unique user registrations made to third party Network Play games.
"This is ignoring the fact that the two audiences aren't remotely comparable (one of them subscribes, the other is free, PS2 has roughly seven times more consoles sold, etc.)."
So it's not fair for Sony to have made network gaming more popular, just because their approach is more consumer- and developer-friendly? Great logic there.
"And with the critical support (most videogame jouralists love it)"
Most videogame 'journalists' say what they're told. See article.
"economic support (most publishers make use of it now)"
Aside from those publishers whose output consists mainly of racing games and shooters, where it's become an expected feature (even though most people will never use it), pretty much every publisher made the minimum contractually required number of Live-supporting games and then never touched it again.
"and popular support (people who use Live for a while learn to swear by it)"
All 1.4 million of them.
"calling it "an unmitigated disaster" is pretty silly"
It's not made anyone any money, it's not made online console gaming a mainstream activity (fewer than 10% of Xbox owners have signed up to it), and it's actively prevented the platform's network capabilites from being used to their promised potential.
Where are the massively multiplayer games? Why are pretty much all the games limited to 16 players max? Why can't I use a keyboard? Why can't I set up a server on a PC? Why can't I play PSO against users in other countries? Why can't I play against PC and PS2 owners in the same game?
MS have painted themselves into a corner. If the PS3 / N5 have network capability out of the box (and that will really mean out of the box, not 'unlockable' by taking out a subscription launched one year after the console), Xbox Live in its present form will die as inevitably as services like CompuServe died in the wake of the WWW. All the content providers will take their games to where people can actually play them.
MS should enjoy the unwarranted good PR Xbox Live has had so far while they can.
The statement looks even less impressive when you consider that the PS2, a machine that is (in many people's experience) no walk in the park to get online, has over 2.6 million online users in the US alone - with virtually no marketing support for this feature.
Xbox Live has been an unmitigated disaster.
It's trivially easy to pirate Xbox games. No big mystery.
In 2004 we 'only' had Rome: Total War, W40K: Dawn of War and LOTR: BFME. Worst year for RTS games ever!
It's a description.
By the way, games publishers release screenshots to the press, these are easily obtained and don't need to be credited.
"Fansites beat the shit out of gamespot and gamespy."
Unless you want to download media (including original/exclusive video content, interviews, conference coverage, etc) or read even vaguely literate review copy (on Gamespot at least).
Lumping Gamespot and Gamespy together doesn't exactly add credibility to your argument.
You get what you pay for. Gamespot's subscription service (cheaper than any print mag) is ad-free and excellent.
I'm sorry, we're supposed to care about your 'childhood'? Who are you again? Why not try reporting news like the grown-ups?
games.slashdot.org: Clueless editors posting non-stories submitted by yammering teenage fanboy idiots. With the added bonus of breezily missing the point of the source article in most cases.
Completely FACTUALLY FUCKING INACCURATE or just plain worthless stories consistently drift off the front page without ever being corrected. Because it's just games, and accurate reporting doesn't matter, right?
Why do they continue with this farce at all when it's plainly obvious to anyone with the faintest interest in games that they can't be bothered to do it properly?
Even if that figure were true, the subset of the population that plays video games intersects heavily with the subset that has broadband.
How is the Xbox doing in Japan again?
Has Xbox Live managed to break the worldwide 1m users mark yet?
Hey wait, if 6m people bought Halo 2, then most of them aren't playing it online. Is that because online console gaming isn't a big deal after all, or because consumers don't want a hideously crippled online gaming 'service' which third parties are loath to support? Or both?
Finally, someone talks sense.
Infinium's bad public image was generated from adolescent chest-beating and hack journalism. What did they actually do that so offended the sensibilities of their detractors? Apparently, it's enough to want to enter a market where there are already established players to offend these petty, bickering children. The fact that this went all the way to court is enough to show that it isn't a victory for anyone with any respect for gaming.
I guess you're not going to actually correct this entirely factually inaccurate story? Very poor.
Well, it's not exactly ambiguous that Infinium were libelled- it should be obvious to all but the most credulous observer (read: an observer whose version of events came from /. comments or Penny Arcade) that the hardocp articles fell far below expected journalistic standards, even for a fansite.
