The problem with this theory is, neither does the PS3 or the Wii. The XBox 360 has more jRPGs (1) than either the PS3 (0) or the Wii(0).
Gamers are not stupid. They're not going to make system decisions purely on what the game library is right now. Hardcore J-RPG fans (and I count myself as one), know that Sony consoles tend to get the best J-RPGs. Heck, I work at MS, but I will tell you I played far more PS2 games, thanks to all the RPGs from the likes of Square-Enix, Nippon-Ichi, Namco, etc. Square-Enix has already announced FFXIII will be going to the PS3. Of course, it'll take years for it to release (remember that FFXII just came out at the end of 2006).
That said, I wouldn't be surprised at all for things to change drastically this console generation. Whereas the Xbox had virtually no J-RPGs, the 360 is getting more love from developers. The same goes for Nintendo and the Wii, the new darling of the industry. Plus, multi-platform games, in general, are becoming more and more common (it makes business sense to do so, since game development costs are skyrocketing). So games that were typically Sony-exclusive may end up being on the 360 and Wii as well. As I've said before, that's great for gamers.
The main problem initially, was that the Xbox gained a reputation for being a haven for mostly shooters and sports games (which honestly, isn't far from the truth). What few RPGs that were on the system came from Western developers (Knights of the Old Republic, Fable, Jade Empire, Morrowind, etc.). Unfortunately for MS, Japanese gamers love their "Japanese-style" RPGs (a la Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, etc.) and there were virtually none on the system. So it's pretty obvious why the Xbox brand gets little love in Japan.
That's changed a bit with the 360, thanks to MS attracting some big names. Mistwalker Studios, headed by the former Square honcho (and creator of Final Fantasy), has been developing some big exclusive RPGs for the 360. Blue Dragon just came out last month, and Lost Oddysey is on the way. (As a J-RPG fan myself, I keep track of these things)
While Blue Dragon sold a decent number of 360s, it's definately not enough. One game will not suddenly turn the console around, especially one that's brand new IP and from a new studio. Unfortunately for MS, it becomes somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. They'll need more developers to make "Japan-friendly" games, in order to attract more Japanese gamers. However, those developers aren't going to make games on a platform with a low user-base.
To an optimist, things are looking better. There are several more high-profile games coming in 2007 for the 360, including titles from Square-Enix, and another RPG from Mistwalker. Virtual Fighter 5, which is apparently a huge success in Japan, was recently announced to be coming to the 360 as well.
Personally, I see 2007 as a "do or die" year for the 360 in Japan. If even after all the developer-love, Japanese gamers still don't take to the console... then you might consider if other reasons are at play (nationalist tendencies, etc.).
The thing is, couldn't this level of functionality have been achieved with a single dialog? Something like: "Warning! Microsoft cannot assure the legitimacy of this software: If you wish to install foo.exe from http://www.bar.com/ please enter your user account and password below, and press "Continue". I don't think it's reasonable to complain about MS attempting to provide security, but if the same functionality can be achieved with fewer dialogs, and a well written explanation, isn't some criticism valid? The more dialogs needed to get things done, the more likely people will either entirely avoid that functionality, or mindlessly click through without assessing the ramifications.
I don't know exactly what's going , since I don't work in that group. I have noticed that sometimes there's just one dialog, and sometimes there are multiple.
My guess is the following. A warning pops up for each "check" of security. For example, if you try to install some new software, it will display a warning. Now, if this new thing that you're attempting to install, tries to do something above-and-beyond what normal software should be able to do (try to contact resources over the Internet, write files to secure areas of the OS, etc.), then that's when it prompts another warning. And so on.
If that's indeed what it's doing, then arguably, that's probably the right thing to do. Sure, warn me once if I'm installing some software. It'll set itself up in the sandbox environment. But if it tries to do something more than it should (play outside the sandbox)... then I ought to be warned again. However, if the software is written adequately, then there's no need for it to try to do more than it should, so then I'd only get the one initial warning.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did announce it, got a huge backlash from employees, then decided to change their minds. From what I've heard and experienced, there was a lot of downsizing of perks a few years ago, to cut costs during the dot-com bust.
Now that things are going much better, the trend has been going the opposite direction. We've gotten some upgrades in the cafeteria offerings, better coffee, and various other benefits.
No, you're just not paying attention. The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing the game requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function. He never mentions that his applications needed any type of secret sauce thats being held back from him. Why don't you try reading the artical again.
Let's play a game. Replace "game" with "a program". Now we have this:
The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing a program requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function.
Gee, that makes sense to me, especially since in the past, a lot of programs (adware/spyware) were somehow able to creep onto people's systems, causing huge amounts of grief.
His own argument works against him. He says that it's not a problem with boxed products, since users will trust them, know what they are, willing to go through the hoops, etc. So, what's the problem with having the same expectation for any downloaded program?
If you make your download product really compelling (including doing the "right things" when it comes to Vista security), then users will "go through hoops" to get it installed as well. If you're offering some crappy toolbar (with bundled spyware) and don't do the right things for security (don't sign your controls, etc.), then the user may not be so interested, which is probably a good thing.
First of all, disclosure... I also work for MS, but not on Vista.
