How do you know the PS3 cannot be upgraded? It still has Bluetooth and USB support, I'm pretty sure it can handle peripherals. It also has very flexible AV In/Out support. Whether memory card and wifi peripherals, and HDMI output can be added is not something I'd be speculating about just yet.
I'm not too concerned about the memory card or WiFi, since those are all things I imagine can be easily added. It's the HDMI output that's a bit odd. Yeah, there's USB support, so is that how it's going to be done?
I do think the whole Sony presentation regarding the two SKUs was highly misleading. It seemed like the only difference between the two were the difference in HD size, but the press release later showed otherwise. Now it's the "upgrade story" which everyone is interested.
Anyway, back to the HDMI output, I thought HD-DVD and Blu-ray had to have either DVI or HDMI output? Does that mean the core PS3 won't be able to play Blu-ray discs unless you upgrade? Sounds a lot like the Xbox DVD fiasco, where you had to buy the dongle/remote to enable playing DVDs, whereas it worked right out of the box for the PS2.
Sony does not need to say "me too!", they have a big fanbase and they will buy the PS3 regardless of uninteresting crappy features, there will still be more games for it than the other consoles.
You and I totally agree on that point. They were in such a solid position, market-share wise and with 3rd party developer relationships. Really, they could have just skipped the motion-sensing controller and maybe even forgone the whole online services bit, and just focused on building a console and continuing to secure key exclusives with their 3rd party developers.
But now they're trying to do too much. First, after years of saying that online services should just be left to the developers themselves, we'll change our mind and try to do our own central service (friends list, marketplace, arcade, etc.)... which looks a lot like Xbox Live. Next, we'll throw in a motion sensing controller, which seems like a copycat of Nintendo. And finally, we'll do something that no one else is doing, and focus heavily on getting Bluray into everyone's home. Unfortunately for Sony, the last bit may be what kills them, as that undoubtedly is the factor for their extremely high price point.
If all Sony did was make just another console, yeah it would have been boring compared to what Nintendo and MS are trying to do, but it would have been safe and it would have been more than enough to keep them the market leader for the next generation.
I'm not so sure of that anymore.
(... and I was the guy willing to bet a thousand bucks that Sony was going to win hands down the next generation too)
Well, it turns out its not exclusive after all. I think the messaging from the conference was definately confusing. At first I thought maybe the game was coming out in October of this year, meaning it would be exclusive to the 360 until the PS3 ships, but it's actually 2007.
Still, this is a major coup for MS since no longer are they getting the "scraps" from Rockstar. I know there were millions of folks who bought a PS2 soley for GTA3, and Xbox owners had to wait a very long couple of months before it finally came to their console. Now it's on an equal playing field, that's only good news for MS.
Although yeah, having it be truly 360 exclusive would have essentially sealed it for Sony.:)
I doubt Sony will shift focus to only sports, FPS, and racing games, because they don't need to. Developers come to THEM, because they've got the market share. MS would love to sign over more RPG developers, and snag exclusives from companies like Square-Enix. But it's a huge chicken and egg problem: RPG developers want to focus on the console with the most installed RPG fanbase, but RPG fans won't flock to the console unless it has RPGs. You can wave money at them, and lord knows MS has money, but apparently it's not enough to get anyone to bite, other than a few upstarts (Mistwalker Studios, etc.).
Uhh... tell me where the wifi, HFMI and memory stick are on the Xbox 360. Oh, wait, there aren't any.
The core PS3 is *already* upgraded to the level of the expanded Xbox 360.
I wasn't arguing that the 360 was better because it didn't have these features, but that you can at least upgrade from the core version of the console to the premium one. Unless Sony gives everyone a hacksaw and a soldering kit, I don't see how you can upgrade the core PS3 into a premium PS3. As many people are just noticing today, Sony is essentially selling TWO different consoles.
Oh and one nitpick, the 360 doesn't do "memory sticks". But the base unit allows you to plug in memory cards. Apparently the core PS3 doesn't even let you do that.
At least the stripped down PS3 will be more usable than the stripped down 360. (I don't need HDMI, and I don't need WiFi in the console.)
What? The way I see it, the core version of the 360 is far more better than the core version of the PS3. With the core 360, at least you can always upgrade to the premium package, just by buying the HD seperately, and whatever wires you need. Unless Sony has developed the PS3 so that all the premium features (HDMI, WiFi, memory stick/etc) are removable, it looks like any core users are forever screwed. Gee, way to gouge your users Sony.
Granted, the premium packages for both systems are the way to go, but still...
As I suspected, Sony is trying to dilute Nintendo's innovation. I think most of us here are savvy enough to know that the PS3 controller is going to be far inferior to the Nintendo's "Wii-mote". Yet, how many of your regular consumers are going to know the difference?
I don't think Sony's goal was to out-do the Wii controller's feature and functionality. All it needs to do is dumb it down. Same goes for the Xbox Live experience. Let's deliver crap offerings of our competitors' features so that we can say "meeee tooo!". All they have to hope is that enough consumers figure that the PS3 offering is "good enough".
I cringe at the following scenario, which I know is going to happen:
ME - *trying to explain the Nintendo Wii controller to a non-gamer friend* FRIEND - "Ohh, so it's like the PlayStation controller I've heard about?" ME - *cries*
Good god that sucks. I wonder if it's even possible to upgrade later from the budget PS3 SKU to the premium one. As much as I disliked the two SKU model of the 360, it was at least feasible to add on a hard-drive separately later on. Would that even be possible with the PS3? I'm guessing not, unless all of those were modules that could be easily added and removed.
