2) What do you mean "gaddamn expensive"? Good 1080p TVs are down to $1600.
blink
What?! $1600 is "gaddamn expensive" if it can be effectively replaced by something that's $100. Market price for televisions has been $100-200. Maybe $300. $1600 is luxury-level. You might think it's not expensive, but if so, you're not exactly mass market. You can't expect the average price of a TV to jump by a factor 5 and keep the demand the same.
Then again, a $500 game console isn't mass market either, as Sony will rapidly find out.
Re:Too little and much too late
on
User Mode Linux
·
· Score: 1
But the very usefull SKA patch has/never/ made it into the kernel tree. I mean, wtf?
Well, considering there's a SKAS0 mode now which doesn't require patching the host kernel, this isn't that big a deal anymore. Running Linux on a host kernel without the SKAS patch isn't really a performance killer anymore.
The one unique security advantage that NATs have is that it's difficult (and with enough paranoia in the configuration impossible) to tell from which computer behind a NAT router a given connection is coming from.
Eh. You can masquerade connections on a firewall, too, and gain all of that as well. You might then ask "well, then, why have public IPs?", but with a firewall, you could choose to masquerade certain connections while leaving others live.
There aren't really any security advantages to NATs. It's just a trick to allow multiple computers to use one IP address. The security advantages you gain exist in other, less limited, forms by a firewall.
There was no hassle. There was only a small handful of DVDs that would not play. The real issue with it for me was that the quality of output was absolutely horrible.
"Man, this DVD player is perfect, except for these few DVDs that won't play, and the fact that the output's horrible!"
I'd suggest that it's not laziness (or at least, not JUST laziness) on the part of the developer which stops realistic games looking realistic - it's time and effort. Only a very small number of developers have the manpower and budget to actually fully USE all the graphical capability available on the current platforms, and even then, it takes two to three years of development time to get the game looking that good.
Well, laziness was my way of saying exactly what you said above in a more snarky way. After all, a poor-looking video game just means that the managers didn't break out their whips and chains and were soft enough that they gasp let the programmers and artists leave! Lazy bastards.
Smaller developers just can't use that power for its intended purpose and therefore can't meet the expectations of the rabid graphics-hungry gamers. They're getting edged out of business.
That, really, is why Nintendo's new system will do fine. Because they won't be able to afford to make graphically-competitive PS3/XBOX games. They will be able to make competitive Wii games.
That's why I'm kinda miffed that Nintendo's considering dropping GBA support. The GBA is a cheap handheld. Keep it that way. Let the DS be a "mid-range" handheld (and the PSP can have the two or three gamers that want a "top-end" handheld). Price the games accordingly - $15-20 for a GBA game, $25-30 for a DS game, and I'd bet that both consoles would survive admirably.
Then again, maybe there just isn't enough developer interest. It might also help if the GB Micro cost $50 retail. That's what I paid for mine, but that's because I'm lucky.:)
I don't think this additional processing power is a curse, though. Developers have TOTAL freedom to make games as detailed or as sketchy as they want now.
They don't have total freedom, though. They're limited by one thing - budget. And it really remains to be seen whether or not that market will actually happily accept $70-80 console games. Personally, I don't think it will - not if there are $40-50 console games that look half as good but play just as well.
If you think about it, upping the cost of a console game is kindof a losing proposition for game makers. They're not going to get more people to buy a game by pricing it higher. The only way they'll actually make more money is if an equal number of people buy it. Which means, essentially, that they're just trying to squeeze more money out of gamer's pockets. Sony, insanely, thinks that it can just arbitrarily do that. They're nuts. Gamers don't have infinite money.
Which means, really, there's a graphics wall at some point, where you can't make enough money back in sales to make up for the development/artwork cost. I think we hit that wall in the last generation, and I think Nintendo realized that too.
The proof is in the pudding. Look at the screenshots of Zelda: Twilight Princess in this weeks EGM. When I saw them, two things popped into my mind. One: they are so artistically drawn, and really do look great. Two: the Revolution really can't do the artwork justice.
Which would matter if Zelda: Twilight Princess was a Wii game.
It's not. It's a GameCube game. Its control scheme was updated and it'll be sold as a Wii game, but graphically it won't look any different on the GameCube vs. the Wii. Other than maybe progressive scan.
If you want a good comparison of Wii vs GameCube level graphics, look here at the evolution of the Super Smash Brothers artwork. It's - uh - not a small jump at all.
Then take a look at the SSBB trailer (which is an in-game trailer). The one thing that popped into my mind while watching it (and while playing Kingdom Hearts 2/Dragon Quest VIII this week) is this: graphically, if we want to reproduce cartoons, we're done. They're essentially perfect - the limiting feature at this point is the desire of the programmer to put in the details, not the console to output the graphics and the artist to take the time in making them.
Now, if you want realistic looking games, you've got a ways to go, but the limiting feature there won't be the graphics anyway - it'll be the AI, motion capture, and physics. Who cares if the thing on screen looks like Indiana Jones if it moves like a mannequin?
And that's why the Wii's graphics will do fine - because they're good enough to replicate cartoons, and game developers are too lazy to make realistic games look realistic.
Heck, that's the main issue I've had with PC gaming for a while. They keep trying to make things look realistic and pretty, which leads to great still shots... but things just look like a computer game when things start to move again.