Yet another reason to avoid Microsoft's culture of arrogance. "The customer is always right", remember?
There are multiple customers at play here. Yes, Wild Tangent (and other developers) are in a sense a customer, since they develop on Windows/Vista/etc. However, don't forget that your end-user consumer is also a customer, and the extra security on Vista is targeted towards them.
I work with a lot of customers who NEED the extra security, because frankly, they don't really know how to properly secure their computer. They're the ones who install every toolbar/screensaver/gadget because it's cool, yet don't understand why their computer is so slow, and why all these windows keep popping up. On one hand, it's tempting to fault them, because they're making bad decisions. On the other hand, the OS can do a better job of hand-holding these consumers and making the right choices for them. (Does Grandma really need to learn how to secure her computer? She just wants to use the Internet to play Hearts and send e-mail to her grandkids)
Unfortunately, catering to one customer base (the enormously large novice user-base), tends to piss off a few others, most notably power users (who already know how to secure our systems, and don't need to be prompted every single time), and developers. Some of these developers, are the evil spyware/adware-writing kind, which are customers that we don't really want in the first place. Other developers do have legitimate needs, but will now need to do some extra work to get their applications to work on Vista in the first place.
I'm fine with that. At MS, our own developers have to conform to the extra security requirements in Vista. Yes, it means more work, but I see that as a good thing. Our hope is that FEWER of our end-user customers will come in with support problems, which are ultimately tied to not our code, but spyware on their machine.
Remember the days when it was dead-easy to get anyone to install an ActiveX control? That was the worst. Similar complaints were lodged against MS when WinXP SP2 came out, since in small ways, it limited how easy it was to install controls.
Actually, one of the surprises on Wall Street is that Grandma and the 40-65 yo parents are buying the Wii and playing games on it. Market sales show this - it's kind of amazing, really. And not just in the US, but worldwide.
Oh, no doubt at all. I wasn't saying that it isn't happening.
What I am skeptical, though, is the notion that Grandma is suddenly going to be like a hardcore gamer and buy a game for the Wii every month or so. I really don't see that, since many of the games upcoming (Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros, Metroid Prime, etc.) are still focused for your typical "hardcore" gamer. Grandma will probably be just fine with Wii Sports for a long time, and it probably won't be till the next "ultra casual" game (Wii Brain Age? Cooking game? Party game?) till she gets another Wii game (or rather, her grandkids get it for her).
But my main point is that the possibly low attach-rate for Grandma isn't a problem at all for Nintendo. It's a great thing actually. I don't think you want to have a business model that depends on Grandma suddenly buying a dozen Wii games in a year, since I don't see it happening.
Now, if it does, then that would be icing on the cake for Nintendo, and arguably the games industry over all. (Who knows, maybe after being introduced to Wii games, she'll suddenly get interested in that WoW game all of her grandkids play)
Yet its the only console which will offer true versitility, I get my Gran Turismo,GTA, Tony Hawk, etc... fix and I can play Guitar Hero,Buzz and Singstar with friends. But is it worth £549?
The Xbox360 isn't in the same market, After a year there are almost enough games to make me interested in getting a Xbox360, but the limited hard drive lack of blu ray/HD DVD, crappy expansion slots and most importantly lack of any singstar,buzz,Guitar Hero type of games which puts me off the console.
I should point out that Guitar Hero II, GTA 4, and Tony Hawk, are all coming out on the 360. I totally agree that in the past, games like that are what sold the PS2 over all over consoles. But the age of Sony-exclusive titles appears to be ending, which is great for gamers overall. That is, unless you're a Sony-only fanboy who wants to gloat about having the system with the best games.
With the average PS3 game getting a 1, 2, or 3 on a 5 point star rating scale, and the average PS3 buyer only buying 2-3 games, they're not even close to break even - which would require the average PS3 console owner to buy... 12 to 20 PS3 games.
I should point out that it's a marathon and not a sprint. Over to course of the entire lifespan of the console (easily 4-5 years), would you expect a typical PS3 owner to buy that many games? I'd have to say yes. Few people, I imagine, would spend $400+ dollars on a console, only to buy two games for it. Maybe at launch, yes, but I'm sure it will build up over time.
Contrast that with Nintendo, though (and arguably the 360 now, since I believe the console itself is now profitable). All you need is for people to buy the console, and that's it. Who cares if the attach rate is low? I'd even say that with Nintendo's new focus on extremely casual gamers (Mom, Dad, Grandparents), that audience is probably only going to buy a few Wii games over the lifespan of the console. Grandma is not suddenly going to become a gamer and replace her TV watching with gamers every day. But with the console making a profit at the outset, that doesn't matter anymore. Which is great news for Nintendo.
But back to the PS3, the big question for Sony is whether or not people are going to buy the dang systems in the first place. Not only do they need each gamer to buy a lot of PS3 games, they need a LOT of people to do this, in order to recoup all of their PS3 research and investment costs.
Do you notice something? Google is amongst the top places when it comes to benefits, and they're also one of the top players when it comes to productivity. Could it be that satisfied workers are productive workers? Even if they put 20% of their time into private projects?