Man, people made fun of those who got the 360 "core" models... imagine what it'd be like to be the kid who gets the PS3 core model, instead of the premium they really wanted.;D
Obviously you've never visited forums for games like World of Warcraft. There is definately a huge community there. Being a "forum junkie" is definately something that's becoming more and more common with gamers.
I don't see how Nintendo Wii is that much better than the other two. When they go into the store the choice is between 'Made Up Name' 360, 'Made Up Name' 3, and 'Made Up Name'. At least the Playstation gives some indication of what it might do.
It's all about branding. Yes "Xbox" and "Playstation" are all made-up names, but those brands have been around for a while now. Those names might have been silly sounding when they first came out, but so did Google, Yahoo, and eBay. I've heard of too many moms talking about their kids playing Xbox when it's really a Playstation (or vice versa).
What Nintendo really has going for them is the "Nintendo" name itself. They've been associated with games far longer than Microsoft or Sony. My mom still refers to everything video-game related as Nintendo, since I grew up on the NES and SNES. So while "Wii" itself may be a crappy name, most folks (and store clerks) will refer to it as the next video game machine from Nintendo, and that will click with most consumers.
The biggest problem I have with "Wii" is that it has too many negative connotations with existing English words/slang. Reading all of the Slashdot comments makes that obvious. You didn't really have that problem with Xbox or PlayStation or GameCube. It reminds me of the urban legend of the Chevy Nova not selling well in Spanish-speaking countries, since "no va" means "doesn't go". (And yes, I know it's a false urban legend) Still, you would have thought that there were many other names Nintendo could have chosen that didn't have such negative connotations. "Wii" may be fine in Japan and other non-English speaking countries, but the US/UK/Australian populations are huge and it just seems to risky to do.
But if you sometimes follow evil orders still - well, that's still doing evil. (For some values of evil. I agree with other people that calling some of the nasty things Microsoft have done "evil" seems excessive; on the other hand some of the worst things like killing Netscape seem to deserve the term).
Hey, if I were on the team that essentially killed Netscape, I would have spoken out.:)
As for sometimes following "evil orders", it does suck, especially depending on how "evil" it is. Actually, I've never had anything on the order of "let's be anti-competitive!", but it's more like bugs that were punted that impacted the user for one reason or another. Fortunately, I find that the higher I go in the management chain, the more I'm able to stop them in the first place, or invoke changes on those issuing those orders (*cough BizDev cough*).
On the topic of "evil orders", the time I felt the most uncomfortable was when I was an intern at a government contract job, just outside Washington DC. It felt like everything there was an "evil order" in some way. Yay, I'm working on projects that cost way too much, comes out of the tax payer's wallet, that NEVER GET USED. But gee, it's important that our company bid for these projects since it's free money for us. It's no wonder I left and never want to work for a "beltway bandit" again.
I was going to respond, but then I read some of your older posts. It's nigh impossible to argue with someone who's a self-proclaimed zealot and has already made up their mind.:\
Oh well, it's not like I need to prove to anyone (or you) that I'm not evil. If that's what you feel, then que sera sera.:)
I'm not a fan of questions like "Tell me about a time when you were challeneged and overcame it", or "Where do you plan to be in five years?" I don't think they tell you all that much about a candidate, and what you do learn can be misleading.
I agree, those questions aren't very good. I can only see them used as starter questions, in order to get a candidate comfortable in talking with you. In this industry, I do come across a lot of folks who are very introverted and aren't comfortable talking about themselves. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if their position is pretty independent, but an interview where no talking is done is a bad one.
Good behavioural questions are much more specific. "Tell me about a time where you had to push hard to get a bug fixed." That's something that WILL happen on the job, and you do want to get an idea of how this person tackled a scenario like that in the past. I don't like it when candidates are wishy-washy and just give generic answers. If you haven't been in that situation before, then at least be honest about it.
Yes, people can always prepare stock answers to many behavioural questions, or just out-right lie. There's not much you can do to prevent that, other than ask a number of questions and just mix it up in general. Having an interview full of ONLY behavioural questions isn't a good idea either, which is why I have the traditional "let's go to the whiteboard" questions as well.
I think it really depends on where you live. Where I live in "Microsoft country" (the greater Seattle area), Xbox 360s are still very much hard to find. It's gotten a lot better, no doubt, but I still don't see them just sitting on shelves. Everyone I know who REALLY wanted a 360 has one, but some of the folks I know who are more casually interested in the console are still waiting till they can just pick it up at their local electronics/game store.
I've heard the same shortages from friends around Austin and the Northern Virginia area. But I have heard people claim, in more rural areas, that yes, 360s are much more readily available.
Just following orders, eh? I think some people tried that defense in the past.
Do you guys honestly think that every product made in MS is done via evil means? That every decision being made is anti-competitive, screws over customers, kills babies, etc.? If that's what you think, then I can't find a way to have a decent discussion with you guys, since you've already made your conclusions.
I'll just say one thing. Where I work (in Games), there aren't evil decisions being made left and right. You may be suprised, but we do think about the end-user a lot, and about doing "the right thing". Maybe that's because we're in games and we know that MS has typically a bad reputation, so we HAVE to do things right, otherwise we'll lose trust. That said, I have seen a few "evil orders" come my way (often coming from marketing and business, fancy that), and I have spoken against them and gotten people to change their minds. Since in I'm in QA, it's my job to be the voice of consumer. (And I'm not alone, PM and Dev feel much the same way) I'm glad to be in that position where I can make a positive change.