If the government collects taxes and then redistributes the money back to the taxed entities in the form of government programs then wouldn't you agree that this process is not 100% efficient?
Nono, you're right. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be the ones doing the research and getting money from the government. That's retarded. They should just be producing the drugs.
What about oversight costs to ensure compliance with the spending rules? If you leave it up to the company and there is no checking then how would you know that they didn't divert the funds for other things? How does the government decide which companies get how much funds from the available pool? This sounds like an excellent opportunity for more big government with over-burdensome regulations and inefficient bureaucracy.
I believe this is called "a university."
There will be no new drugs without research and research isn't cheap. You can tax to fund the research, but if there is no protection of discoveries then who will want to fund the research?
See above. Universities fund research because it brings in government funding which brings in smart people which brings in students which brings in money.
And universities are doing pharmaceutical research right now. It's just that at a certain point in a drug's life, it goes from the government funding it to drug companies funding it. That's the mistake. Governments should continue funding it to completion, and then pharmaceutical companies start producing the drug once it's been approved by the equivalent of the FDA.
Heck, for one thing, right now, citizens are getting screwed - they're paying the lion's share of the costs to research new drugs, and the pharma companies are reaping all of the benefits.
Perhaps, but drug companies pay their employees, taxes, rents and other expenses in the short run and they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that cannot be breached simply because it would be altruistic or idealistic to do so.
That's why the drug companies shouldn't be doing it. It's the government's job to make sure the economy and society are as healthy (in the literal and figurative sense) as possible.
The duties would have to be quite high to make up for the research costs
Nono - you're not trying to make up the research costs. Those are just gone. The research costs are paid for by the government, and the government makes it up because you're advancing the state of the art, and the economy thus maintains a lead on everyone else. Same reason for the existence of the space program, for instance.
The duties are just to ensure any governmental fees and taxes that the local companies pay (for regulatory approval, for instance) are paid by the overseas entity as well. Then the only way a foreign entity can really beat a local entity is by leveraging very cheap manpower, but with sufficient automation, that can be driven down as well (or you could levy duty for civil rights reasons if it's excessive, which seems fair especially if you're rendering humanitarian aid to the country). Then the local entity probably wins completely due to extra shipping costs from a distance.
So basically, Europe would end up having a lead in terms of pharmaceuticals over other countries by design (because they're funneling more money into research than other countries - so it's not temporary), which would lead to continual exports of new drugs. Other countries really couldn't just import old drugs cheaper, because of reasons outlined above - it's unlikely they could really make them fundamentally cheaper than local drugs, so you get a net positive export of pharmaceuticals. That's good for the government, and likely worth the investment in the research.
High enough taxes and tarifs turn even honest people into cheats.
I doubt the tariffs would be that high. And if they are, you can always split the difference by halving the tariffs, and halving the taxes you collect from the pharma companies. Or giving tax breaks to those who buy locally-produced drugs.
Regardless of who actually came up with the vaccine the point of the quote remains the same. Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation;
Which is why we innovate at universities.
This is just asking governments to fund the universities. Which, they do. But when the results start getting close to production, the government funding dries up, and then the pharmaceutical companies take over. This is essentially what they're trying to fix - it's fairly insane that the public essentially funds the majority of the research for pharmaceutical companies, and then just hands them a nice neat product which they then produce, and market the hell out of, at insane prices while using patents to restrict production in other places where the cost would be cheaper.
So essentially, all you're really doing is asking the governments to finish what they already started - fund the drugs all the way to completion, rather than just the majority of the way.
If we want more discoveries like this we simply need the lobby the government to give more money to universities, not abolish the patent system.
Why, precisely, should patents be allowed for drugs that are primarily discovered by government-funded research?
Suppose that we Americans "free ride" on this Swedish research so now we can enjoy the benefits of the research that you paid for AND spend our surplus tax money on other things.
Well, given the inevitable manufacturing delays and difficulties in figuring out processes, a free-riding country would always be a few years behind the forefront of the non-free-riding country. There's nothing that says that Europeans have to go and teach other countries how to use the technology. You're just not protecting it legally.
And given that medicine's an immediate need - someone dying of cancer won't buy the "well, just wait a few years, we'll have it then" - the medicine will be imported, and Europe will make some of that money back. So there's no complete free ride anyway.
This should sound remarkably like the current situation, and it is. You're just removing the ability of the companies to make money by artificially extending that barrier to cheap drugs - which as I mentioned elsewhere, is akin to the government protecting bad business models.
Remember also that by taxing the citizens you are forcing people to spend a portion of their incomes, and in Sweden that non-discretionary portion is quite large, on goods and services that, if left to their own devices, people might otherwise chose not to purchase or purchase in less quanity.
That's a very good point - but it only stresses why medical research should be funded by society in general. Research should be funded by governments when its reward is large, and the timescale is too large for people to see the immediate benefit. Most pure sciences benefit from this, for instance, but medical research is similar. Why? Because the people who are earning the most money are typically those who are healthy - they don't know they're going to get sick, and so, they'll typically shave money, and skimp on paying for medical research.
Which, of course, is why governments do fund medical research. It's just for some silly reason, governments typically bow out of funding when the drug gets close to production.