There's more to Google (and other "top players") than merely benefits. Even if there weren't great benefits, there would still be a lot of people clamoring to work at Google, because of two major factors:
1) Industry leader It's nice working for companies that are arguably industry leaders. That's why you'll always have a ton of people interviewing for Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Intel, Amazon, etc. Those big names, regardless of how you perceive the companies themselves, still look awfully good on resumes. And chances are, they have pretty darn good pay as well. There's also a good chance that the projects you will work on, have a pretty large scope. For many, it's great to say you worked on "Product X", even though your actual contribution may be rather small. It's still better than saying you worked on "Product Y" that no one has even heard of, or ever will.
2) Interesting projects Before Google was at the top, and before it could offer all those really great benefits, you still had a bunch of upstart software engineers wanting to work there, because the projects were really interesting. Even if the benefits weren't there, and Google wasn't quite at the top yet, you'd still have engineers very interested in that space. Sure, not as many, but the people you would get could arguably be the best, since they're actually excited about the work.
In contrast, you've got a ton of smaller companies that could offer fantastic benefits, but if you're missing out on the above two things... you're not going to interest nearly as many folks. Personally, there's no amount of money (short of astronomically crazy) that a typical government contractor company could pay me, in order to work there. It's just work that I'm plain not interested in (and I've done it before). Since I have the opportunity to work for an "industry leader" (in my case, that's MS), then that's what I prefer to do.
I agree you're probably right, but don't know if it's that wise. I'm using my observations of Microsoft where a convenience store's drink selection was available to programmers and was removed a few years ago.
The free drinks are still here (*sips on Diet Dr. Pepper*). If you're referring to the selection, it really hasn't changed all that much over the past few years. It's a pretty wide selection really (all the major brands, regular and diet).
If anything, MORE perks have been added, such as upgraded coffee (Starbucks, instead of Farmer's Brothers).
No, nothing like Google and smaller tech companies. It's much more expensive to add perks, obviously, when you're dealing with 40k+ or so employees.
I know it has been covered here before, but I think if you apply for Google you should apply for something you _don't_ want to do, perhaps it will turn out ok...
Not all X jobs are the same, across the industry. I have interviewed many candidates which think that job X means you need skill Y. But in our team, it might be different. It may be Y + Z, or perhaps something rather different.
I've had folks balk at the type of questions they've been asked, even to the point of arguing, "Do I REALLY need to know this stuff for this job?". My answer is, "Well, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have asked it.".
Unfortunately, the breakdown is often due to HR and the way jobs are labelled. If I had to guess, a sysadmin at Google is far closer to a typical Software Dev Engineer than usual (for whatever reason). Now, I don't know why the damn jobs just aren't labelled properly in the first place. It sucks for both the interviewer and the candidate when it's obvious that the person is interviewing for the wrong type of position.
You are talking as if all the consoles were easily available to people who want them. This is not the case. The Wii and PS3 are selling out everywhere. Nintendo has less of a problem with production than Sony does so obviously it is going to sell more consoles.
Actually, I'd say it's quite the opposite. In my own anecdotal experience, I've seen PS3s available for sale, whereas I have no luck with the Wii. There's have been some news stories regarding the PS3 "non-shortage" as well. So, I'd say Nintendo has the big problem with production, since demand is arguably greater than anticipated.
It will be really interesting to see how the PS3 sells once Final Fantasy XIII is released. Keep in mind, the Xbox was "inchworming along" until it started to get major exclusive hits (e.g. Halo).
Well first of all, Halo was an original Xbox launch title, so there was no "inchworming along" there. However, I definately agree that's what happened with the 360. Sales have been lackluster until system-seller hits such as Gears of War started appearing.
As for the "wait till FFXIII comes out" angle, the problem is that the game won't come out until 2008, maybe even later for the US. Remember, FFXII just came out for the US, and there's always a gap of a few years between these games. Unfortunately for Sony, the other mega-hit Dragon Quest IX is a DS exclusive, and Kingdom Hearts 2 also just came out so the sequel is probably another 2008/09 title. Are gamers really going to wait a few years before picking up a next-gen console? How long is Square-Enix going to wait on PS3 sales, before they jump ship and go multi-platform? It doesn't help that other former Playstation-exclusives are seemingly being lost as well.
It will be interesting how the end of this life cycle plays out as well. There is already a huge difference in graphical capabilities between the 360/PS3 and the Wii. Obviously, graphics != gamplay. But a good game with great graphics is better than a good game with mediocre graphics. This gap will only widen as developers figure out how to use the 360/PS3 hardware. Of course, the Wii will always have its unique controller and price point. And if they sell enough consoles early and a lot of third party developers get on board....the snowball might become an avalanche that can't be stopped.
I agree with what you say here. My guess (which comes after unscientifically talking with a bunch of my gamer friends), is that a lot of people want to have a Wii and either a 360 or PS3 for the usual "hardcore-style" games with great graphics, etc. I know that's what I'm going to do, if it turns out that most of the big PS3-exclusives end up being multi-platform anyway.
However, sales of the PS2 games were fairly strong, especially that rock guitar thing (forgot the name) and a number of other strong titles.
