This first part is from memory, but I'm certian you're incorrect when you say Nintendo has "always had inferior hardware".
NES was second to the Sega Master System, this is true. The SNES was the most powerful system durring the 16 bit era. Excluding exotic choices like the Neo-Geo. It's rivals were the Genesis which has a higher clock speed, but was nowhere near as capable, and the Turbo Grafix 16, which IIRC was an 8 Bit system with a 16 bit graphics coprocessor (or some such trickery).
The 32 Bit era, Nintendo skipped over. Unless you want to count the Virtual Boy which did indeed use a 32 Bit RISC processor. For mainstream home consoles of the say where was the 32X, which was just an add-on to the Genesis. The Saturn, which I believe was the least powerful of the "True" 32 bit, mainstream entries durring that generation. The PS1, and two odd-balls. The Jaguar, which was billed as 64 bit. This is often disputed, and I don't have background to prove or disprove the internals of Atari's last offering. The N64 was of course also 64 bit. Technically superior in most ways, save for game media. Cartridges, while much, much faster than optical media (especially back then) could not hold a candle to the sheer volume that discs can hold. But in terms of raw horsepower, I beieve that it's generally accepted that N64 lead that generation, not that it mattered.
Come around to the current (or is it now previous?) generation. The 128 Bit era. We have four contenders. The Dreamcast, which is dead and burried roughly equivelent to the PS2 from what I understand. The PS2, which is regarded as not only underpowered for this era, but a bitch to code for, the gamecube which seems to surpass the PS2 in all technical respects, save for DVD playback, and disc capacity. And the X-Box, which is generally accepted as leading this generation in technical specs. Visuals alone prove that the pecking order goes PS2GCNXBox Look at ports like Splinter Cell, or Resident Evil 4. The polygons they needed to cut from RE4 to run it on the PS2, were just... just wow.
Come to my second point. DVD playback. Are you aware that Microsoft already does (did?) this with the origional X-Box? X-Box "can not" play DVDs out of the box. You "have to" buy the remote control / DVD playback dongle pack in order to unlock this feature. The reason for this is simple. All DVD (legal, compliant) devices must be licensed by the DVD consortium. This licensing is not free. Microsoft's way of dealing with this was to rather than pass the cost of licensing each x-box and having to raise the sticker price to compensate, they took out the license fee, and took out the ability, unless you specificly went out and purchased the kit, and directly paid for it yourself. Saved money for the folks that didn't care to have their x-box play DVDs. Nintendo is probably going the same rout here. They are, after all known for keeping costs down.
Sony on the other hand had DVD playback out of the box with every PS2 they sell. I'm not sure if they're passing the costs along, simply eating the cost, or if they're exempt from the cost (Sony sits on the board of the DVD consortium, so perhaps it's possible that they don't have to pay like other companies do to license DVD rights).
The bits about Nintendo bullying it's licensees and censoring game content is correct, but ancient history. Those practices died out durring the SNES era. Nintendo was influential in founding the ESRB, and once that was done, they took the reigns off so to speak. Titles like Mortal Kombat 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, and Geist would not be possible if they maintained censorship.
I tend to disagree with your views as to what Nintendo "should" do. Best technology? Nintendo has had the best and they've had the worst. The industry has shown multiple times that it doesn't matter. Both in terms of gameplay (how *fun* is it?) and sales (PS2 anyone?). Should they listen to their customer base? To an extent absolutly. But remember, listening t
I do this as well, I simply don't use the domain extension code (.com.be.net, etc.). Mostly because a few sites puke if you try to insert more than one "." in an email address, and because if I start getting spam at ebay@mydomain.net, I can pretty well guess where it's coming from.
It seems to me that you're making an assumption that one activity precludes the other. But I do not see why this is the case at all. As long as the kid is learning and taken care of, and healthy and happy (not being neglected, etc), what difference does it make? In fact, the argument could be made his father and uncle are interacting with him, developing his social skills, as opposed to how many kids grow up / have grown up, sinking countless hours in front of a TV vegitating.
Also, how does this contribute to the "downfall of society"? If you're making the assertion that video games are somehow harmful in and of themselves, I can not agree, and I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.
The only thing I can see from that point of view is that the game is rated M. Presumably for content that is not wholly apropriate for a 2 year old. Aliens invading Earth and killing everything? Perhaps there is a "no blood" or "under 17" checkbox setting somewhere, but I don't know how much of a difference it can make with themes like that.
I may be a MS apolagist in some respects, but I fail to see how you got that from my post. I clearly said I do not have, an xbox, not a 360, not plans to purchase either one. Yeah, I'm a superfan.
As for the litmus test comment, the 360 fails my litmus test (for me) but the root of my argument which I'm affraid may have gotten lost was that games shouldn't be inherently "male" or "female".
