The demand for the 360 seems tiny compared to the demand for the original xbox not to mention all the wasted money on the hype microsoft built up for the 360 which was completely destroyed by the fact that there wasn't enough of them to supply what little demand they did have.
Okay, I admit I'm a little biased (see my profile), but what are you smoking?
If there was "little demand", then there'd be no supply problems. There would be hundreds of 360s readily available. That's simply not the case (except in Japan, but that's a different story). From TFA, over a million consoles were sold in, what, two months? No, it's not the best console release out there, but the PS2 didn't have a good one either and we know how well THAT system has done.
In any case, I would like to see Nintendo do a lot better this generation. The Revolution is certainly interesting, but a lot is going to depend on the public's reception to the new controller once enough people have tried it. I was skeptical of the DS at first, but I'm loving all the games I have for it now. It has become THE platform of choice for all my Nintendo needs. (The retro-library is also very intruiging, although I'd like to see how much the games end up being)
As for Sony, I'm hoping they fall significantly in market share this time around. It just seems like they've gotten too arrogant about their lead position, and that may set them up for failure. They consistently over promise and under deliver (Toy Story-rendering anyone?), and don't care about features that are quickly becoming important to all consoles (consistent online platform, downloadable games, easy to develop for, focus on GAMES and not merely better graphics). I can easily see them releasing the PS3 late this year for a high price ($500), thinking people will snap it up merely because it has Blu-ray. Now I highly doubt they're going to tank in market share, but I do think it's going to be much more even across the board.
That's because the core systems are $300 at retail, and they've been much more likely to be on stock than the premium bundles (which are $400). Most of the hardcore fans want only a premium system, and those who don't can now get it with some calling around.
Also remember that eBay prices were huge right before Xmas, with parents desperate to fill their kids' wish lists. If you've got a garage full of Xbox 360s with the hope of selling them for mega profit... you're screwed. You're only going to get it for retail price. Maybe you're better off scalping Super Bowl tickets instead...
The units are still hard to find at retail, no doubt. Yes, there are a lot of units on eBay, but just doing a search for "xbox 360" brings up several packages that are over well $400. A few weeks ago, they were selling for much higher even (over $600). Plus, a lot of shady folks were actually selling Xbox 360 empty boxes, which IMHO is pretty fradulent. There were definately a lot of speculators and in-store managers that hoarded multiple consoles so they could make a quick buck on eBay. I don't feel sorry for those shmucks who somehow sold them at a loss (they should learn to use the reserve price feature).
Anyway, the fact that the price has gone down to more reasonable levels is an indication that more people are able to get the console through normal means and aren't willing to pay an arm and a leg to get it ASAP. That's a good sign for Microsoft, as it means that people who want a console are starting to get them. The fewer people that have to be shafted through eBay, the better.
Really, the criticism that's been levied at Microsoft isn't that the console is too expensive or not selling well, it's that it is plain not available. TFA explains a little bit why (unforeseen component shortages).
If you're going to bash MS just for the sake of bashing MS (a popular/. past-time), at least get your story right.:P
Ahh, I guess that could have been confusing. When I made that comment, I was referring to a future GB platform. I assume that the successor to the GB will use a different format for their games, and that would not be compatible with the DS. Then again, Nintendo seems to be doing a good job with backwards compatibility with their handhelds, so maybe they'll make games for the future GB (if there is one) compatible with the DS.
Re:I can't justify that sort of monthly expense
on
MMOGs Branch Out
·
· Score: 1
Okay, WoW is an exception, because of how unbelievably popular it has become. In my original post, I actually thought about calling that one out, since it's really obvious that Blizzard is making a LOT more money off subscriptions than they could spend on maintenance.
However, I doubt you can say the same for many other MMOs... especially the less popular ones that are still around, like the original EQ, UO, DAoC, etc. Many of them were popular enough to drive some serious profit. However, once MMOs get to the tail end of their lives, they certainly don't generate nearly as much revenue. I would imagine that some of the previous profits would have been saved to keep the servers up and running as long as possible. So in retrospect, charging $15 per month from the beginning may actually be a good idea after all. We've already seen one major MMO close down due to lack of funds (Asheron's Call 2).