I don't understand the mentality of the responses that Infinium have provoked among the most vocal (i.e. teenage American male) armchair pundits. It's not the case in law that only companies with an established product on the market can have any legal protection from libel. Hostility towards Infinium's entirely uncontroversial and fairly modest business model (which explicitly isn't aimed at current gamers in the first place) seems completely irrational and inexplicable to me. Are non-contributing bottom feeders like Penny Arcade really that threatened by the idea of free enterprise? I guess IL can't shower them with freebies and send them on press junkets at the drop of a hat, so must be pushed out of the market before they have a chance to show anyone their product.
I'm not a betting man, Infinium could have terrible lawyers for all I know. To automatically assume that the lawsuit is frivolous just because Infinium aren't swinging hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing clout like the established platform vendors (and this is the ONLY reason for any hostility, as far as I can see) is ridiculous.
Your righteous indignation is hilarious. How old are you, twelve?
"It's another thing to ACTIVELY PROMOTE this type of company by putting them in your trade show booth."
What type of company? Can you provide a reasoned argument as to why nVidia shouldn't deal with Infinium, one that doesn't lazily cite pre-formed opinions handed down from puerile comic strips and angry loners?
"Who's side are you on? The nice guys, or the litigation prone?"
Do you think for one second that nVidia, or any even vaguely professional company, wouldn't (rightly) resort to litigation if it was libelled by an "enthusiest" (sic) site?
Grow up, you pompous clown.
Um, what does this have to do with games again?
By using the term 'tech demo' you've immediately flagged that you don't know what you're talking about. Presumably you refer to previous Id games as tech demos. So all the millions of people who have played countless hours of their games and penned almost universally positive press about them for the last decade are just bedazzled hardware nerds. Of course.
Indeed. Nintendo have even been selling video on the GBA for some time. This move seems to have little to do with the PSP/Gizmondo/etc - nobody is going to buy a GBA or DS for the primary purpose of watching video on the low-ish res screen. It's a nice bonus feature, not a serious attempt to turn the GBA into a media centre.
"Seriously, wouldn't it be great to see John Carmack present an award? Or get to listen to a Wil (sic) Wright acceptance speech?"
Why? What purpose would this serve? What cause would this further? Serious criticism of games is being held back by over-protective critics unable to treat the form as anything other than a monolithic entity, whose representation in the media is somehow expected to reflect their taste.
The 'Spike' awards weren't aimed at people who take games seriously. Broadcast television is very rarely a suitable platform for serious high-minded discussion. Zonk's commentary is really barking up entirely the wrong tree.
Maybe the interactive entertainment BAFTAs would be less offensive to his sensibilities?
And anything relating to this century, or the article?
"Yeah, I enjoy video games... They let me empty my mind after a long day at work. But if it starts pissing me off, rather than relaxing me - Hey, look, a power button!"
It's difficult to see how *any* form of writing, short of chew-proof books with big cardboard pages and colourful pictures, can manage to limbo under the bar you've set there.
" I think is the perfect example of what happens when a game is forced into a genre it should have never gone into."
It didn't. Metroid Prime is not an FPS.
Too bad you suck at the controls and are too impatient to play the game properly, but that isn't the game's fault.
Frankly, the fewer games *anyone* sells to clueless nostalgic hipsters, the better.
"Someone made a picture of a "hypothetical" Gameboy spinoff, which would have been far more realistic a goal. Minidisc drive, cartridge port, dual analog sticks, d-pad and twin shoulder buttons."
Minidisc as in Sony? I can see some problems there, quite aside from the technical unsuitability of a minidisc drive as a storage device for a handheld. Dual analog sticks? Do you wonder why pretty much *no* portable has these, even the PSP? They're not very easy to make durable.
"The second screen isn't necessary."
It's the easiest way to get more screen real estate and keep the machine compact. I expect a 'Nintendo DS SP' will turn up at some point with the screens fused back into one (although I'm not sure what the form factor would be. Maybe they'd just up the dpi of the screen).
"If Nintendo had any sense, they would market the DS as a PDA that has the additional bonus of playing high resolution 3D games, which, most PDA/Smart Phone manufacturers have yet to claim."
Gizmondo, Tapwave...
What would be even cooler would be if they doubled the price of games at retail, that way you could play them for twice as long, right?
You're an idiot.