It's much like car insurance - states in the US require car insurance because of the risk involved - it's dangerous to other people if you're a bad driver, and if you're a bad driver and cheap (i.e. don't get insurance on your own) then you end up costing everyone else money and rising their insurance. Medical insurance is similar. If you're not healthy, and you're cheap (or unable to get medical insurance), you end up costing everyone else money, and putting others at risk with your own poor health. Yeah, I'm talking about medical coverage rather than medical research here, but the argument is similar.
so if the Indian and Chinese pharma companies take the medical research that Europeans have paid for, create knock-off drugs, and sell them cheap in Europe to undercut the European pharma companies then you would be fine with that?
Wait... so if the Indian and Chinese can produce the drugs cheaper than Europe (with appropriate duty, of course - drugs companies in Europe pay European taxes, drugs coming in from outside Europe should have a duty charged to make up for those taxes) - why shouldn't they? Why does this hurt the pharmaceutical companies? They'd be getting money directly from the government (which, in any case, they do now anyway - find me a drug that didn't have its origins in a university hospital and I'll find a thousand others that did) for the research whether they sell the drug or not.
Any pharmaceutical company in Europe will have a few years head start on foreign companies, because they've got experience with making the drug - that, and they'll also have the quality control stuff out of the way. Presumedly foreign drugs would also have to have quality controls to ensure that they're equivalent to European-produced drugs. And when/if the other countries can start making the drugs cheaper, then it's time to move on.
I have to agree that splitting research and production of pharmaceuticals is probably an ideal way to go. Drugs should be cheap if they're cheap to make. Morally, it's just wrong to keep them expensive to pay for new, future drugs.
And believe it or not, financially, it's probably wrong, as well. In the long run, it's easy to believe that an economy could be healthier with universal, cheap health care due to the increased productivity and lifespans of the population.
I am sure that the Chinese and Indians would be happy to have you pay for all the research so that they can knock-off your products for pennies on the dollar when the research actually turns up a useful new drug.
Again, I say: who cares if they do? If they can actually make the drugs cheaper, then the European economy saves money, especially if the proper duties are assessed, because the European people end up paying less for the drugs.
One company in Europe that makes the drug might get hurt, but really, whose fault is that? Why should it be the government's job to protect a bad business model?
This may be true, but I think we've gotten a little bit off-topic, they're going to be using Blu-Ray to squeeze a ton of data onto their discs
I doubt the machine would cost $600 if it couldn't play Blu-Ray movies, even if it had a Blu-Ray drive. Well, let's put it this way - I doubt that anyone would even be considering it anything but overpriced if it didn't play Blu-Ray movies.
Which means that it's overpriced, because few, if any, people will care about the movies.
Let me put it this way - it's not like the Xbox 360 couldn't've been released a year earlier. It's not at the bleeding edge of technology or anything. It just would've cost about $1000. But the market wouldn't've accepted it.
Ditto for the PS3. If the technology really just is that inherently expensive, then Sony's pushing too much. History says that consoles priced like the PS3 die a horrible screaming death.
I never had a problem playing DVDs until maybe 3 years after I bought it... actually closer to 4 or 5.. But I was also having problems playing GAMES by that point.
There are known compatibility problems with certain DVDs. I'm too lazy to look it up, but the info's out there. Plus, of course, the output quality is awful compared even to a $20 DVD player nowadays.
FTR: I'll probably get a ps3 at some point I'm sure, maybe after the first price drop,
Virtually everyone I've seen be positive about the PS3 says it this way. Part of the reason the PS2 did so well is because of its strong launch performance. I really, really think that Sony screwed the pooch with this one. The PS3 launch is really going to be weak, simply because that price is way too high.
Plus, of course, you're assuming that the price does drop. What if, two years later, it's still at $600? Three years later?
Nah. You just do a save right before you hit a difficult spot. In games like Metroid, Zelda, etc., it's fairly obvious. Then the difficult part is atomic - either you finish it, or you don't.
It's not like Tetris doesn't get the blood pumping. It's just that you don't need to do much to get back there if you need to turn the system off.
Not really. When you have a lot wrapped up in the progress you have made so far, then to break away from it and come back is almost impossible. In the middle of fighting a hard boss in zelda, pausing and coming back an hour or day later would probably mean you have to start over anyway. (And it's a *long* time to get back to where you were)
Then it doesn't have proper saving - simple enough. Standby should be able to get you through any casual pauses, but then in addition, opportunities to save should be plenty.
That's one of the reasons that I had been playing all of the handheld games I own on flash carts - most offer real-time saves as an ability (I must've battled the SA-X in Metroid Fusion fifty times). For the life of me, I can't figure out why most games don't have that as a real option.
Look at the PS2 - it greatly influenced the use of DVDs in the household. I know quite a few people who used their PS2 as a DVD player long before they got a specific DVD player
VHS tapes were worse than TV quality. If you recorded a show that was broadcast over the air onto VHS, and played it back, it was worse. Everyone could benefit from DVDs, because they showed an improvement on a normal television.
Blu-ray, however, won't. It will show an improvement on HD TVs, but the market penetration of HDTVs is still small. People right now are not thinking "man, I need a Blu-ray player." When the PS2 came out, people were thinking "man, I need a DVD player."