If Blizzard could time-travel and tell itself how popular it would become, maybe they would have dropped the monthly price, knowing that $15 was way more than enough to fund server maintenance, etc. Then again, they might have done the opposite and charge even MORE.:)
I didn't mean to indicate that piracy was the ONLY reason the Dreamcast bombed. There were a ton of problems that hit Sega. I happen to think one major reason was all the Sony FUD. All the claims of the "Emotion Engine" and Toy Story-like rendering came out around that time. Many gamers, like myself, opted to just wait an extra year for the PS2. By the time the buzz came out that the DC actually had a lot of decent games, I was already hooked to the PS2 and it was too late to get another console, especially one that you could SEE was spiraling downwards.
That said, I'm sure the piracy couldn't have helped the DC survive. (I think that claims of being able to try games before you buy them generates sales, are highly exaggerated... most of the folks I knew that pirated games liked, never ended up buying them)
IANAL, so I don't know if that's "completely legal". I imagine it might qualify as fair-use perhaps? Then again, what happens if Nintendo starts selling copies of their retro titles on their own brand of emulator? That would change things significantly.
It wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo started going after ROM and emulator sites even more than they are now, if their retro-library on the Revolution really started taking off. It'd be a bit saddening really though, since you know most of those users are really hard-core Nintendo fans.
Well, I'm sure China doesn't WANT to be like North Korea, so the idea is that maybe they'll slowly make some concessions so that just doesn't happen.
I visited China a few years ago for the first time (I'm from Taiwan, BTW, which obviously colors my attitude and opinions), and it's very easy to see just how capitalistic it has become, despite what the Communist Party may want to claim. Integration with western countries has definately affected them in many ways, and I'm hopeful that it will be for the better. (Personally, I can't wait till the younger Chinese grow up and kick the old farts out)
The thing that I am afraid of is more and more companies/governments turning a blind eye to the injustices that they DO see, instead of taking a stand when it is appropriate. This is more likely to happen when everyone sees China as just one big business opportunity, rather than a country whose government is still very oppressive.
To be honest, I can see both sides for Google on why they should or shouldn't do what they did. The part I disagree, though, is when they claim to "do no evil", and to me, that just seems obvious that it refers to taking a stand, despite the lost business opportunity.
So do they really need to succeed with the revolution considering how well the DS is doing. Especially since it was claimed the DS was NOT the true succesor to the GBA. That honor is for an as yet unknown handheld.
I wonder if they just claimed that to hedge their bets, in case the DS didn't do well. Then they could claim to their shareholders and fans, "Umm, yeah, so that didn't work out too well... fortunately we can go back to making REAL Gameboys!". Much the same way they treated the Virtual Boy and swept it under the rug, never to return.
Now that the DS has seen critical AND commercial success, I would be totally fine with them declaring that the DS is the official GB platform now. It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one. And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
I already own Super Mario 3. Twice (the original cart and the game boy advance version). Therefore, I should be provided with free upgrades for life. If Nintendo feels different -- well, that's what the internets are for.
Okay, I know this probably a troll post, but I can't help but bite.
What you own is the physical medium the game came on, and whatever warranty that comes with them. If the cart stopped working yesterday, do you expect Nintendo to just give you a new one free of charge? It's the same way with ANY physical product. True, some products have a lifetime warranty, but last I checked, video games don't have that.
And Nintendo certainly didn't sell you the right to play SMB 3 till the end of time, no matter what platform it is on. In many cases, the re-releases of the game come with additional features, so you ARE getting more than just the original game. (Things like leaderboards, multiplayer functionality, hidden levels, etc.) Typically the re-releases are cheaper than standard titles, which most folks think is fair enough. But it's certainly not free.
If you still think Nintendo is screwing you over and thus will pirate every copy of every Nintendo game you've ever owned, then so be it. Just don't complain if they go out of business a few years later, due to low sales.
If I remember correctly, you could load pirated games on the DC w/o needing a mod chip. All it took was a disc loader. With the PS2 and Xbox, though, you do need to mod the box. That's not all that difficult, mind you, but that's a large enough hurdle for most folks. (I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but out of the handful of DC owners I knew, ALL of them had at least a few pirated games that they would have purchased otherwise)
There are other reasons why I think the Xbox has fared a lot better than the Dreamcast, but you probably don't care about that.