You mean Guitar Hero 2, which yes, was quite strong, along with other hit games such as Final Fantasy XII. The PS2 definately did very well this holiday season, but I'd have to say the big winner was the DS. Those darn things were often sold out just as much as the Wii was (I was looking for an extra copy myself). If you go looking around, you'll find sales numbers which reflect just how well that portable console did. Couple that with big news, such as Dragon Quest IX as a DS exclusive, and you've got the makings of yet another unstoppable Nintendo force in the handheld business.
Undoubtedly the success of the DS can translate to benefits to the Wii. It would be even greater if Nintendo were able to announce some neat pairing between the DS and the Wii, similar to what Sony has tried to do with the PS3 and PSP (only failing miserably, due to the relative unpopularity of both systems).
It's not just MMOGs that have this fulfillment/achievement mechanic. Platformers, for years, have had "collect all 100 widgets in this level" goals. RPGs have tons of various side quests and extra missions you can do. Action and adventure games have completion scores, and the ability to replay the game under various difficulty settings.
Every gamer I know becomes obsessed with at least one of mechanics, primarily for the genre they prefer. Just beating the game often isn't enough anymore.
On top of putting in 60+ hours a week, I try to fit in 4 or 5 hours of WoW. The problem I've noticed, though, is I grind all day at work (estimate this, meet this deadline, get this much money, get promoted), then go home and grind in the WoW (sell in the AH, complete this quest, get this much gold, gain a level). I wish someone would use all this MMOG press hype to find out how to make me like work more. Maybe they could call me an Undead Mage instead of an Idustrial Planner. And I could wear a mohawk.
It's all about the timescale. In WoW, it may take only a few hours, or days at most, to get to the next level, or finish a quest. At work, the timescale is usually much longer. It can take months to finish a project, and years to work towards your next promotion.
I imagine jobs that have more "bite sized" achievements are better. For example, some doctors get the satisfaction of treating multiple patients each day. Of course, then other things kick in. For example, if you screw up in WoW, you can just restart the quest or dungeon. If you screw up at work, it can cost you your job.
I think Gears of War is a great game and deserves recognition but since when is it a first person shooter?
I thought you were kidding, till I read TFA (the Yahoo one at least), where... yup, they did call Gears a "first person shooter". I guess they don't understand what "first person" means...
That said, Gears of War and the upcoming Lost Planet appear to be redefining the general "shooter" genre, showing that you don't have to be in first-person to be a good shooter. Heck, after playing both, I would say, "To hell with first-person!". It's fine for PC titles, but on consoles, where you don't have the luxury of the keyboard/mouse combo, I personally would rather have the 3rd-person control schemes that those games have. To me, at least, it feels a lot more natural and comfortable.
If you trust metareview sites, such as GameRankings, then Elebits appears to be a decent game, averaging about 71% at the time of this posting. Not a 5-star title by any means, but around the 3 to 4-star mark.
OK... but at the end of said Baseball/tennis/golf swing do you normally let go of your bat/racket/club? I think NOT!
Normally? Of course not. But that's not point of testing. Accidentally letting go of the Wii-mote is not expected to be a common occurence. However, you can probably expect to happen, what, maybe a few times a month? Or maybe over the course of a year?
In the event that this happens, then it's the strap's duty to prevent it from flying. Unfortunately in that capacity, the original straps failed to do this job. It's great that Nintendo realized this and is having them replaced, although they do deserve to be dinged for not beefing them up in the first place. Compared to some of the other quality issues plaguing other consoles though (*cough MS and Sony cough*), this strap incident is fairly minor.
I still can't understand why this game gets so many top honors, yes, graphically it's quite nice (especially with fan-made add-ons) but that's about it: the unrealistic and immersion-breaking item/level scaling decisions made when creating the game should definitely put it in the 'the game would've been great if...' category.
First thing first, I agree with you regarding the item/level scaling. I didn't like it, as you lose the sense of "improving", since no matter how much you get better, so does everything else around you.
That said, that same mechanic also happens to be what a lot of people liked about the game. So I don't think it's fair to consider it a "broken issue" in that context at all.
Honestly, this is something a testing program would never catch...
From someone who works in QA, I can say that you would make a horrible tester.
Testing includes verifying how a product performs within limits, and also beyond. After all, someone has to define what the limits are in the first place. And then what happens if someone goes slightly beyond it. I am certain Nintendo did many tests on the limitations of the strap, and its breaking point. Unfortunately, whatever assumptions they originally made were off.
If I had to guess, culture differences may be the reason. If they did much of their usability testing in Japan, then folks there may be less apt to "be retarded" in their swings, than many of the gamers here in the US. Although I'd also have to agree with a lot of folks and say that Nintendo is partially to blame for that behavior, since their own kiosk demos in the US appear to demonstrate that you can, and should actually swing the Wii-mote with the same force as you would a tennis racket or golf club.
One of the interesting questions is when will game designers who sell a certain type of game in Japan realize the vast untapped markets in the US for the same kind of game? I've seen tons of reviews on G4 TV for many Japan-only games that I know many many Americans would love to play.
Even if they were Japanese-spoken with English online help, my guess is the untapped market for such games is vast - and growing.