You also forgot to mention that the PS2 was a terrible DVD player. It had huge compatibility problems reading DVDs. It's entirely possible the people who bought the PS2 as a DVD player (and then probably bought a real DVD player later) still remember the hassle of trying to use it.
With the PS2, Sony was marketing bling to the mass markets. Now, they're marketing bling to a niche market. If they think they're going to get the same response, they are very, very wrong.
When you have a handheld gaming system, most likely you use it while waiting for something, and you want to be able to put it away at a moments notice.
I believe the solution you are looking for is called "standby".
Then, what the heck is the transaction between the 1st party and the 2nd party, and how is the 3rd party involved in that transaction?
Publisher.
First party games are those created and published by the console manufacturer. Second party games are those created by a second party, but published by the console manufacturer. Third party games are those created by a second party, and published by a third party, on the first party's console.
That's not exactly what it means anymore (as with all of language, it evolved since then) but that's where it came from.
Yeah. My problem is I couldn't remember what games were done by Nintendo's labs (like Retro Studios, HAL, etc.) and which were done by a second-party developer. Turns out Factor 5 was completely 3rd party, so I was wrong (Nintendo only launched with 2 first/second party games) - they just made cool games for the N64 and so Nintendo liked them. Up until they ditched 'em.
I swear, the number of times I need to reply to this...
The "I, you, they" in describing games does not mean the console manufacturer, you, and the game maker. (So it would be "You play my game on my console", "You play his game on my console", "You play your game on my console.") It means the console manufacturer, the game publisher, and the game maker - i.e. "I publish my game on (my/your) console", "You publish my game on your console", "He publishes my game on your console."
You're misunderstanding the relationship of 'you, me, him' in the use of those terms. First, second, third party don't refer to the relationship between the purchaser, the game developer, and the console manufacturer. They refer to the relationship between the game developer, the console manufacturer and the publisher.
As in, a first party game is first party because the console manufacturer develops and publishes the game themselves. ("I publish my game on my console.")
A second party game is "You publish my game on your console."
A third party game is "They publish my game on your console."
Over time, those got twisted into "first party = console manufacturer", "second party = exclusive to one console manufacturer, but separate company", and "third party = non-exclusive to either" but the origin of the terms were correct.
They get maximum ROI on games that can be released for the greatest number of consoles (ensuring the greatest possible sales)
Assuming the game succeeds. If it fails, they're out the development costs.
That's the whole point. There's less risk. Roughly equal reward, assuming that Wii gets a decent install base. Why risk a gigantic flop when you can risk a mild flop? In the case of some developers, a failed XBox 360 or PS3 game could kill the studio. Heck, that already happened in the PS2/Xbox/GameCube era with smaller developers.
but will require retooling for the control scheme (and lower graphical quality) for the Wii, that makes it less attractive to develop for.
Lowering the graphical quality in a game isn't usually that difficult. You drop the resolution on textures, drop the number of polygons, cut out a few effects, and poof. It's harder to increase the graphical quality in a game.
I don't think developers will really mind the new control scheme if they want to put out a multiplatform game. If they do, they'll just require the classic controller. But I doubt that'll happen.
but they have to have an array of Wii-specific games equal to the combined libraries of Sony and Microsoft.
That's kinda my point, though. The development cycle for a Wii-only game will be shorter than the cycle for a PS3 or Xbox 360 game, and the risk will be smaller. I don't think it's even unlikely to believe that Wii will end up with more games in the end. Many of them may end up being the junk throwaway TV series/movie tie-in games, sure, but in a lot of cases, it's the number of games on the shelves that helps sell a system, and plus, kids tend to eat those games up, bizarrely enough.
Ok, but forgetting the 'exclusive' part for a second, why do we think the Wii will do any better on 3rd party support than the GameCube? The controller is so unique that it screams for original/innovative support, and that will not translate well from 3rd party titles that want to appear on all three major consoles...?
Because it's cheaper.
It won't cost nearly as much to develop for the Wii as it will for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 - the development costs have been spiraling up for years, as the complexity and artistic demands of the system keep spiraling upwards. Plus with the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation, they're now crowing for better AI (yeah, sure, I'll do that next week), better physics (easy, right?)... all things that take time, and a lot of effort.
Which means that their margins get thinner, and it's a lot riskier to put out things that you're not sure will sell, and in addition, the games won't come nearly as quickly.
I really wouldn't be surprised to see Wii end up with the largest library of games at the end of this generation.
I think you missed the part were we were talking about launch title [b]diversity[b] as opposed to launch title quality.
I think you need both for a great launch. That was in fact the entire point of my other post. The N64 had launch title quality, but no diversity. The GameCube had launch title diversity, but not a lot of quality. Both were mediocre launches.
I personally favor launch title quality over diversity, which is why I think that the N64's launch was better. Unsurprisingly it's also the reason why I bought an N64 at launch, and not a GameCube.
Slashdot Mirror
Which means, while they aren't affiliated with any OS vendor, they apparently aren't affiliated with anyone who can read English.