Your comment reminds me of a friend of mine. He was a HUGE Sega/Dreamcast fan, and boasted of having hundreds of games. When I went over to his place, I saw that they were all burned copies. He always complained how it was a shame that the Dreamcast never did well. Gee, I wonder why...
Sometimes spending money IS the better thing to do, especially if you like the products and services being offered.
Re:Problem of maintaining hardware
on
MMOGs Branch Out
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. It's not an easy thing to predict populations, which is why most MMOs when they launch have server problems. If you had a steady stream of new users, the constant supply of $50 might do it. Arguably, though, if you build an MMO, your goal is to keep players in the game, and that's mighty expensive over time.
Another alternative would be to increase the initial cost of the game, but I'd gather more people would be hesitant on paying $100 to get in a game (especially if they don't know how much they'll like it). I'd rather pay $50, get my free month, and use that to gauge whether or not I want to invest anymore time and money on it.
Re:I can't justify that sort of monthly expense
on
MMOGs Branch Out
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you already know this, but in case you don't... what you're paying for in the monthly fee includes the following: maintenance costs for the online servers, bandwidth costs for their datacenter, and additional content updates and bug fixes. Most non-MMO games don't have such additional fees. Either their multiplayer games are actually hosted on customer's machines (a la Diablo or most FPSes), or their server maintenance isn't that high (for example, Battle.net matchmaking servers are much fewer than the thousands of servers necessary to run WoW).
That said, it IS possible run a MMO without monthly fees (see Guild Wars). I'm not sure exactly how they do it (although I do know that game is mostly instanced, so maybe server maintenance is somehow cheaper?), but it's probably not that simple. The easiest route is to charge monthly, since that's already a proven business model (thanks to UO, EQ, etc.).
No, the Chinese government isn't going to collapse if Google opted not to do business there, but it's a start and it sends a pretty strong message to them. If other companies started following suit, who knows?
As many others have posted, if Google didn't make the claim to "do no evil", then most folks wouldn't have cared. But that's what they claim, so we CAN expect them to try to live up to it, despite how difficult or expensive it may be.
Yeah, we just had this story a few days ago. I don't feel like copy/pasting the posts I made then over to this "new" story. Can't we get some better stories? *sigh*
Plus, those of us who grew up playing NES games (like myself) are starting to get to the age of having children. I can definately see myself telling my kids in the future, "No really, I DID play the first Mario game ever! And yes, believe it or not it only had 2 dimensions!"
I think most people understand that Google is a business and ultimately must do what's best for their shareholders. However, the issue that irks most folks is that Google likes to claim that they "do no evil". Sounds great at first, until they start doing more and more stuff that's "not so good". Now they just sound more holier than thou, without really fulfilling their promise.
If they never claimed to be a do-gooder type of company, then there probably won't be much flak over this. However, Google would probably have fewer fans as well.
I'll have to agree that there's a lot of crap at these conventions. Anyone who's been to E3 knows about Kentia Hall. It's filled with smaller companies peddling all sorts of random junk. Some of what's featured may be neat, but it's lost in a sea of useless accessories, magazine pushers, generic/bland games from no-name developers, etc. These are the companies that really need "booth babes" the most, since Kentia Hall isn't very popular. Yet they're also the least likely to be able to afford hiring them.
In the meantime, you've got big-name developers spending money on all these women for games that are ALREADY popular, both with the media and gamers. I guess it's just a pissing contest at that point... which company can lay claim to the flashiest/sexiest display!
I'm not sure about the benefits of booth babes to a company's display. A lot of the times when the press covers booth babes, it's just a collection of pictures in front of lots of displays, and not much talk about the actual product itself.
If you're a mediocre product that can't get media coverage, I guess you should use anything you can to get attention. But again I'd argue, maybe you're better off making your product better or more marketable. Or maybe E3 is just not the right convention for you (save time and money and just don't go).
I've been to E3 twice now, and while I will admit to taking pictures of the girls from time to time, I can genuinely say I was more interested in the the products. I didn't run around the convention center JUST to score pictures. I thought it was insane that some folks would stand in line for hours just to be in a picture with two scantily clad women. (If that's what you want, haven't you heard of strip clubs? Vegas is full of those) I'd rather stand in line to see the latest demo of the next hit game or an upcoming console.