Am I always going to win against those "evil orders"? No. Like any other company (and I've worked in a few), there are always going to be decisions made that you don't agree with, but you ultimately can't do anything about, aside from leaving the company or sabotaging the work (which might land you in jail). But I know that I've made many more positive changes than negative. If it ever comes to the point where the negative outweighs the positive, then yes, I will leave. However right now, I'm actually happy to see a lot of the folks responsible for the "evilness" being kicked out out of the company, so I definately think that's a good thing.
But as I said before, you probably won't believe me. It's a lot easier for folks to make assumptions and think that everything is so black and white. Sorry if you think that way, that we're all horrible people.:\
Well I can't argue with someone who's such a fan of the slippery slope mentality.
Yeah, you live in the US and technically your tax dollars are funding the war we both despise so much. But I think you're blaming yourself too much if you really think you "didn't do enough to stop the evil bastards running my country". Gee, did you vote for the other guy? That's doing something. Participate in some anti-war rallies or at least some discussion? That's good too. There's not much you alone can do to prevent the war (not even assassination could probably stop it now). I believe what's important is that you do as much as you practically and realistically can.
As someone who works at MS, I do find it annoying how certain people brand the entire company as "evil" based on the history of certain actions, and specifically with the Office and Windows products. If I work for an "evil company", does that make me evil? I had nothing to do with a lot of the evil decisions that have been made in the past (and arguably the present too). I'm not a lawyer, or in marketing, or in business planning, where a lot of the evil decisions come from. I do shake my head when I see stupid decisions being made, although it's obviously not enough to make me want to quit. I see enough good where I work, that I want to stay. Plus it's a practical decision too (it doesn't hurt that the pay is nice).
I think it's similar parallel to perception of the US. A lot of people don't like how the current administration is handling a lot of things (Iraq war especially). Many folks will even call the United States an "evil country". However, a lot of Americans, even those who agree that Bush & company are morons, would disapprove. Just because you dislike the administration doesn't mean the US as a whole should be called "evil". I don't like the US administration, but there's enough good in the country that I'm not moving anywhere. Does that make me evil? Or just practical?
MS is a huge company. In many of the industries that they are in, they are not #1. And in some cases, you might even call them less evil than other companies that are in that spot (for example, Sony in the games industry). Most of us here are just like the rest of you: trying to make a great product, make our customers happy, and (if you're in a for-profit company) also keeping an eye on the bottom line. Last I checked, I didn't choke babies, run over old ladies, or kill innocents, while trying to do a good job.
Then he's a sell-out, with little backbone. He probably WON'T last long at Microsoft (and from your comment, it sounds like he didn't). I've worked at MS for a couple of years now, and know quite a few people here. Yeah, there are a few idiots here that are pro-MS everything and anti-anything-else no matter what. But the rest of us are much more practical and open about things.
Am I going to declare that Linux is the best and that everyone should ditch Windows? Or that the PS3 is going to own all? No. If I felt so strongly about that, I wouldn't be working here in the first place. But I'm not going to say Linux is horrible and no one should get a PS3. (I've had Linux boxes in the past, and I will be getting a PS3, since I'm a big fan of Square-Enix games that are often PS-exclusives). Nothing is ever so cut and dry. I especially hate FUD in general, when its used against MS or for MS.
Maybe it's just me because I work in MGS (MS Game Studios) and it's a different culture than those "guys on main campus".:)
1. Mounts are overpriced, and it's a boring timesink to get them. 2. To keep up with other players who out gear them. 3. Gold is cheap. It would take me days of BOREDOM to earn 1000G in game. I can earn the money to buy 1000G in two hours of my real life work, which is actually more enjoyable than grinding in WoW which I play only for pvp. Why would I take 40 hours of my time to accomplish something that could be done in 2?
It's funny how when people talk about mounts being overpriced, they ALWAYS refer to the epic mount. No one really has an issue with the regular mount and how much it costs.
Anyway, I think the biggest problem is that a lot of folks who can't play 40 hours a week still expect that all of the content geared towards those folks (the epic mount, high-end reputation rewards, uber raiding gear) SHOULD be readily available to them. That's a main issue with this whole "hardcore vs casual" argument that flames up in the WoW forums every so often.
You know what? I'm a busy guy and I don't play WoW nearly as much as others. I still don't have a level 60, and I've been playing off an on for nearly a year. I see the uber-rewards that are available and I am FINE that there is no way for me to get them. The way I see it, that content is made specifically for those hardcore gamers that do spend 40 hours a week in Azeroth. I'm not bitter about it, though, because there's more than enough content in the game that I still haven't hit yet, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. (Of course, that may change when I actually hit 60, but I figure I can always roll a new character. And PVP at level 60 is a similar but different topic for another day)
For any other single-player game, if I grow bored with it, or disatisfied with the game design, I'm fine with just putting it down and never playing it again. If you feel really strongly about not being able to access the epic loot because you don't have enough time, then you should do the same with WoW. Buying gold is not a solution, though, since in its current form, it hurts the game for others. Once fully sanctioned by Blizzard (which would mean no more, or much fewer, gold farmers), that I could live with.
On the gold farming thing, I think the best way to handle it is to sanction it and not try to stop it. You'll waste a lot of time and effort trying to stop it, ruining the game experiences of the "cheaters" who just wanted to skip over some of the boring parts along the way, and you won't really stop it. By "criminalizing" it, you're exacerbating the problem that you created in the first place. It's better to noturinate into the wind, right?
Yes, I agree completely. We're already seeing this trend in MMOs now. See Sony's new Station Exchange for Everquest. It won't be long till Blizzard follows suit. A large driving factor is going to be the fact that this is now a new source of revenue for MMO companies too.