2) What do you mean "gaddamn expensive"? Good 1080p TVs are down to $1600.
blink
What?! $1600 is "gaddamn expensive" if it can be effectively replaced by something that's $100. Market price for televisions has been $100-200. Maybe $300. $1600 is luxury-level. You might think it's not expensive, but if so, you're not exactly mass market. You can't expect the average price of a TV to jump by a factor 5 and keep the demand the same.
Then again, a $500 game console isn't mass market either, as Sony will rapidly find out.
But the very usefull SKA patch has /never/ made it into the kernel tree. I mean, wtf?
Well, considering there's a SKAS0 mode now which doesn't require patching the host kernel, this isn't that big a deal anymore. Running Linux on a host kernel without the SKAS patch isn't really a performance killer anymore.
The one unique security advantage that NATs have is that it's difficult (and with enough paranoia in the configuration impossible) to tell from which computer behind a NAT router a given connection is coming from.
Eh. You can masquerade connections on a firewall, too, and gain all of that as well. You might then ask "well, then, why have public IPs?", but with a firewall, you could choose to masquerade certain connections while leaving others live.
There aren't really any security advantages to NATs. It's just a trick to allow multiple computers to use one IP address. The security advantages you gain exist in other, less limited, forms by a firewall.
There was no hassle. There was only a small handful of DVDs that would not play. The real issue with it for me was that the quality of output was absolutely horrible.
"Man, this DVD player is perfect, except for these few DVDs that won't play, and the fact that the output's horrible!"
How, exactly, is this not a "hassle"?
I'd suggest that it's not laziness (or at least, not JUST laziness) on the part of the developer which stops realistic games looking realistic - it's time and effort. Only a very small number of developers have the manpower and budget to actually fully USE all the graphical capability available on the current platforms, and even then, it takes two to three years of development time to get the game looking that good.
:)
Well, laziness was my way of saying exactly what you said above in a more snarky way. After all, a poor-looking video game just means that the managers didn't break out their whips and chains and were soft enough that they gasp let the programmers and artists leave! Lazy bastards.
Smaller developers just can't use that power for its intended purpose and therefore can't meet the expectations of the rabid graphics-hungry gamers. They're getting edged out of business.
That, really, is why Nintendo's new system will do fine. Because they won't be able to afford to make graphically-competitive PS3/XBOX games. They will be able to make competitive Wii games.
That's why I'm kinda miffed that Nintendo's considering dropping GBA support. The GBA is a cheap handheld. Keep it that way. Let the DS be a "mid-range" handheld (and the PSP can have the two or three gamers that want a "top-end" handheld). Price the games accordingly - $15-20 for a GBA game, $25-30 for a DS game, and I'd bet that both consoles would survive admirably.
Then again, maybe there just isn't enough developer interest. It might also help if the GB Micro cost $50 retail. That's what I paid for mine, but that's because I'm lucky.
I don't think this additional processing power is a curse, though. Developers have TOTAL freedom to make games as detailed or as sketchy as they want now.
They don't have total freedom, though. They're limited by one thing - budget. And it really remains to be seen whether or not that market will actually happily accept $70-80 console games. Personally, I don't think it will - not if there are $40-50 console games that look half as good but play just as well.
If you think about it, upping the cost of a console game is kindof a losing proposition for game makers. They're not going to get more people to buy a game by pricing it higher. The only way they'll actually make more money is if an equal number of people buy it. Which means, essentially, that they're just trying to squeeze more money out of gamer's pockets. Sony, insanely, thinks that it can just arbitrarily do that. They're nuts. Gamers don't have infinite money.
Which means, really, there's a graphics wall at some point, where you can't make enough money back in sales to make up for the development/artwork cost. I think we hit that wall in the last generation, and I think Nintendo realized that too.
This actually kinda illustrates his point. The main difference seems to be shading and textures, not polygons...
Yeah. Because Wii has a significant amount more texture memory and shader capability than the GameCube did.
Not everything is about polygons.
The proof is in the pudding. Look at the screenshots of Zelda: Twilight Princess in this weeks EGM. When I saw them, two things popped into my mind. One: they are so artistically drawn, and really do look great. Two: the Revolution really can't do the artwork justice.
Which would matter if Zelda: Twilight Princess was a Wii game.
It's not. It's a GameCube game. Its control scheme was updated and it'll be sold as a Wii game, but graphically it won't look any different on the GameCube vs. the Wii. Other than maybe progressive scan.
If you want a good comparison of Wii vs GameCube level graphics, look here at the evolution of the Super Smash Brothers artwork. It's - uh - not a small jump at all.
Then take a look at the SSBB trailer (which is an in-game trailer). The one thing that popped into my mind while watching it (and while playing Kingdom Hearts 2/Dragon Quest VIII this week) is this: graphically, if we want to reproduce cartoons, we're done. They're essentially perfect - the limiting feature at this point is the desire of the programmer to put in the details, not the console to output the graphics and the artist to take the time in making them.
Now, if you want realistic looking games, you've got a ways to go, but the limiting feature there won't be the graphics anyway - it'll be the AI, motion capture, and physics. Who cares if the thing on screen looks like Indiana Jones if it moves like a mannequin?
And that's why the Wii's graphics will do fine - because they're good enough to replicate cartoons, and game developers are too lazy to make realistic games look realistic.
Heck, that's the main issue I've had with PC gaming for a while. They keep trying to make things look realistic and pretty, which leads to great still shots... but things just look like a computer game when things start to move again.