That said, I do think that banning booth babes is a bit silly. What's next... banning the free stuff they give away? They're all cheap tactics to grabbing attention. If the organizers of E3 want less of this glitz, they're better off doing a better job screening the attendants.
Seriously, if booth babes are the only thing you look forward to in a convention, then I'd argue you don't belong there. Let someone else from your group or team go instead. The "new technology" may not interest you, but I'm sure there's someone who has a vested interest in the product, who doesn't need a gaggle of booth babes just to be attracted to the conference.
People tend to forget that there are other games available for the system.:)
The 360 Live Arcade is supposed a nice bonus feature to the system, not the ONLY reason to get it. Also, I've heard of many stories about guys buying the system, but their girlfriends and wives discovering the Live Arcade and getting hooked. It's a great way to get introduce your significant-other to the wonderful world of gaming, so that she doesn't automatically veto all your future game purchases. ("As long as you let me buy some Arcade games, I'm fine with you getting that new boxing game")
The only downside is having to share the 360 with her.:)
(Maybe she can help boost your gamerscore by unlocking Bejeweled 2 and Zuma achievements though!)
That's an interesting system. WoW has something similar for NPCs, but not for players. I'm not convinced that its not griefable or that it won't have its own host of problems. For example, you could have a "griefer gang". True, they won't be able to attack new players (who would be initially neutral to them), but they would make sure that they'd be enemies to most other groups. If you happened to join a newbie group, you would instantly become one of their enemies and be targetable.
Is it realistic? Sure is, and you'd have an interesting PvP dynamic. There would be lots of groups formed to tackle these griefer groups, along with other folks constantly joining the griefer cause. But ultimately, new players would feel a lot of the pain. Either they join a group, and get targeted and probably killed. Or forced to not join anything, and miss out on grouping/social opportunities. (This is very similar to what happened in Ultima Online, when it first started up)
Hmm, we have much the same taste in games. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that most of the games you listed (maybe all?) were third-party titles. Many of them were made by smallish companies who can only afford to develop on one console, and obviously the PS2 was the one to be on, during the last console generation.
If Sony somehow manages to tank the PS3 (which would be a mistake of gargantuan proportions, and I honestly don't see this happening), then you'll definately see many of those console RPGs and titles for the Revolution and 360.
Slashdot Mirror
The demand for the 360 seems tiny compared to the demand for the original xbox not to mention all the wasted money on the hype microsoft built up for the 360 which was completely destroyed by the fact that there wasn't enough of them to supply what little demand they did have.
Okay, I admit I'm a little biased (see my profile), but what are you smoking?
If there was "little demand", then there'd be no supply problems. There would be hundreds of 360s readily available. That's simply not the case (except in Japan, but that's a different story). From TFA, over a million consoles were sold in, what, two months? No, it's not the best console release out there, but the PS2 didn't have a good one either and we know how well THAT system has done.
In any case, I would like to see Nintendo do a lot better this generation. The Revolution is certainly interesting, but a lot is going to depend on the public's reception to the new controller once enough people have tried it. I was skeptical of the DS at first, but I'm loving all the games I have for it now. It has become THE platform of choice for all my Nintendo needs. (The retro-library is also very intruiging, although I'd like to see how much the games end up being)
As for Sony, I'm hoping they fall significantly in market share this time around. It just seems like they've gotten too arrogant about their lead position, and that may set them up for failure. They consistently over promise and under deliver (Toy Story-rendering anyone?), and don't care about features that are quickly becoming important to all consoles (consistent online platform, downloadable games, easy to develop for, focus on GAMES and not merely better graphics). I can easily see them releasing the PS3 late this year for a high price ($500), thinking people will snap it up merely because it has Blu-ray. Now I highly doubt they're going to tank in market share, but I do think it's going to be much more even across the board.
That's because the core systems are $300 at retail, and they've been much more likely to be on stock than the premium bundles (which are $400). Most of the hardcore fans want only a premium system, and those who don't can now get it with some calling around.
... you're screwed. You're only going to get it for retail price. Maybe you're better off scalping Super Bowl tickets instead ...
Also remember that eBay prices were huge right before Xmas, with parents desperate to fill their kids' wish lists. If you've got a garage full of Xbox 360s with the hope of selling them for mega profit
The XBox 360 just isn't selling.