But if they just had some local American voice dub talent redub it, even if it were kind of quirky, the market would be huge.
One hopes the Wii designers will realize this and plan to port games they used to think of as Japan-only to US and Canadian markets.
That's much easier said than done. I've worked a lot on localization of games, and it's definately not trivial. It's much more than having "some local American voice dub talent redub it".
Also, I disagree that the market is huge. Trust me, if it were something that was profitable, it would have been done already. Quirky Japanese games have been around forever: dating sims, hentai titles, weird puzzle games, manga/anime titles, etc. The reason we don't usually see them in the US is because it's expensive to bring any title to market, much less one with a niche audience.
That said, I do think times are changing. For one, there are brand new retail venues available to gamers. There's Steam and online console marketplaces, such as Xbox Live Marketplace and the Wii Virtual Console. Why not leave a game totally untranslated? I know there are many gamers that are willing to play untranslated games (they often have modded consoles to play import titles). Then if a game really becomes popular, then a publisher or developer could spend the extra money to translate it, and release it to the masses.
So far, when you actually look at the Wii and PS3 and xBox360 titles available in the US, it looks like the Wii has a stable of 4 and 5 rated games, the xBox360 is middle of the road (with barely as many total 4 and 5 games as the just-released Wii), and the PS3 is well, just not up to it, with only one decent game to speak of, and a lot of really glitchy but nice-looking games to round it out.
Look, I am excited about the Wii as anyone else, but it's a lie to say that the Wii "has a stable of 4 and 5 rated games", when it doesn't. You've got Zelda as probably the only 5-star game, then a few other titles at 4-stars (although many of them are multiplatform), and then a pretty steep drop-off from there. And it's really not fair to compare the 360 library to the Wii, since it's been out a year longer. You would expect to see better games finally coming out for that system. I don't consider that "good news" for MS, as they're doing exactly what's expected of them.
I have no doubt at all that the Wii will get better games. After all, few console launches have that many great games (and the 360 was no exception). It's an amazing feat, actually, to have a Zelda game at launch, and is the one reason why I'm still trying to find a Wii. But I think it's dangerous to start hyping a console more than needed. I would be upset if I bought a boatload of Wii games, expecting them all to be "4 or 5 star" games, when they turned out to be very mediocre. I'd much rather be told which games are outstanding (Zelda, Trauma Center, and Rayman) than end up spending money on Red Steel, Call of Duty 3, DBZ2, etc.
While this might matter in Japan, where HDTV is standard in most households, in the US only 5 percent of households have an HDTV, and in most cases Dad won't let the kids play games on it, because he bought it to watch sports and pr0n.
That 5% seems low to me, but I can't find any 2006 reports that cover what it looks like now. What would be interesting, though, is the growth aspect. If the number of households with HDTV is doubling or tripling every year, then it certainly won't be long till HDTV really matters. I am constantly surprised by how cheap HDTV sets are becoming every year.
The biggest stumbling point, IMHO, to HDTV though... is really the content. It's not clear that to get the best image, not only do you need an HDTV, but you have to subscribe to HDTV with your cable/satellite TV provider. For me, that's an extra $5 a month, which is affordable and worth it. But that's probably not the cause for a lot of other households, which aren't prepared to make additional monthly payments. Additionally, there's the cost of having all the right wires, and potentially upgrading the equipment that uses the TV (game consoles, DVD players, etc.).
The xBox360 doesn't have many games on a standard 480p normal TV that look that much different, and so far all the game reviews I've seen say that most of the games aren't that great.
Ehh, what reviews are you looking at? Well, it'll all be moot. Come back in a few weeks when all the gaming magazines and websites start listing their "Game of the Year" nominees. The "buzz" is that several 360 games will be nominees for sure: Oblivion and Gears of War. I would argue that Dead Rising and Viva Pinata also deserve to be high marks in their respective genres.
Then again, if you don't have a 360 or have any notion of owning one, you probably don't know about these titles. Which is a shame. That's why I try to be multi-platform, since ultimately, I don't care which console a good game is on. (Of course, not everyone can afford to go multi-platform, which is completely understandable as well)
I agree. The numbers, by themselves, are interesting. But comparing to anything else, such as "outsells Zelda" is not. It's not particularly fair, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
Now, a couple weeks from now, it'll be more interesting to see how many 360 units Blue Dragon will help sell. Having a one-time spike from Sakaguchi/Toriyama/Uematsu fans is nice, but what MS and Mistwalker really would like is for word-of-mouth to take over and convince more mainstream gamers to pick up the title and a 360. It would be similar to how GTA3 really convinced mainstream gamers in the US to pick up a PS2, because they had to check it out. Of course, there are some huge differences between Blue Dragon and GTA3 (locale, price of the console, competition, etc.).
That said, I've heard lots of wonderful things about this game, so I can't wait until it comes state-side. I am almost done with FFXII, and have been a bit displeased that it's gone away from it's "JRPG" roots. It's still a great game, but playing DQVIII last year reminded me how traditional JRPG games, while "old school", can still be a lot of fun.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I wouldn't be surprised at all for things to change drastically this console generation. Whereas the Xbox had virtually no J-RPGs, the 360 is getting more love from developers. The same goes for Nintendo and the Wii, the new darling of the industry. Plus, multi-platform games, in general, are becoming more and more common (it makes business sense to do so, since game development costs are skyrocketing). So games that were typically Sony-exclusive may end up being on the 360 and Wii as well. As I've said before, that's great for gamers.