From her post, it seems I like the same kind of games she does (story based) minus the dance games, and MMO games. Yet I'm male, not female. I also agree that there's nothing in the 360 library that appeals to me. The crux of my problem is that her statments seem blatantly sexist and foolish to me.
I think you get me wrong. I don't like the 360 lineup.
I'm not female though. where I take issue is that you seem to think that games are somehow divided along gender lines.
I would not be caught dead playing Maden.
But what makes "twitch" games, inherently "male"?
As for the pink and bows and barbies comment, I hate to have to say it, but that was sarcasm. I was making fun of you for saying that there are no games aimed at female.
I think that when companies try to target a demographic like that, what they wind up doing is creating a game that caters to terrible, horid stereotypes. Something that no real person would want.
Now, I may have been sarcastic, but you're reading attacks where they just don't exist. Barefoot and pregnant? What are you smoking? Attacking you because you're female? No, I'm attacking you because you're being sexist. Re-read my post.
The idea that a game is inherintly male or female is absurd. Once again, you don't use your genitals in the course of the game. It maks no diffrence what your gender is.
I happen to be male. I can't think of a single 360 title that appeals to me. Does that mean that the 360 targets females?
By your logic, it would. Because since no 360 titles appeal to *you*, then MS is clearly targeting males.
Please explain to me what a "famale game" is. And why should weather or not other females play games on the 360 make any difference to if you do or not?
How about this litmus test?
Are there games on the 360 that you want to play? If so, can you justify the expense?
What more do you need? Does it have to come in pink with bows on it, and have Barbie Fassion games? Or perhaps games that are published by the Lifetime network?
Please, spare us.
I don't have a 360, nor an origional x-box, nor will I probably ever buy either, but get over yourself. Kameo is neither a male, nor a female game. From what I can tell, the same can be said for the entire library of 360 games so far.
You don't use your genitals to play. It doesn't matter. Get over it.
I don't think anyone is saying that Microsoft should consider going back on their word that the launch prices would be $300 and $400.
I think people are saying that MS should have started with a diffrent strategy all along.
If you *know* that you will only have 10,000 consoles at launch, and you *know* the demand is there to sell out on launch day at a $900 MSRP price, why would you not do it?
Let's say there's 100,000 "loyal fans" out there. With the current model, you've pissed off 90,000 of the unluckiest fans / fans with the least amount of free time to wait in line overnight at Best Buy.
With the supply / demand model, you've made the fans with the most disposable income, or those who are more willing to spend money on your product happy.
Is it gouging? I don't know. Is it gouging when nVidia or ATi release their newest video card at an MSRP of $800? And then come out with an SLi / Crossfire version where you can spend twice that to get better performance?
Video game systems are no diffrent. They are released at a high price, and the price stedily falls as the system ages. People are just suggesting that with a super-limited release like the 360, that perhaps that initial release price should have been higher.
No, it's true. I work for BBY, and I did much of the pre-launch planning for my store. Corporate sent us brochures, tickets, and some other miscellanious stuff for the launch, but there were no mandated bundles at all. In fact, it's against BBY policy. Stores that did this did so of their own initiative, and probably felt the heat for it. BBY is an organization of people. People who are under (sometimes massive) pressure to succede. Sometimes those people step over the line of what they're allowed to do. This is one of those times, and it's regretable.
To everyone speculating on the legality / rules of this, I can comment on this with some authority.
I work for BBY, so first, it was simply some stores that took initiative on their own to create these bundles to drive their numbers. My store did not force people to buy bundles, we did put together folders with suggested accessories as well as coupons to entice people to purchase their accessories at a discount wiht the 360 that day. To my knowlege, none of the stores in my area participated in this practice, but clearly some did.
That said, BBY is very competative internally, so stores are always looking to innovate in ways like this. Unfortunatly, bundling in this way is against BBY's corperate policies. We can create all the bundles we like, but when we say you *HAVE TO* buy a bundle to purchase a product, that's where it steps over the line and is against BBY's corperate policies (not the law, though).
As far as law is concerned, it's not illegal at all. I seem to recall some of the game stores only sold bundles. If you wanted a 360 from [GameStoreX], you had to pay $800 or something retarded like that to get the system, controllers, a memory card, and like 4 games, or something. Didn't even get to pick the games. This makes sense to me, as if something is going to be ultra-rare, and it's price controled, like the consoles are, and you *know* you're going to sell out, why not make the most money possible for it?
I think what the grandparent is saying is that they liked the idea from SSBM's single player, but that they feel it was shallow and rushed. They would like to see a second attempt at the same where more care is used to give players a deeper, richer experience.
I recently moved to PA, and know that you're probably only half-joking. God damn, it's a fucking GAME. I hate how people around here revolve their lives around football in general and the Eagles in particular. Unreal.