/. past-time), at least get your story right. :P
Are you kidding? (Or rather, are you trolling?)
The units are still hard to find at retail, no doubt. Yes, there are a lot of units on eBay, but just doing a search for "xbox 360" brings up several packages that are over well $400. A few weeks ago, they were selling for much higher even (over $600). Plus, a lot of shady folks were actually selling Xbox 360 empty boxes, which IMHO is pretty fradulent. There were definately a lot of speculators and in-store managers that hoarded multiple consoles so they could make a quick buck on eBay. I don't feel sorry for those shmucks who somehow sold them at a loss (they should learn to use the reserve price feature).
Anyway, the fact that the price has gone down to more reasonable levels is an indication that more people are able to get the console through normal means and aren't willing to pay an arm and a leg to get it ASAP. That's a good sign for Microsoft, as it means that people who want a console are starting to get them. The fewer people that have to be shafted through eBay, the better.
Really, the criticism that's been levied at Microsoft isn't that the console is too expensive or not selling well, it's that it is plain not available. TFA explains a little bit why (unforeseen component shortages).
If you're going to bash MS just for the sake of bashing MS (a popular
Ahh, I guess that could have been confusing. When I made that comment, I was referring to a future GB platform. I assume that the successor to the GB will use a different format for their games, and that would not be compatible with the DS. Then again, Nintendo seems to be doing a good job with backwards compatibility with their handhelds, so maybe they'll make games for the future GB (if there is one) compatible with the DS.
Okay, WoW is an exception, because of how unbelievably popular it has become. In my original post, I actually thought about calling that one out, since it's really obvious that Blizzard is making a LOT more money off subscriptions than they could spend on maintenance.
... especially the less popular ones that are still around, like the original EQ, UO, DAoC, etc. Many of them were popular enough to drive some serious profit. However, once MMOs get to the tail end of their lives, they certainly don't generate nearly as much revenue. I would imagine that some of the previous profits would have been saved to keep the servers up and running as long as possible. So in retrospect, charging $15 per month from the beginning may actually be a good idea after all. We've already seen one major MMO close down due to lack of funds (Asheron's Call 2).
:)
However, I doubt you can say the same for many other MMOs
If Blizzard could time-travel and tell itself how popular it would become, maybe they would have dropped the monthly price, knowing that $15 was way more than enough to fund server maintenance, etc. Then again, they might have done the opposite and charge even MORE.
I didn't mean to indicate that piracy was the ONLY reason the Dreamcast bombed. There were a ton of problems that hit Sega. I happen to think one major reason was all the Sony FUD. All the claims of the "Emotion Engine" and Toy Story-like rendering came out around that time. Many gamers, like myself, opted to just wait an extra year for the PS2. By the time the buzz came out that the DC actually had a lot of decent games, I was already hooked to the PS2 and it was too late to get another console, especially one that you could SEE was spiraling downwards.
... most of the folks I knew that pirated games liked, never ended up buying them)
That said, I'm sure the piracy couldn't have helped the DC survive. (I think that claims of being able to try games before you buy them generates sales, are highly exaggerated
Umm, yes, that's exactly why I said that the DS is a superset of the GBA product line. Your point is?
IANAL, so I don't know if that's "completely legal". I imagine it might qualify as fair-use perhaps? Then again, what happens if Nintendo starts selling copies of their retro titles on their own brand of emulator? That would change things significantly.
It wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo started going after ROM and emulator sites even more than they are now, if their retro-library on the Revolution really started taking off. It'd be a bit saddening really though, since you know most of those users are really hard-core Nintendo fans.
Well, I'm sure China doesn't WANT to be like North Korea, so the idea is that maybe they'll slowly make some concessions so that just doesn't happen.
I visited China a few years ago for the first time (I'm from Taiwan, BTW, which obviously colors my attitude and opinions), and it's very easy to see just how capitalistic it has become, despite what the Communist Party may want to claim. Integration with western countries has definately affected them in many ways, and I'm hopeful that it will be for the better. (Personally, I can't wait till the younger Chinese grow up and kick the old farts out)
The thing that I am afraid of is more and more companies/governments turning a blind eye to the injustices that they DO see, instead of taking a stand when it is appropriate. This is more likely to happen when everyone sees China as just one big business opportunity, rather than a country whose government is still very oppressive.