If the government collects taxes and then redistributes the money back to the taxed entities in the form of government programs then wouldn't you agree that this process is not 100% efficient?
Nono, you're right. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be the ones doing the research and getting money from the government. That's retarded. They should just be producing the drugs.
What about oversight costs to ensure compliance with the spending rules? If you leave it up to the company and there is no checking then how would you know that they didn't divert the funds for other things? How does the government decide which companies get how much funds from the available pool? This sounds like an excellent opportunity for more big government with over-burdensome regulations and inefficient bureaucracy.
I believe this is called "a university."
There will be no new drugs without research and research isn't cheap. You can tax to fund the research, but if there is no protection of discoveries then who will want to fund the research?
See above. Universities fund research because it brings in government funding which brings in smart people which brings in students which brings in money.
And universities are doing pharmaceutical research right now. It's just that at a certain point in a drug's life, it goes from the government funding it to drug companies funding it. That's the mistake. Governments should continue funding it to completion, and then pharmaceutical companies start producing the drug once it's been approved by the equivalent of the FDA.
Heck, for one thing, right now, citizens are getting screwed - they're paying the lion's share of the costs to research new drugs, and the pharma companies are reaping all of the benefits.
Perhaps, but drug companies pay their employees, taxes, rents and other expenses in the short run and they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that cannot be breached simply because it would be altruistic or idealistic to do so.
That's why the drug companies shouldn't be doing it. It's the government's job to make sure the economy and society are as healthy (in the literal and figurative sense) as possible.
The duties would have to be quite high to make up for the research costs
Nono - you're not trying to make up the research costs. Those are just gone. The research costs are paid for by the government, and the government makes it up because you're advancing the state of the art, and the economy thus maintains a lead on everyone else. Same reason for the existence of the space program, for instance.
The duties are just to ensure any governmental fees and taxes that the local companies pay (for regulatory approval, for instance) are paid by the overseas entity as well. Then the only way a foreign entity can really beat a local entity is by leveraging very cheap manpower, but with sufficient automation, that can be driven down as well (or you could levy duty for civil rights reasons if it's excessive, which seems fair especially if you're rendering humanitarian aid to the country). Then the local entity probably wins completely due to extra shipping costs from a distance.
So basically, Europe would end up having a lead in terms of pharmaceuticals over other countries by design (because they're funneling more money into research than other countries - so it's not temporary), which would lead to continual exports of new drugs. Other countries really couldn't just import old drugs cheaper, because of reasons outlined above - it's unlikely they could really make them fundamentally cheaper than local drugs, so you get a net positive export of pharmaceuticals. That's good for the government, and likely worth the investment in the research.
High enough taxes and tarifs turn even honest people into cheats.
I doubt the tariffs would be that high. And if they are, you can always split the difference by halving the tariffs, and halving the taxes you collect from the pharma companies. Or giving tax breaks to those who buy locally-produced drugs.
Regardless of who actually came up with the vaccine the point of the quote remains the same. Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation;
Which is why we innovate at universities.
This is just asking governments to fund the universities. Which, they do. But when the results start getting close to production, the government funding dries up, and then the pharmaceutical companies take over. This is essentially what they're trying to fix - it's fairly insane that the public essentially funds the majority of the research for pharmaceutical companies, and then just hands them a nice neat product which they then produce, and market the hell out of, at insane prices while using patents to restrict production in other places where the cost would be cheaper.
So essentially, all you're really doing is asking the governments to finish what they already started - fund the drugs all the way to completion, rather than just the majority of the way.
If we want more discoveries like this we simply need the lobby the government to give more money to universities, not abolish the patent system.
Why, precisely, should patents be allowed for drugs that are primarily discovered by government-funded research?
Suppose that we Americans "free ride" on this Swedish research so now we can enjoy the benefits of the research that you paid for AND spend our surplus tax money on other things.
Well, given the inevitable manufacturing delays and difficulties in figuring out processes, a free-riding country would always be a few years behind the forefront of the non-free-riding country. There's nothing that says that Europeans have to go and teach other countries how to use the technology. You're just not protecting it legally.
And given that medicine's an immediate need - someone dying of cancer won't buy the "well, just wait a few years, we'll have it then" - the medicine will be imported, and Europe will make some of that money back. So there's no complete free ride anyway.
This should sound remarkably like the current situation, and it is. You're just removing the ability of the companies to make money by artificially extending that barrier to cheap drugs - which as I mentioned elsewhere, is akin to the government protecting bad business models.
Remember also that by taxing the citizens you are forcing people to spend a portion of their incomes, and in Sweden that non-discretionary portion is quite large, on goods and services that, if left to their own devices, people might otherwise chose not to purchase or purchase in less quanity.
That's a very good point - but it only stresses why medical research should be funded by society in general. Research should be funded by governments when its reward is large, and the timescale is too large for people to see the immediate benefit. Most pure sciences benefit from this, for instance, but medical research is similar. Why? Because the people who are earning the most money are typically those who are healthy - they don't know they're going to get sick, and so, they'll typically shave money, and skimp on paying for medical research.
Which, of course, is why governments do fund medical research. It's just for some silly reason, governments typically bow out of funding when the drug gets close to production.