The main problem initially, was that the Xbox gained a reputation for being a haven for mostly shooters and sports games (which honestly, isn't far from the truth). What few RPGs that were on the system came from Western developers (Knights of the Old Republic, Fable, Jade Empire, Morrowind, etc.). Unfortunately for MS, Japanese gamers love their "Japanese-style" RPGs (a la Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, etc.) and there were virtually none on the system. So it's pretty obvious why the Xbox brand gets little love in Japan.
... then you might consider if other reasons are at play (nationalist tendencies, etc.).
That's changed a bit with the 360, thanks to MS attracting some big names. Mistwalker Studios, headed by the former Square honcho (and creator of Final Fantasy), has been developing some big exclusive RPGs for the 360. Blue Dragon just came out last month, and Lost Oddysey is on the way. (As a J-RPG fan myself, I keep track of these things)
While Blue Dragon sold a decent number of 360s, it's definately not enough. One game will not suddenly turn the console around, especially one that's brand new IP and from a new studio. Unfortunately for MS, it becomes somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. They'll need more developers to make "Japan-friendly" games, in order to attract more Japanese gamers. However, those developers aren't going to make games on a platform with a low user-base.
To an optimist, things are looking better. There are several more high-profile games coming in 2007 for the 360, including titles from Square-Enix, and another RPG from Mistwalker. Virtual Fighter 5, which is apparently a huge success in Japan, was recently announced to be coming to the 360 as well.
Personally, I see 2007 as a "do or die" year for the 360 in Japan. If even after all the developer-love, Japanese gamers still don't take to the console
My guess is the following. A warning pops up for each "check" of security. For example, if you try to install some new software, it will display a warning. Now, if this new thing that you're attempting to install, tries to do something above-and-beyond what normal software should be able to do (try to contact resources over the Internet, write files to secure areas of the OS, etc.), then that's when it prompts another warning. And so on.
If that's indeed what it's doing, then arguably, that's probably the right thing to do. Sure, warn me once if I'm installing some software. It'll set itself up in the sandbox environment. But if it tries to do something more than it should (play outside the sandbox)
I wouldn't be surprised if they did announce it, got a huge backlash from employees, then decided to change their minds. From what I've heard and experienced, there was a lot of downsizing of perks a few years ago, to cut costs during the dot-com bust.
Now that things are going much better, the trend has been going the opposite direction. We've gotten some upgrades in the cafeteria offerings, better coffee, and various other benefits.
The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing a program requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function.
Gee, that makes sense to me, especially since in the past, a lot of programs (adware/spyware) were somehow able to creep onto people's systems, causing huge amounts of grief.
His own argument works against him. He says that it's not a problem with boxed products, since users will trust them, know what they are, willing to go through the hoops, etc. So, what's the problem with having the same expectation for any downloaded program?
If you make your download product really compelling (including doing the "right things" when it comes to Vista security), then users will "go through hoops" to get it installed as well. If you're offering some crappy toolbar (with bundled spyware) and don't do the right things for security (don't sign your controls, etc.), then the user may not be so interested, which is probably a good thing.
There are multiple customers at play here. Yes, Wild Tangent (and other developers) are in a sense a customer, since they develop on Windows/Vista/etc. However, don't forget that your end-user consumer is also a customer, and the extra security on Vista is targeted towards them.
I work with a lot of customers who NEED the extra security, because frankly, they don't really know how to properly secure their computer. They're the ones who install every toolbar/screensaver/gadget because it's cool, yet don't understand why their computer is so slow, and why all these windows keep popping up. On one hand, it's tempting to fault them, because they're making bad decisions. On the other hand, the OS can do a better job of hand-holding these consumers and making the right choices for them. (Does Grandma really need to learn how to secure her computer? She just wants to use the Internet to play Hearts and send e-mail to her grandkids)
Unfortunately, catering to one customer base (the enormously large novice user-base), tends to piss off a few others, most notably power users (who already know how to secure our systems, and don't need to be prompted every single time), and developers. Some of these developers, are the evil spyware/adware-writing kind, which are customers that we don't really want in the first place. Other developers do have legitimate needs, but will now need to do some extra work to get their applications to work on Vista in the first place.
I'm fine with that. At MS, our own developers have to conform to the extra security requirements in Vista. Yes, it means more work, but I see that as a good thing. Our hope is that FEWER of our end-user customers will come in with support problems, which are ultimately tied to not our code, but spyware on their machine.
Remember the days when it was dead-easy to get anyone to install an ActiveX control? That was the worst. Similar complaints were lodged against MS when WinXP SP2 came out, since in small ways, it limited how easy it was to install controls.