To be honest, I can see both sides for Google on why they should or shouldn't do what they did. The part I disagree, though, is when they claim to "do no evil", and to me, that just seems obvious that it refers to taking a stand, despite the lost business opportunity.
So do they really need to succeed with the revolution considering how well the DS is doing. Especially since it was claimed the DS was NOT the true succesor to the GBA. That honor is for an as yet unknown handheld.
... fortunately we can go back to making REAL Gameboys!". Much the same way they treated the Virtual Boy and swept it under the rug, never to return.
I wonder if they just claimed that to hedge their bets, in case the DS didn't do well. Then they could claim to their shareholders and fans, "Umm, yeah, so that didn't work out too well
Now that the DS has seen critical AND commercial success, I would be totally fine with them declaring that the DS is the official GB platform now. It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one. And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
Okay, I know this probably a troll post, but I can't help but bite.
What you own is the physical medium the game came on, and whatever warranty that comes with them. If the cart stopped working yesterday, do you expect Nintendo to just give you a new one free of charge? It's the same way with ANY physical product. True, some products have a lifetime warranty, but last I checked, video games don't have that.
And Nintendo certainly didn't sell you the right to play SMB 3 till the end of time, no matter what platform it is on. In many cases, the re-releases of the game come with additional features, so you ARE getting more than just the original game. (Things like leaderboards, multiplayer functionality, hidden levels, etc.) Typically the re-releases are cheaper than standard titles, which most folks think is fair enough. But it's certainly not free.
If you still think Nintendo is screwing you over and thus will pirate every copy of every Nintendo game you've ever owned, then so be it. Just don't complain if they go out of business a few years later, due to low sales.
If I remember correctly, you could load pirated games on the DC w/o needing a mod chip. All it took was a disc loader. With the PS2 and Xbox, though, you do need to mod the box. That's not all that difficult, mind you, but that's a large enough hurdle for most folks. (I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but out of the handful of DC owners I knew, ALL of them had at least a few pirated games that they would have purchased otherwise)
There are other reasons why I think the Xbox has fared a lot better than the Dreamcast, but you probably don't care about that.
Your comment reminds me of a friend of mine. He was a HUGE Sega/Dreamcast fan, and boasted of having hundreds of games. When I went over to his place, I saw that they were all burned copies. He always complained how it was a shame that the Dreamcast never did well. Gee, I wonder why ...
Sometimes spending money IS the better thing to do, especially if you like the products and services being offered.
Exactly. It's not an easy thing to predict populations, which is why most MMOs when they launch have server problems. If you had a steady stream of new users, the constant supply of $50 might do it. Arguably, though, if you build an MMO, your goal is to keep players in the game, and that's mighty expensive over time.
Another alternative would be to increase the initial cost of the game, but I'd gather more people would be hesitant on paying $100 to get in a game (especially if they don't know how much they'll like it). I'd rather pay $50, get my free month, and use that to gauge whether or not I want to invest anymore time and money on it.
Maybe you already know this, but in case you don't ... what you're paying for in the monthly fee includes the following: maintenance costs for the online servers, bandwidth costs for their datacenter, and additional content updates and bug fixes. Most non-MMO games don't have such additional fees. Either their multiplayer games are actually hosted on customer's machines (a la Diablo or most FPSes), or their server maintenance isn't that high (for example, Battle.net matchmaking servers are much fewer than the thousands of servers necessary to run WoW).
That said, it IS possible run a MMO without monthly fees (see Guild Wars). I'm not sure exactly how they do it (although I do know that game is mostly instanced, so maybe server maintenance is somehow cheaper?), but it's probably not that simple. The easiest route is to charge monthly, since that's already a proven business model (thanks to UO, EQ, etc.).
No, the Chinese government isn't going to collapse if Google opted not to do business there, but it's a start and it sends a pretty strong message to them. If other companies started following suit, who knows?
As many others have posted, if Google didn't make the claim to "do no evil", then most folks wouldn't have cared. But that's what they claim, so we CAN expect them to try to live up to it, despite how difficult or expensive it may be.
Yeah, we just had this story a few days ago. I don't feel like copy/pasting the posts I made then over to this "new" story. Can't we get some better stories? *sigh*
Plus, those of us who grew up playing NES games (like myself) are starting to get to the age of having children. I can definately see myself telling my kids in the future, "No really, I DID play the first Mario game ever! And yes, believe it or not it only had 2 dimensions!"