As for level grinds in MMOs, I think the biggest problem is due to people's different play styles. As you mentioned, there always be power gamers that just breeze through the normal quests/instances/etc. For those folks, maybe a level grind isn't enough, so you force them to go through reputation grinds, gold grinds, and raid grinding. For casual gamers, the normal level grind might be enough. I think WoW does this fairly well actually. But it could always be better. And there's the problem with casual gamers seeing what the hardcore gamers are getting and wishing they had access to that content as well.
Maybe an MMO that does something similar to what Oblivion does, would be good. In Oblivion, the enemy usually scales in level with you. So if you walk into a dungeon at level 5, all the mobs are around that level. If you came in at level 10, then they're also around 10. What's missing, though, is the sense of progression, that you really ARE getting more powerful. Maybe if there was an MMO that combined both level scaling (keeping casuals and power gamers at the same skill level, despite how much time each put in), but still gave people a sense of progression, that would be a good thing?
First of all, that was a really nice post. Too bad I can't mod you up anymore. It's nice to see Slashdot is still capable of having great posts like these. Now, my comment:
If you think it's cheating that someone can buy gold from another player, do you also think it's cheating if your guild donates money and equipment to new members? Is it cheating if you give your buddy a bunch of extra gold you don't need? If you don't, then why do you object to the use of real-world money to purchase something when you don't mind if people give it away free? Isn't it unfair that groups of people can work together with synergy that is unavailable to the player who tends to be a loner, only there for the socializing but not hte hard-core guild experience?
There is a difference between the person who buys gold from another player, versus the person who gets it from a friend or a guildie. It's not cheating, and you've already covered why. It is because of the synergy and the socializing that I wouldn't consider it nearly "cheating". (Now there is a line you can cross, such as uber-twinking for PvP situations, but that's a separate topic) If I take the time to establish good relations with someone, or a group of people, then I have no problem with them returning the favor (often with gold/items/time). More often then not, it's because you have or will take the same action: give your lesser loot to the new person, run a friend through a lesser dungeon, etc.
If I'm a stranger just asking for free gold and loot, chances are that I'm not going to get much. That's to be expected. That's just how socialization works.
The only thing the gold buyer does to "earn" the gold is know how to write a check. Now, I wouldn't nearly have a problem with this if this were something officially sanctioned by Blizzard. There ARE online games where currency buying and selling are allowed. Second Life and Kingdom of Loathing are two examples.
So, what's the difference between gold buying in a game where it's sanctioned and where it isn't? A few things... if it's unofficial, then you're stuck with a lot of the shady circumstances that pop up. Like in WoW, you've got those gold farmers that ruin game experience for others simply because they're trying to earn a living. (I don't fault the people behind the gold farming themselves, they're just trying to feed mouths) Also, if it's official, then the entire playerbase has the expectations that there will be people who "buy" their way to the game, and that it's appropriate. (Well, there will always be the negative stigma associated with it)
I think you can find similar real-life parallels to gold buying. For example a college degree. I'm proud of my Masters degree in CS, since I did a lot of work for it, and I appreciate the degrees of others that I know who went to college. But if you come up to me and say that you just bought yours online from a fake school, then yes, you are a shmuck.
Dark&Light is supposed to somewhat reduce the grind by having a large "social" aspect to the game (a hierarchy of command) and by very scarce respawning. The idea is the world is huge (we're talking 400x400km of land+oceans) and the flora and fauna grows and travels proceduraly, striving to keep the balance. For example if the sheep in some area ate all the grass, they will travel to find more grass or starve to death. If you kill those sheep, they don't just respawn after a minute. Doing recon and hunting the monsters then becomes much more interesting and much less grindy.
Hmm, sounds a bit like Ultima Online when it first came out. That MMO was one of the most "realistic" ones to be released. It was a very large world as well. The spawn rate was low. And I think it had a similar eco-system as well.
You know what? That game was often very boring. Having to spend 10 minutes just to recon and find a monster is not fun. You've just replaced monster grinding (killing monsters over and over again), with the even less fun monster hunting experience. Yeah, looking through empty fields constantly for a monster, only to have him stolen by someone else, doesn't sound like much fun. That's why WoW was more enjoyable. Time spent hunting was reduced dramatically. Not very realistic, but more fun. I'm sure there's another innovation after that, but I don't know what it is yet.
Same with things like enabling PvP for everyone and letting them loot player corpses. It sounds great and realistic, but UO had it and was all one huge griefing experience. Fun for a small number of power gamers, but not fun for the masses.
Now, I understand that some folks DO like spending a lot of time hunting for creatures, so let there be games that do that. I'll just spend my money elsewhere then.
Fine, I should have said "a few" instead of one. So sue me.
Actually, you do bring up an interesting point. How many people are needed to make gold farming a viable business?
With a game like WoW, with a tremendous subscriber base, all it takes a small percentage of the playerbase to be dis-satisfied, and gold farmers have a business. For example, WoW has 5 million subscribers (last I checked). If just 1% of that audience were lazy gamers that wanted to buy their way to level 60 characters, that's already 50,000 people. I think that's enough to run a gold farming business, especially when you consider a lot of folks are repeat customers, and you constantly have people coming in and out of the game (1 out of 100 are willing to buy gold).
So during the game planning phase, are you really going to spend that much time trying to prevent that 1% playerbase from wanting to buy gold? (And that may entail drastic measures such as not having an open economy at all) Or are you going to pay more attention to the 99% that is fine with the general MMO-style economy? It's probaly going to be the latter.
The main issue I see is how much damage that 1% can do to the 99% through gold buying. For example, even though less than 1% of your audience may be trying to hack your game, all it takes is a few unscrupulous item dupers to totally wreck the economy for everyone else. So that's one instance where you really do care about locking down on a small percentage of your possible userbase.