It's much like car insurance - states in the US require car insurance because of the risk involved - it's dangerous to other people if you're a bad driver, and if you're a bad driver and cheap (i.e. don't get insurance on your own) then you end up costing everyone else money and rising their insurance. Medical insurance is similar. If you're not healthy, and you're cheap (or unable to get medical insurance), you end up costing everyone else money, and putting others at risk with your own poor health. Yeah, I'm talking about medical coverage rather than medical research here, but the argument is similar.
so if the Indian and Chinese pharma companies take the medical research that Europeans have paid for, create knock-off drugs, and sell them cheap in Europe to undercut the European pharma companies then you would be fine with that?
Wait... so if the Indian and Chinese can produce the drugs cheaper than Europe (with appropriate duty, of course - drugs companies in Europe pay European taxes, drugs coming in from outside Europe should have a duty charged to make up for those taxes) - why shouldn't they? Why does this hurt the pharmaceutical companies? They'd be getting money directly from the government (which, in any case, they do now anyway - find me a drug that didn't have its origins in a university hospital and I'll find a thousand others that did) for the research whether they sell the drug or not.
Any pharmaceutical company in Europe will have a few years head start on foreign companies, because they've got experience with making the drug - that, and they'll also have the quality control stuff out of the way. Presumedly foreign drugs would also have to have quality controls to ensure that they're equivalent to European-produced drugs. And when/if the other countries can start making the drugs cheaper, then it's time to move on.
I have to agree that splitting research and production of pharmaceuticals is probably an ideal way to go. Drugs should be cheap if they're cheap to make. Morally, it's just wrong to keep them expensive to pay for new, future drugs.
And believe it or not, financially, it's probably wrong, as well. In the long run, it's easy to believe that an economy could be healthier with universal, cheap health care due to the increased productivity and lifespans of the population.
I am sure that the Chinese and Indians would be happy to have you pay for all the research so that they can knock-off your products for pennies on the dollar when the research actually turns up a useful new drug.
Again, I say: who cares if they do? If they can actually make the drugs cheaper, then the European economy saves money, especially if the proper duties are assessed, because the European people end up paying less for the drugs.
One company in Europe that makes the drug might get hurt, but really, whose fault is that? Why should it be the government's job to protect a bad business model?
This may be true, but I think we've gotten a little bit off-topic, they're going to be using Blu-Ray to squeeze a ton of data onto their discs
I doubt the machine would cost $600 if it couldn't play Blu-Ray movies, even if it had a Blu-Ray drive. Well, let's put it this way - I doubt that anyone would even be considering it anything but overpriced if it didn't play Blu-Ray movies.
Which means that it's overpriced, because few, if any, people will care about the movies.
Let me put it this way - it's not like the Xbox 360 couldn't've been released a year earlier. It's not at the bleeding edge of technology or anything. It just would've cost about $1000. But the market wouldn't've accepted it.
Ditto for the PS3. If the technology really just is that inherently expensive, then Sony's pushing too much. History says that consoles priced like the PS3 die a horrible screaming death.
I never had a problem playing DVDs until maybe 3 years after I bought it... actually closer to 4 or 5.. But I was also having problems playing GAMES by that point.
There are known compatibility problems with certain DVDs. I'm too lazy to look it up, but the info's out there. Plus, of course, the output quality is awful compared even to a $20 DVD player nowadays.
FTR: I'll probably get a ps3 at some point I'm sure, maybe after the first price drop,
Virtually everyone I've seen be positive about the PS3 says it this way. Part of the reason the PS2 did so well is because of its strong launch performance. I really, really think that Sony screwed the pooch with this one. The PS3 launch is really going to be weak, simply because that price is way too high.
Plus, of course, you're assuming that the price does drop. What if, two years later, it's still at $600? Three years later?
Nah. You just do a save right before you hit a difficult spot. In games like Metroid, Zelda, etc., it's fairly obvious. Then the difficult part is atomic - either you finish it, or you don't.
It's not like Tetris doesn't get the blood pumping. It's just that you don't need to do much to get back there if you need to turn the system off.
Not really. When you have a lot wrapped up in the progress you have made so far, then to break away from it and come back is almost impossible. In the middle of fighting a hard boss in zelda, pausing and coming back an hour or day later would probably mean you have to start over anyway. (And it's a *long* time to get back to where you were)
Then it doesn't have proper saving - simple enough. Standby should be able to get you through any casual pauses, but then in addition, opportunities to save should be plenty.
That's one of the reasons that I had been playing all of the handheld games I own on flash carts - most offer real-time saves as an ability (I must've battled the SA-X in Metroid Fusion fifty times). For the life of me, I can't figure out why most games don't have that as a real option.
Look at the PS2 - it greatly influenced the use of DVDs in the household. I know quite a few people who used their PS2 as a DVD player long before they got a specific DVD player
VHS tapes were worse than TV quality. If you recorded a show that was broadcast over the air onto VHS, and played it back, it was worse. Everyone could benefit from DVDs, because they showed an improvement on a normal television.
Blu-ray, however, won't. It will show an improvement on HD TVs, but the market penetration of HDTVs is still small. People right now are not thinking "man, I need a Blu-ray player." When the PS2 came out, people were thinking "man, I need a DVD player."