Actually, no. There are two types of contract for the pusposes of this discussion. The type found in an ELUA is what's called a "Contract of Adhesion". These are non-amendable / non-negotiable. They are "take it or leave it" contracts.
I posted a little more info about this here, or you can google for more info.
Agreed. Most people can't tell the difference. Most people are idiots, but that's annother story.
It's just like VGA vs DVI. People flock to VGA, and run LCDs at non-native resolutions (which looks like crap IMHO) and somehow fail to see the difference, except that VGA is slightly cheaper.
I fear that unless the industry strong arms us into HD-DVD / Blue Ray / Whatever, nobody will adopt it. I don't *want* to see the industry go that way, but I have this nagging suspicion that it's the only way it'll happen.
Slashdot Mirror
This first part is from memory, but I'm certian you're incorrect when you say Nintendo has "always had inferior hardware".
NES was second to the Sega Master System, this is true.
The SNES was the most powerful system durring the 16 bit era. Excluding exotic choices like the Neo-Geo. It's rivals were the Genesis which has a higher clock speed, but was nowhere near as capable, and the Turbo Grafix 16, which IIRC was an 8 Bit system with a 16 bit graphics coprocessor (or some such trickery).
The 32 Bit era, Nintendo skipped over. Unless you want to count the Virtual Boy which did indeed use a 32 Bit RISC processor. For mainstream home consoles of the say where was the 32X, which was just an add-on to the Genesis. The Saturn, which I believe was the least powerful of the "True" 32 bit, mainstream entries durring that generation. The PS1, and two odd-balls. The Jaguar, which was billed as 64 bit. This is often disputed, and I don't have background to prove or disprove the internals of Atari's last offering. The N64 was of course also 64 bit. Technically superior in most ways, save for game media. Cartridges, while much, much faster than optical media (especially back then) could not hold a candle to the sheer volume that discs can hold. But in terms of raw horsepower, I beieve that it's generally accepted that N64 lead that generation, not that it mattered.
Come around to the current (or is it now previous?) generation. The 128 Bit era. We have four contenders. The Dreamcast, which is dead and burried roughly equivelent to the PS2 from what I understand. The PS2, which is regarded as not only underpowered for this era, but a bitch to code for, the gamecube which seems to surpass the PS2 in all technical respects, save for DVD playback, and disc capacity. And the X-Box, which is generally accepted as leading this generation in technical specs. Visuals alone prove that the pecking order goes PS2GCNXBox Look at ports like Splinter Cell, or Resident Evil 4. The polygons they needed to cut from RE4 to run it on the PS2, were just... just wow.
Come to my second point. DVD playback. Are you aware that Microsoft already does (did?) this with the origional X-Box? X-Box "can not" play DVDs out of the box. You "have to" buy the remote control / DVD playback dongle pack in order to unlock this feature. The reason for this is simple. All DVD (legal, compliant) devices must be licensed by the DVD consortium. This licensing is not free. Microsoft's way of dealing with this was to rather than pass the cost of licensing each x-box and having to raise the sticker price to compensate, they took out the license fee, and took out the ability, unless you specificly went out and purchased the kit, and directly paid for it yourself. Saved money for the folks that didn't care to have their x-box play DVDs. Nintendo is probably going the same rout here. They are, after all known for keeping costs down.
Sony on the other hand had DVD playback out of the box with every PS2 they sell. I'm not sure if they're passing the costs along, simply eating the cost, or if they're exempt from the cost (Sony sits on the board of the DVD consortium, so perhaps it's possible that they don't have to pay like other companies do to license DVD rights).
The bits about Nintendo bullying it's licensees and censoring game content is correct, but ancient history. Those practices died out durring the SNES era. Nintendo was influential in founding the ESRB, and once that was done, they took the reigns off so to speak. Titles like Mortal Kombat 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, and Geist would not be possible if they maintained censorship.
I tend to disagree with your views as to what Nintendo "should" do. Best technology? Nintendo has had the best and they've had the worst. The industry has shown multiple times that it doesn't matter. Both in terms of gameplay (how *fun* is it?) and sales (PS2 anyone?). Should they listen to their customer base? To an extent absolutly. But remember, listening t
As opposed to right-handed people, who naturally use the directional pad with their right hands?
Graphical comparison
What was wrong with Gearbox's port? Worked fine for me, and it was the best FPS I'd played since Half-Life.
I do this as well, I simply don't use the domain extension code (.com .be .net, etc.). Mostly because a few sites puke if you try to insert more than one "." in an email address, and because if I start getting spam at ebay@mydomain.net, I can pretty well guess where it's coming from.
The GM EV1 was like that. Lease only. GM would not sell one to you. People beged for it, but they were eventually all pulled from the roads.