Going back to subscriber numbers... there are many other MMOs that are completely open to gold farming. However, their subscriber numbers are far lower, so it's much less of an issue. It's just WoW is so popular so it's going to gain a lot attention from everyone (gamers, hackers, griefers, gold buyers, gold farmers, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know the PS3 cannot be upgraded? It still has Bluetooth and USB support, I'm pretty sure it can handle peripherals. It also has very flexible AV In/Out support. Whether memory card and wifi peripherals, and HDMI output can be added is not something I'd be speculating about just yet.
I'm not too concerned about the memory card or WiFi, since those are all things I imagine can be easily added. It's the HDMI output that's a bit odd. Yeah, there's USB support, so is that how it's going to be done?
I do think the whole Sony presentation regarding the two SKUs was highly misleading. It seemed like the only difference between the two were the difference in HD size, but the press release later showed otherwise. Now it's the "upgrade story" which everyone is interested.
Anyway, back to the HDMI output, I thought HD-DVD and Blu-ray had to have either DVI or HDMI output? Does that mean the core PS3 won't be able to play Blu-ray discs unless you upgrade? Sounds a lot like the Xbox DVD fiasco, where you had to buy the dongle/remote to enable playing DVDs, whereas it worked right out of the box for the PS2.
Sony does not need to say "me too!", they have a big fanbase and they will buy the PS3 regardless of uninteresting crappy features, there will still be more games for it than the other consoles.
... which looks a lot like Xbox Live. Next, we'll throw in a motion sensing controller, which seems like a copycat of Nintendo. And finally, we'll do something that no one else is doing, and focus heavily on getting Bluray into everyone's home. Unfortunately for Sony, the last bit may be what kills them, as that undoubtedly is the factor for their extremely high price point.
You and I totally agree on that point. They were in such a solid position, market-share wise and with 3rd party developer relationships. Really, they could have just skipped the motion-sensing controller and maybe even forgone the whole online services bit, and just focused on building a console and continuing to secure key exclusives with their 3rd party developers.
But now they're trying to do too much. First, after years of saying that online services should just be left to the developers themselves, we'll change our mind and try to do our own central service (friends list, marketplace, arcade, etc.)
If all Sony did was make just another console, yeah it would have been boring compared to what Nintendo and MS are trying to do, but it would have been safe and it would have been more than enough to keep them the market leader for the next generation.
I'm not so sure of that anymore.
(... and I was the guy willing to bet a thousand bucks that Sony was going to win hands down the next generation too)
Well, it turns out its not exclusive after all. I think the messaging from the conference was definately confusing. At first I thought maybe the game was coming out in October of this year, meaning it would be exclusive to the 360 until the PS3 ships, but it's actually 2007.
:)
Still, this is a major coup for MS since no longer are they getting the "scraps" from Rockstar. I know there were millions of folks who bought a PS2 soley for GTA3, and Xbox owners had to wait a very long couple of months before it finally came to their console. Now it's on an equal playing field, that's only good news for MS.
Although yeah, having it be truly 360 exclusive would have essentially sealed it for Sony.
I doubt Sony will shift focus to only sports, FPS, and racing games, because they don't need to. Developers come to THEM, because they've got the market share. MS would love to sign over more RPG developers, and snag exclusives from companies like Square-Enix. But it's a huge chicken and egg problem: RPG developers want to focus on the console with the most installed RPG fanbase, but RPG fans won't flock to the console unless it has RPGs. You can wave money at them, and lord knows MS has money, but apparently it's not enough to get anyone to bite, other than a few upstarts (Mistwalker Studios, etc.).
Uhh... tell me where the wifi, HFMI and memory stick are on the Xbox 360. Oh, wait, there aren't any.
The core PS3 is *already* upgraded to the level of the expanded Xbox 360.
I wasn't arguing that the 360 was better because it didn't have these features, but that you can at least upgrade from the core version of the console to the premium one. Unless Sony gives everyone a hacksaw and a soldering kit, I don't see how you can upgrade the core PS3 into a premium PS3. As many people are just noticing today, Sony is essentially selling TWO different consoles.
Oh and one nitpick, the 360 doesn't do "memory sticks". But the base unit allows you to plug in memory cards. Apparently the core PS3 doesn't even let you do that.
Unless you like FPS games on your console, sports, and lots of racing games. Then you're in luck
Umm, hello? I hate to break it to you, but that's (unfortunately) some of the most popular genres for US gamers.
At least the stripped down PS3 will be more usable than the stripped down 360. (I don't need HDMI, and I don't need WiFi in the console.)
...
What? The way I see it, the core version of the 360 is far more better than the core version of the PS3. With the core 360, at least you can always upgrade to the premium package, just by buying the HD seperately, and whatever wires you need. Unless Sony has developed the PS3 so that all the premium features (HDMI, WiFi, memory stick/etc) are removable, it looks like any core users are forever screwed. Gee, way to gouge your users Sony.
Granted, the premium packages for both systems are the way to go, but still
As I suspected, Sony is trying to dilute Nintendo's innovation. I think most of us here are savvy enough to know that the PS3 controller is going to be far inferior to the Nintendo's "Wii-mote". Yet, how many of your regular consumers are going to know the difference?
I don't think Sony's goal was to out-do the Wii controller's feature and functionality. All it needs to do is dumb it down. Same goes for the Xbox Live experience. Let's deliver crap offerings of our competitors' features so that we can say "meeee tooo!". All they have to hope is that enough consumers figure that the PS3 offering is "good enough".