What I am skeptical, though, is the notion that Grandma is suddenly going to be like a hardcore gamer and buy a game for the Wii every month or so. I really don't see that, since many of the games upcoming (Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros, Metroid Prime, etc.) are still focused for your typical "hardcore" gamer. Grandma will probably be just fine with Wii Sports for a long time, and it probably won't be till the next "ultra casual" game (Wii Brain Age? Cooking game? Party game?) till she gets another Wii game (or rather, her grandkids get it for her).
But my main point is that the possibly low attach-rate for Grandma isn't a problem at all for Nintendo. It's a great thing actually. I don't think you want to have a business model that depends on Grandma suddenly buying a dozen Wii games in a year, since I don't see it happening.
Now, if it does, then that would be icing on the cake for Nintendo, and arguably the games industry over all. (Who knows, maybe after being introduced to Wii games, she'll suddenly get interested in that WoW game all of her grandkids play)
Contrast that with Nintendo, though (and arguably the 360 now, since I believe the console itself is now profitable). All you need is for people to buy the console, and that's it. Who cares if the attach rate is low? I'd even say that with Nintendo's new focus on extremely casual gamers (Mom, Dad, Grandparents), that audience is probably only going to buy a few Wii games over the lifespan of the console. Grandma is not suddenly going to become a gamer and replace her TV watching with gamers every day. But with the console making a profit at the outset, that doesn't matter anymore. Which is great news for Nintendo.
But back to the PS3, the big question for Sony is whether or not people are going to buy the dang systems in the first place. Not only do they need each gamer to buy a lot of PS3 games, they need a LOT of people to do this, in order to recoup all of their PS3 research and investment costs.
1) Industry leader
It's nice working for companies that are arguably industry leaders. That's why you'll always have a ton of people interviewing for Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Intel, Amazon, etc. Those big names, regardless of how you perceive the companies themselves, still look awfully good on resumes. And chances are, they have pretty darn good pay as well. There's also a good chance that the projects you will work on, have a pretty large scope. For many, it's great to say you worked on "Product X", even though your actual contribution may be rather small. It's still better than saying you worked on "Product Y" that no one has even heard of, or ever will.
2) Interesting projects
Before Google was at the top, and before it could offer all those really great benefits, you still had a bunch of upstart software engineers wanting to work there, because the projects were really interesting. Even if the benefits weren't there, and Google wasn't quite at the top yet, you'd still have engineers very interested in that space. Sure, not as many, but the people you would get could arguably be the best, since they're actually excited about the work.
In contrast, you've got a ton of smaller companies that could offer fantastic benefits, but if you're missing out on the above two things
If anything, MORE perks have been added, such as upgraded coffee (Starbucks, instead of Farmer's Brothers).
No, nothing like Google and smaller tech companies. It's much more expensive to add perks, obviously, when you're dealing with 40k+ or so employees.
I've had folks balk at the type of questions they've been asked, even to the point of arguing, "Do I REALLY need to know this stuff for this job?". My answer is, "Well, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have asked it.".
Unfortunately, the breakdown is often due to HR and the way jobs are labelled. If I had to guess, a sysadmin at Google is far closer to a typical Software Dev Engineer than usual (for whatever reason). Now, I don't know why the damn jobs just aren't labelled properly in the first place. It sucks for both the interviewer and the candidate when it's obvious that the person is interviewing for the wrong type of position.
Well first of all, Halo was an original Xbox launch title, so there was no "inchworming along" there. However, I definately agree that's what happened with the 360. Sales have been lackluster until system-seller hits such as Gears of War started appearing.
As for the "wait till FFXIII comes out" angle, the problem is that the game won't come out until 2008, maybe even later for the US. Remember, FFXII just came out for the US, and there's always a gap of a few years between these games. Unfortunately for Sony, the other mega-hit Dragon Quest IX is a DS exclusive, and Kingdom Hearts 2 also just came out so the sequel is probably another 2008/09 title. Are gamers really going to wait a few years before picking up a next-gen console? How long is Square-Enix going to wait on PS3 sales, before they jump ship and go multi-platform? It doesn't help that other former Playstation-exclusives are seemingly being lost as well.
I agree with what you say here. My guess (which comes after unscientifically talking with a bunch of my gamer friends), is that a lot of people want to have a Wii and either a 360 or PS3 for the usual "hardcore-style" games with great graphics, etc. I know that's what I'm going to do, if it turns out that most of the big PS3-exclusives end up being multi-platform anyway.
Undoubtedly the success of the DS can translate to benefits to the Wii. It would be even greater if Nintendo were able to announce some neat pairing between the DS and the Wii, similar to what Sony has tried to do with the PS3 and PSP (only failing miserably, due to the relative unpopularity of both systems).
It's not just MMOGs that have this fulfillment/achievement mechanic. Platformers, for years, have had "collect all 100 widgets in this level" goals. RPGs have tons of various side quests and extra missions you can do. Action and adventure games have completion scores, and the ability to replay the game under various difficulty settings.
Every gamer I know becomes obsessed with at least one of mechanics, primarily for the genre they prefer. Just beating the game often isn't enough anymore.
I imagine jobs that have more "bite sized" achievements are better. For example, some doctors get the satisfaction of treating multiple patients each day. Of course, then other things kick in. For example, if you screw up in WoW, you can just restart the quest or dungeon. If you screw up at work, it can cost you your job.