You also forgot to mention that the PS2 was a terrible DVD player. It had huge compatibility problems reading DVDs. It's entirely possible the people who bought the PS2 as a DVD player (and then probably bought a real DVD player later) still remember the hassle of trying to use it.
With the PS2, Sony was marketing bling to the mass markets. Now, they're marketing bling to a niche market. If they think they're going to get the same response, they are very, very wrong.
When you have a handheld gaming system, most likely you use it while waiting for something, and you want to be able to put it away at a moments notice.
I believe the solution you are looking for is called "standby".
Then, what the heck is the transaction between the 1st party and the 2nd party, and how is the 3rd party involved in that transaction?
Publisher.
First party games are those created and published by the console manufacturer.
Second party games are those created by a second party, but published by the console manufacturer.
Third party games are those created by a second party, and published by a third party, on the first party's console.
That's not exactly what it means anymore (as with all of language, it evolved since then) but that's where it came from.
Yeah. My problem is I couldn't remember what games were done by Nintendo's labs (like Retro Studios, HAL, etc.) and which were done by a second-party developer. Turns out Factor 5 was completely 3rd party, so I was wrong (Nintendo only launched with 2 first/second party games) - they just made cool games for the N64 and so Nintendo liked them. Up until they ditched 'em.
I swear, the number of times I need to reply to this...
The "I, you, they" in describing games does not mean the console manufacturer, you, and the game maker. (So it would be "You play my game on my console", "You play his game on my console", "You play your game on my console.") It means the console manufacturer, the game publisher, and the game maker - i.e. "I publish my game on (my/your) console", "You publish my game on your console", "He publishes my game on your console."
That eventually evolved into first party developer, second party developer, and third party developers, which mean different things than the original meaning, but not that different.
Where in the world did this "second-party is grammatically incorrect!" crap come from? This terminology's been around for something like 20 years.
You're misunderstanding the relationship of 'you, me, him' in the use of those terms. First, second, third party don't refer to the relationship between the purchaser, the game developer, and the console manufacturer. They refer to the relationship between the game developer, the console manufacturer and the publisher.
As in, a first party game is first party because the console manufacturer develops and publishes the game themselves. ("I publish my game on my console.")
A second party game is "You publish my game on your console."
A third party game is "They publish my game on your console."
Over time, those got twisted into "first party = console manufacturer", "second party = exclusive to one console manufacturer, but separate company", and "third party = non-exclusive to either" but the origin of the terms were correct.
They get maximum ROI on games that can be released for the greatest number of consoles (ensuring the greatest possible sales)
Assuming the game succeeds. If it fails, they're out the development costs.
That's the whole point. There's less risk. Roughly equal reward, assuming that Wii gets a decent install base. Why risk a gigantic flop when you can risk a mild flop? In the case of some developers, a failed XBox 360 or PS3 game could kill the studio. Heck, that already happened in the PS2/Xbox/GameCube era with smaller developers.
but will require retooling for the control scheme (and lower graphical quality) for the Wii, that makes it less attractive to develop for.
Lowering the graphical quality in a game isn't usually that difficult. You drop the resolution on textures, drop the number of polygons, cut out a few effects, and poof. It's harder to increase the graphical quality in a game.
I don't think developers will really mind the new control scheme if they want to put out a multiplatform game. If they do, they'll just require the classic controller. But I doubt that'll happen.
but they have to have an array of Wii-specific games equal to the combined libraries of Sony and Microsoft.
That's kinda my point, though. The development cycle for a Wii-only game will be shorter than the cycle for a PS3 or Xbox 360 game, and the risk will be smaller. I don't think it's even unlikely to believe that Wii will end up with more games in the end. Many of them may end up being the junk throwaway TV series/movie tie-in games, sure, but in a lot of cases, it's the number of games on the shelves that helps sell a system, and plus, kids tend to eat those games up, bizarrely enough.
Ok, but forgetting the 'exclusive' part for a second, why do we think the Wii will do any better on 3rd party support than the GameCube? The controller is so unique that it screams for original/innovative support, and that will not translate well from 3rd party titles that want to appear on all three major consoles...?
Because it's cheaper.
It won't cost nearly as much to develop for the Wii as it will for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 - the development costs have been spiraling up for years, as the complexity and artistic demands of the system keep spiraling upwards. Plus with the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation, they're now crowing for better AI (yeah, sure, I'll do that next week), better physics (easy, right?)... all things that take time, and a lot of effort.
Which means that their margins get thinner, and it's a lot riskier to put out things that you're not sure will sell, and in addition, the games won't come nearly as quickly.
I really wouldn't be surprised to see Wii end up with the largest library of games at the end of this generation.
... except it wasn't a launch title.
Eternal Darkness is what I bought a GameCube for, but I didn't buy one until months after the launch.
I think you missed the part were we were talking about launch title [b]diversity[b] as opposed to launch title quality.
I think you need both for a great launch. That was in fact the entire point of my other post. The N64 had launch title quality, but no diversity. The GameCube had launch title diversity, but not a lot of quality. Both were mediocre launches.
I personally favor launch title quality over diversity, which is why I think that the N64's launch was better. Unsurprisingly it's also the reason why I bought an N64 at launch, and not a GameCube.