I cringe at the following scenario, which I know is going to happen:
ME - *trying to explain the Nintendo Wii controller to a non-gamer friend*
FRIEND - "Ohh, so it's like the PlayStation controller I've heard about?"
ME - *cries*
Good god that sucks. I wonder if it's even possible to upgrade later from the budget PS3 SKU to the premium one. As much as I disliked the two SKU model of the 360, it was at least feasible to add on a hard-drive separately later on. Would that even be possible with the PS3? I'm guessing not, unless all of those were modules that could be easily added and removed.
... imagine what it'd be like to be the kid who gets the PS3 core model, instead of the premium they really wanted. ;D
Man, people made fun of those who got the 360 "core" models
Obviously you've never visited forums for games like World of Warcraft. There is definately a huge community there. Being a "forum junkie" is definately something that's becoming more and more common with gamers.
Umm, you do know that the Nintendo On video was a cleverly designed fake, right?
I don't see how Nintendo Wii is that much better than the other two. When they go into the store the choice is between 'Made Up Name' 360, 'Made Up Name' 3, and 'Made Up Name'. At least the Playstation gives some indication of what it might do.
It's all about branding. Yes "Xbox" and "Playstation" are all made-up names, but those brands have been around for a while now. Those names might have been silly sounding when they first came out, but so did Google, Yahoo, and eBay. I've heard of too many moms talking about their kids playing Xbox when it's really a Playstation (or vice versa).
What Nintendo really has going for them is the "Nintendo" name itself. They've been associated with games far longer than Microsoft or Sony. My mom still refers to everything video-game related as Nintendo, since I grew up on the NES and SNES. So while "Wii" itself may be a crappy name, most folks (and store clerks) will refer to it as the next video game machine from Nintendo, and that will click with most consumers.
The biggest problem I have with "Wii" is that it has too many negative connotations with existing English words/slang. Reading all of the Slashdot comments makes that obvious. You didn't really have that problem with Xbox or PlayStation or GameCube. It reminds me of the urban legend of the Chevy Nova not selling well in Spanish-speaking countries, since "no va" means "doesn't go". (And yes, I know it's a false urban legend) Still, you would have thought that there were many other names Nintendo could have chosen that didn't have such negative connotations. "Wii" may be fine in Japan and other non-English speaking countries, but the US/UK/Australian populations are huge and it just seems to risky to do.
But if you sometimes follow evil orders still - well, that's still doing evil. (For some values of evil. I agree with other people that calling some of the nasty things Microsoft have done "evil" seems excessive; on the other hand some of the worst things like killing Netscape seem to deserve the term).
:)
Hey, if I were on the team that essentially killed Netscape, I would have spoken out.
As for sometimes following "evil orders", it does suck, especially depending on how "evil" it is. Actually, I've never had anything on the order of "let's be anti-competitive!", but it's more like bugs that were punted that impacted the user for one reason or another. Fortunately, I find that the higher I go in the management chain, the more I'm able to stop them in the first place, or invoke changes on those issuing those orders (*cough BizDev cough*).
On the topic of "evil orders", the time I felt the most uncomfortable was when I was an intern at a government contract job, just outside Washington DC. It felt like everything there was an "evil order" in some way. Yay, I'm working on projects that cost way too much, comes out of the tax payer's wallet, that NEVER GET USED. But gee, it's important that our company bid for these projects since it's free money for us. It's no wonder I left and never want to work for a "beltway bandit" again.
I was going to respond, but then I read some of your older posts. It's nigh impossible to argue with someone who's a self-proclaimed zealot and has already made up their mind. :\
:)
Oh well, it's not like I need to prove to anyone (or you) that I'm not evil. If that's what you feel, then que sera sera.
I'm not a fan of questions like "Tell me about a time when you were challeneged and overcame it", or "Where do you plan to be in five years?" I don't think they tell you all that much about a candidate, and what you do learn can be misleading.
I agree, those questions aren't very good. I can only see them used as starter questions, in order to get a candidate comfortable in talking with you. In this industry, I do come across a lot of folks who are very introverted and aren't comfortable talking about themselves. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if their position is pretty independent, but an interview where no talking is done is a bad one.
Good behavioural questions are much more specific. "Tell me about a time where you had to push hard to get a bug fixed." That's something that WILL happen on the job, and you do want to get an idea of how this person tackled a scenario like that in the past. I don't like it when candidates are wishy-washy and just give generic answers. If you haven't been in that situation before, then at least be honest about it.
Yes, people can always prepare stock answers to many behavioural questions, or just out-right lie. There's not much you can do to prevent that, other than ask a number of questions and just mix it up in general. Having an interview full of ONLY behavioural questions isn't a good idea either, which is why I have the traditional "let's go to the whiteboard" questions as well.
I think it really depends on where you live. Where I live in "Microsoft country" (the greater Seattle area), Xbox 360s are still very much hard to find. It's gotten a lot better, no doubt, but I still don't see them just sitting on shelves. Everyone I know who REALLY wanted a 360 has one, but some of the folks I know who are more casually interested in the console are still waiting till they can just pick it up at their local electronics/game store.
I've heard the same shortages from friends around Austin and the Northern Virginia area. But I have heard people claim, in more rural areas, that yes, 360s are much more readily available.
Just following orders, eh? I think some people tried that defense in the past.
:\
Do you guys honestly think that every product made in MS is done via evil means? That every decision being made is anti-competitive, screws over customers, kills babies, etc.? If that's what you think, then I can't find a way to have a decent discussion with you guys, since you've already made your conclusions.