I think most people understand that Google is a business and ultimately must do what's best for their shareholders. However, the issue that irks most folks is that Google likes to claim that they "do no evil". Sounds great at first, until they start doing more and more stuff that's "not so good". Now they just sound more holier than thou, without really fulfilling their promise.
If they never claimed to be a do-gooder type of company, then there probably won't be much flak over this. However, Google would probably have fewer fans as well.
I'll have to agree that there's a lot of crap at these conventions. Anyone who's been to E3 knows about Kentia Hall. It's filled with smaller companies peddling all sorts of random junk. Some of what's featured may be neat, but it's lost in a sea of useless accessories, magazine pushers, generic/bland games from no-name developers, etc. These are the companies that really need "booth babes" the most, since Kentia Hall isn't very popular. Yet they're also the least likely to be able to afford hiring them.
... which company can lay claim to the flashiest/sexiest display!
In the meantime, you've got big-name developers spending money on all these women for games that are ALREADY popular, both with the media and gamers. I guess it's just a pissing contest at that point
I'm not sure about the benefits of booth babes to a company's display. A lot of the times when the press covers booth babes, it's just a collection of pictures in front of lots of displays, and not much talk about the actual product itself.
... banning the free stuff they give away? They're all cheap tactics to grabbing attention. If the organizers of E3 want less of this glitz, they're better off doing a better job screening the attendants.
If you're a mediocre product that can't get media coverage, I guess you should use anything you can to get attention. But again I'd argue, maybe you're better off making your product better or more marketable. Or maybe E3 is just not the right convention for you (save time and money and just don't go).
I've been to E3 twice now, and while I will admit to taking pictures of the girls from time to time, I can genuinely say I was more interested in the the products. I didn't run around the convention center JUST to score pictures. I thought it was insane that some folks would stand in line for hours just to be in a picture with two scantily clad women. (If that's what you want, haven't you heard of strip clubs? Vegas is full of those) I'd rather stand in line to see the latest demo of the next hit game or an upcoming console.
That said, I do think that banning booth babes is a bit silly. What's next
Seriously, if booth babes are the only thing you look forward to in a convention, then I'd argue you don't belong there. Let someone else from your group or team go instead. The "new technology" may not interest you, but I'm sure there's someone who has a vested interest in the product, who doesn't need a gaggle of booth babes just to be attracted to the conference.
People tend to forget that there are other games available for the system. :)
:)
The 360 Live Arcade is supposed a nice bonus feature to the system, not the ONLY reason to get it. Also, I've heard of many stories about guys buying the system, but their girlfriends and wives discovering the Live Arcade and getting hooked. It's a great way to get introduce your significant-other to the wonderful world of gaming, so that she doesn't automatically veto all your future game purchases. ("As long as you let me buy some Arcade games, I'm fine with you getting that new boxing game")
The only downside is having to share the 360 with her.
(Maybe she can help boost your gamerscore by unlocking Bejeweled 2 and Zuma achievements though!)
That's an interesting system. WoW has something similar for NPCs, but not for players. I'm not convinced that its not griefable or that it won't have its own host of problems. For example, you could have a "griefer gang". True, they won't be able to attack new players (who would be initially neutral to them), but they would make sure that they'd be enemies to most other groups. If you happened to join a newbie group, you would instantly become one of their enemies and be targetable.
Is it realistic? Sure is, and you'd have an interesting PvP dynamic. There would be lots of groups formed to tackle these griefer groups, along with other folks constantly joining the griefer cause. But ultimately, new players would feel a lot of the pain. Either they join a group, and get targeted and probably killed. Or forced to not join anything, and miss out on grouping/social opportunities. (This is very similar to what happened in Ultima Online, when it first started up)
Hmm, we have much the same taste in games. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that most of the games you listed (maybe all?) were third-party titles. Many of them were made by smallish companies who can only afford to develop on one console, and obviously the PS2 was the one to be on, during the last console generation.
If Sony somehow manages to tank the PS3 (which would be a mistake of gargantuan proportions, and I honestly don't see this happening), then you'll definately see many of those console RPGs and titles for the Revolution and 360.