That said, Gears of War and the upcoming Lost Planet appear to be redefining the general "shooter" genre, showing that you don't have to be in first-person to be a good shooter. Heck, after playing both, I would say, "To hell with first-person!". It's fine for PC titles, but on consoles, where you don't have the luxury of the keyboard/mouse combo, I personally would rather have the 3rd-person control schemes that those games have. To me, at least, it feels a lot more natural and comfortable.
If you trust metareview sites, such as GameRankings, then Elebits appears to be a decent game, averaging about 71% at the time of this posting. Not a 5-star title by any means, but around the 3 to 4-star mark.
In the event that this happens, then it's the strap's duty to prevent it from flying. Unfortunately in that capacity, the original straps failed to do this job. It's great that Nintendo realized this and is having them replaced, although they do deserve to be dinged for not beefing them up in the first place. Compared to some of the other quality issues plaguing other consoles though (*cough MS and Sony cough*), this strap incident is fairly minor.
That said, that same mechanic also happens to be what a lot of people liked about the game. So I don't think it's fair to consider it a "broken issue" in that context at all.
Testing includes verifying how a product performs within limits, and also beyond. After all, someone has to define what the limits are in the first place. And then what happens if someone goes slightly beyond it. I am certain Nintendo did many tests on the limitations of the strap, and its breaking point. Unfortunately, whatever assumptions they originally made were off.
If I had to guess, culture differences may be the reason. If they did much of their usability testing in Japan, then folks there may be less apt to "be retarded" in their swings, than many of the gamers here in the US. Although I'd also have to agree with a lot of folks and say that Nintendo is partially to blame for that behavior, since their own kiosk demos in the US appear to demonstrate that you can, and should actually swing the Wii-mote with the same force as you would a tennis racket or golf club.
Also, I disagree that the market is huge. Trust me, if it were something that was profitable, it would have been done already. Quirky Japanese games have been around forever: dating sims, hentai titles, weird puzzle games, manga/anime titles, etc. The reason we don't usually see them in the US is because it's expensive to bring any title to market, much less one with a niche audience.
If you haven't already, you should check out this interesting article from The Escapist regarding the games industry: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/3
That said, I do think times are changing. For one, there are brand new retail venues available to gamers. There's Steam and online console marketplaces, such as Xbox Live Marketplace and the Wii Virtual Console. Why not leave a game totally untranslated? I know there are many gamers that are willing to play untranslated games (they often have modded consoles to play import titles). Then if a game really becomes popular, then a publisher or developer could spend the extra money to translate it, and release it to the masses.
Look, I am excited about the Wii as anyone else, but it's a lie to say that the Wii "has a stable of 4 and 5 rated games", when it doesn't. You've got Zelda as probably the only 5-star game, then a few other titles at 4-stars (although many of them are multiplatform), and then a pretty steep drop-off from there. And it's really not fair to compare the 360 library to the Wii, since it's been out a year longer. You would expect to see better games finally coming out for that system. I don't consider that "good news" for MS, as they're doing exactly what's expected of them.
I have no doubt at all that the Wii will get better games. After all, few console launches have that many great games (and the 360 was no exception). It's an amazing feat, actually, to have a Zelda game at launch, and is the one reason why I'm still trying to find a Wii. But I think it's dangerous to start hyping a console more than needed. I would be upset if I bought a boatload of Wii games, expecting them all to be "4 or 5 star" games, when they turned out to be very mediocre. I'd much rather be told which games are outstanding (Zelda, Trauma Center, and Rayman) than end up spending money on Red Steel, Call of Duty 3, DBZ2, etc.
The biggest stumbling point, IMHO, to HDTV though
Ehh, what reviews are you looking at? Well, it'll all be moot. Come back in a few weeks when all the gaming magazines and websites start listing their "Game of the Year" nominees. The "buzz" is that several 360 games will be nominees for sure: Oblivion and Gears of War. I would argue that Dead Rising and Viva Pinata also deserve to be high marks in their respective genres.
Then again, if you don't have a 360 or have any notion of owning one, you probably don't know about these titles. Which is a shame. That's why I try to be multi-platform, since ultimately, I don't care which console a good game is on. (Of course, not everyone can afford to go multi-platform, which is completely understandable as well)
I agree. The numbers, by themselves, are interesting. But comparing to anything else, such as "outsells Zelda" is not. It's not particularly fair, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
Now, a couple weeks from now, it'll be more interesting to see how many 360 units Blue Dragon will help sell. Having a one-time spike from Sakaguchi/Toriyama/Uematsu fans is nice, but what MS and Mistwalker really would like is for word-of-mouth to take over and convince more mainstream gamers to pick up the title and a 360. It would be similar to how GTA3 really convinced mainstream gamers in the US to pick up a PS2, because they had to check it out. Of course, there are some huge differences between Blue Dragon and GTA3 (locale, price of the console, competition, etc.).
That said, I've heard lots of wonderful things about this game, so I can't wait until it comes state-side. I am almost done with FFXII, and have been a bit displeased that it's gone away from it's "JRPG" roots. It's still a great game, but playing DQVIII last year reminded me how traditional JRPG games, while "old school", can still be a lot of fun.