I'll just say one thing. Where I work (in Games), there aren't evil decisions being made left and right. You may be suprised, but we do think about the end-user a lot, and about doing "the right thing". Maybe that's because we're in games and we know that MS has typically a bad reputation, so we HAVE to do things right, otherwise we'll lose trust. That said, I have seen a few "evil orders" come my way (often coming from marketing and business, fancy that), and I have spoken against them and gotten people to change their minds. Since in I'm in QA, it's my job to be the voice of consumer. (And I'm not alone, PM and Dev feel much the same way) I'm glad to be in that position where I can make a positive change.
Am I always going to win against those "evil orders"? No. Like any other company (and I've worked in a few), there are always going to be decisions made that you don't agree with, but you ultimately can't do anything about, aside from leaving the company or sabotaging the work (which might land you in jail). But I know that I've made many more positive changes than negative. If it ever comes to the point where the negative outweighs the positive, then yes, I will leave. However right now, I'm actually happy to see a lot of the folks responsible for the "evilness" being kicked out out of the company, so I definately think that's a good thing.
But as I said before, you probably won't believe me. It's a lot easier for folks to make assumptions and think that everything is so black and white. Sorry if you think that way, that we're all horrible people.
Well I can't argue with someone who's such a fan of the slippery slope mentality.
Yeah, you live in the US and technically your tax dollars are funding the war we both despise so much. But I think you're blaming yourself too much if you really think you "didn't do enough to stop the evil bastards running my country". Gee, did you vote for the other guy? That's doing something. Participate in some anti-war rallies or at least some discussion? That's good too. There's not much you alone can do to prevent the war (not even assassination could probably stop it now). I believe what's important is that you do as much as you practically and realistically can.
Gee, somebody needs to take a chill pill!
As someone who works at MS, I do find it annoying how certain people brand the entire company as "evil" based on the history of certain actions, and specifically with the Office and Windows products. If I work for an "evil company", does that make me evil? I had nothing to do with a lot of the evil decisions that have been made in the past (and arguably the present too). I'm not a lawyer, or in marketing, or in business planning, where a lot of the evil decisions come from. I do shake my head when I see stupid decisions being made, although it's obviously not enough to make me want to quit. I see enough good where I work, that I want to stay. Plus it's a practical decision too (it doesn't hurt that the pay is nice).
I think it's similar parallel to perception of the US. A lot of people don't like how the current administration is handling a lot of things (Iraq war especially). Many folks will even call the United States an "evil country". However, a lot of Americans, even those who agree that Bush & company are morons, would disapprove. Just because you dislike the administration doesn't mean the US as a whole should be called "evil". I don't like the US administration, but there's enough good in the country that I'm not moving anywhere. Does that make me evil? Or just practical?
MS is a huge company. In many of the industries that they are in, they are not #1. And in some cases, you might even call them less evil than other companies that are in that spot (for example, Sony in the games industry). Most of us here are just like the rest of you: trying to make a great product, make our customers happy, and (if you're in a for-profit company) also keeping an eye on the bottom line. Last I checked, I didn't choke babies, run over old ladies, or kill innocents, while trying to do a good job.
Then he's a sell-out, with little backbone. He probably WON'T last long at Microsoft (and from your comment, it sounds like he didn't). I've worked at MS for a couple of years now, and know quite a few people here. Yeah, there are a few idiots here that are pro-MS everything and anti-anything-else no matter what. But the rest of us are much more practical and open about things.
:)
Am I going to declare that Linux is the best and that everyone should ditch Windows? Or that the PS3 is going to own all? No. If I felt so strongly about that, I wouldn't be working here in the first place. But I'm not going to say Linux is horrible and no one should get a PS3. (I've had Linux boxes in the past, and I will be getting a PS3, since I'm a big fan of Square-Enix games that are often PS-exclusives). Nothing is ever so cut and dry. I especially hate FUD in general, when its used against MS or for MS.
Maybe it's just me because I work in MGS (MS Game Studios) and it's a different culture than those "guys on main campus".
It's funny how when people talk about mounts being overpriced, they ALWAYS refer to the epic mount. No one really has an issue with the regular mount and how much it costs.
Anyway, I think the biggest problem is that a lot of folks who can't play 40 hours a week still expect that all of the content geared towards those folks (the epic mount, high-end reputation rewards, uber raiding gear) SHOULD be readily available to them. That's a main issue with this whole "hardcore vs casual" argument that flames up in the WoW forums every so often.
You know what? I'm a busy guy and I don't play WoW nearly as much as others. I still don't have a level 60, and I've been playing off an on for nearly a year. I see the uber-rewards that are available and I am FINE that there is no way for me to get them. The way I see it, that content is made specifically for those hardcore gamers that do spend 40 hours a week in Azeroth. I'm not bitter about it, though, because there's more than enough content in the game that I still haven't hit yet, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. (Of course, that may change when I actually hit 60, but I figure I can always roll a new character. And PVP at level 60 is a similar but different topic for another day)
For any other single-player game, if I grow bored with it, or disatisfied with the game design, I'm fine with just putting it down and never playing it again. If you feel really strongly about not being able to access the epic loot because you don't have enough time, then you should do the same with WoW. Buying gold is not a solution, though, since in its current form, it hurts the game for others. Once fully sanctioned by Blizzard (which would mean no more, or much fewer, gold farmers), that I could live with.
As for level grinds in MMOs, I think the biggest problem is due to people's different play styles. As you mentioned, there always be power gamers that just breeze through the normal quests/instances/etc. For those folks, maybe a level grind isn't enough, so you force them to go through reputation grinds, gold grinds, and raid grinding. For casual gamers, the normal level grind might be enough. I think WoW does this fairly well actually. But it could always be better. And there's the problem with casual gamers seeing what the hardcore gamers are getting and wishing they had access to that content as well.
Maybe an MMO that does something similar to what Oblivion does, would be good. In Oblivion, the enemy usually scales in level with you. So if you walk into a dungeon at level 5, all the mobs are around that level. If you came in at level 10, then they're also around 10. What's missing, though, is the sense of progression, that you really ARE getting more powerful. Maybe if there was an MMO that combined both level scaling (keeping casuals and power gamers at the same skill level, despite how much time each put in), but still gave people a sense of progression, that would be a good thing?
First of all, that was a really nice post. Too bad I can't mod you up anymore. It's nice to see Slashdot is still capable of having great posts like these. Now, my comment:
... if it's unofficial, then you're stuck with a lot of the shady circumstances that pop up. Like in WoW, you've got those gold farmers that ruin game experience for others simply because they're trying to earn a living. (I don't fault the people behind the gold farming themselves, they're just trying to feed mouths) Also, if it's official, then the entire playerbase has the expectations that there will be people who "buy" their way to the game, and that it's appropriate. (Well, there will always be the negative stigma associated with it)
If you think it's cheating that someone can buy gold from another player, do you also think it's cheating if your guild donates money and equipment to new members? Is it cheating if you give your buddy a bunch of extra gold you don't need? If you don't, then why do you object to the use of real-world money to purchase something when you don't mind if people give it away free? Isn't it unfair that groups of people can work together with synergy that is unavailable to the player who tends to be a loner, only there for the socializing but not hte hard-core guild experience?
There is a difference between the person who buys gold from another player, versus the person who gets it from a friend or a guildie. It's not cheating, and you've already covered why. It is because of the synergy and the socializing that I wouldn't consider it nearly "cheating". (Now there is a line you can cross, such as uber-twinking for PvP situations, but that's a separate topic) If I take the time to establish good relations with someone, or a group of people, then I have no problem with them returning the favor (often with gold/items/time). More often then not, it's because you have or will take the same action: give your lesser loot to the new person, run a friend through a lesser dungeon, etc.
If I'm a stranger just asking for free gold and loot, chances are that I'm not going to get much. That's to be expected. That's just how socialization works.
The only thing the gold buyer does to "earn" the gold is know how to write a check. Now, I wouldn't nearly have a problem with this if this were something officially sanctioned by Blizzard. There ARE online games where currency buying and selling are allowed. Second Life and Kingdom of Loathing are two examples.
So, what's the difference between gold buying in a game where it's sanctioned and where it isn't? A few things
I think you can find similar real-life parallels to gold buying. For example a college degree. I'm proud of my Masters degree in CS, since I did a lot of work for it, and I appreciate the degrees of others that I know who went to college. But if you come up to me and say that you just bought yours online from a fake school, then yes, you are a shmuck.
Dark&Light is supposed to somewhat reduce the grind by having a large "social" aspect to the game (a hierarchy of command) and by very scarce respawning.
The idea is the world is huge (we're talking 400x400km of land+oceans) and the flora and fauna grows and travels proceduraly, striving to keep the balance. For example if the sheep in some area ate all the grass, they will travel to find more grass or starve to death. If you kill those sheep, they don't just respawn after a minute.
Doing recon and hunting the monsters then becomes much more interesting and much less grindy.
Hmm, sounds a bit like Ultima Online when it first came out. That MMO was one of the most "realistic" ones to be released. It was a very large world as well. The spawn rate was low. And I think it had a similar eco-system as well.
You know what? That game was often very boring. Having to spend 10 minutes just to recon and find a monster is not fun. You've just replaced monster grinding (killing monsters over and over again), with the even less fun monster hunting experience. Yeah, looking through empty fields constantly for a monster, only to have him stolen by someone else, doesn't sound like much fun. That's why WoW was more enjoyable. Time spent hunting was reduced dramatically. Not very realistic, but more fun. I'm sure there's another innovation after that, but I don't know what it is yet.
Same with things like enabling PvP for everyone and letting them loot player corpses. It sounds great and realistic, but UO had it and was all one huge griefing experience. Fun for a small number of power gamers, but not fun for the masses.
Now, I understand that some folks DO like spending a lot of time hunting for creatures, so let there be games that do that. I'll just spend my money elsewhere then.
Fine, I should have said "a few" instead of one. So sue me.
... there are many other MMOs that are completely open to gold farming. However, their subscriber numbers are far lower, so it's much less of an issue. It's just WoW is so popular so it's going to gain a lot attention from everyone (gamers, hackers, griefers, gold buyers, gold farmers, etc.).
Actually, you do bring up an interesting point. How many people are needed to make gold farming a viable business?
With a game like WoW, with a tremendous subscriber base, all it takes a small percentage of the playerbase to be dis-satisfied, and gold farmers have a business. For example, WoW has 5 million subscribers (last I checked). If just 1% of that audience were lazy gamers that wanted to buy their way to level 60 characters, that's already 50,000 people. I think that's enough to run a gold farming business, especially when you consider a lot of folks are repeat customers, and you constantly have people coming in and out of the game (1 out of 100 are willing to buy gold).
So during the game planning phase, are you really going to spend that much time trying to prevent that 1% playerbase from wanting to buy gold? (And that may entail drastic measures such as not having an open economy at all) Or are you going to pay more attention to the 99% that is fine with the general MMO-style economy? It's probaly going to be the latter.
The main issue I see is how much damage that 1% can do to the 99% through gold buying. For example, even though less than 1% of your audience may be trying to hack your game, all it takes is a few unscrupulous item dupers to totally wreck the economy for everyone else. So that's one instance where you really do care about locking down on a small percentage of your possible userbase.
Going back to subscriber numbers