Yes, but the machine that this blank hard drive is in wil have shipped with a license for Mac OS, no?
Downfall of society? Scary? What? Why?
It seems to me that you're making an assumption that one activity precludes the other. But I do not see why this is the case at all. As long as the kid is learning and taken care of, and healthy and happy (not being neglected, etc), what difference does it make? In fact, the argument could be made his father and uncle are interacting with him, developing his social skills, as opposed to how many kids grow up / have grown up, sinking countless hours in front of a TV vegitating.
Also, how does this contribute to the "downfall of society"? If you're making the assertion that video games are somehow harmful in and of themselves, I can not agree, and I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.
The only thing I can see from that point of view is that the game is rated M. Presumably for content that is not wholly apropriate for a 2 year old. Aliens invading Earth and killing everything? Perhaps there is a "no blood" or "under 17" checkbox setting somewhere, but I don't know how much of a difference it can make with themes like that.
I may be a MS apolagist in some respects, but I fail to see how you got that from my post. I clearly said I do not have, an xbox, not a 360, not plans to purchase either one. Yeah, I'm a superfan.
As for the litmus test comment, the 360 fails my litmus test (for me) but the root of my argument which I'm affraid may have gotten lost was that games shouldn't be inherently "male" or "female".
From her post, it seems I like the same kind of games she does (story based) minus the dance games, and MMO games. Yet I'm male, not female. I also agree that there's nothing in the 360 library that appeals to me. The crux of my problem is that her statments seem blatantly sexist and foolish to me.
I think you get me wrong. I don't like the 360 lineup.
I'm not female though. where I take issue is that you seem to think that games are somehow divided along gender lines.
I would not be caught dead playing Maden.
But what makes "twitch" games, inherently "male"?
As for the pink and bows and barbies comment, I hate to have to say it, but that was sarcasm. I was making fun of you for saying that there are no games aimed at female.
I think that when companies try to target a demographic like that, what they wind up doing is creating a game that caters to terrible, horid stereotypes. Something that no real person would want.
Now, I may have been sarcastic, but you're reading attacks where they just don't exist. Barefoot and pregnant? What are you smoking? Attacking you because you're female? No, I'm attacking you because you're being sexist. Re-read my post.
The idea that a game is inherintly male or female is absurd. Once again, you don't use your genitals in the course of the game. It maks no diffrence what your gender is.
I happen to be male. I can't think of a single 360 title that appeals to me. Does that mean that the 360 targets females?
By your logic, it would. Because since no 360 titles appeal to *you*, then MS is clearly targeting males.
Please explain to me what a "famale game" is. And why should weather or not other females play games on the 360 make any difference to if you do or not?
How about this litmus test?
Are there games on the 360 that you want to play? If so, can you justify the expense?
What more do you need? Does it have to come in pink with bows on it, and have Barbie Fassion games? Or perhaps games that are published by the Lifetime network?
Please, spare us.
I don't have a 360, nor an origional x-box, nor will I probably ever buy either, but get over yourself. Kameo is neither a male, nor a female game. From what I can tell, the same can be said for the entire library of 360 games so far.
You don't use your genitals to play. It doesn't matter. Get over it.
How? If there are 1 Million loyalists, and only 10,000 XBoxes, both methods would leave the same number (990,000 loyalists) without.
I understand there are other factors involved, but I don't see how you can say for a fact one way or annother that one way will piss off more people.
I don't think anyone is saying that Microsoft should consider going back on their word that the launch prices would be $300 and $400.
I think people are saying that MS should have started with a diffrent strategy all along.
If you *know* that you will only have 10,000 consoles at launch, and you *know* the demand is there to sell out on launch day at a $900 MSRP price, why would you not do it?
Let's say there's 100,000 "loyal fans" out there. With the current model, you've pissed off 90,000 of the unluckiest fans / fans with the least amount of free time to wait in line overnight at Best Buy.
With the supply / demand model, you've made the fans with the most disposable income, or those who are more willing to spend money on your product happy.
Is it gouging? I don't know. Is it gouging when nVidia or ATi release their newest video card at an MSRP of $800? And then come out with an SLi / Crossfire version where you can spend twice that to get better performance?
Video game systems are no diffrent. They are released at a high price, and the price stedily falls as the system ages. People are just suggesting that with a super-limited release like the 360, that perhaps that initial release price should have been higher.
No, it's true. I work for BBY, and I did much of the pre-launch planning for my store. Corporate sent us brochures, tickets, and some other miscellanious stuff for the launch, but there were no mandated bundles at all. In fact, it's against BBY policy. Stores that did this did so of their own initiative, and probably felt the heat for it. BBY is an organization of people. People who are under (sometimes massive) pressure to succede. Sometimes those people step over the line of what they're allowed to do. This is one of those times, and it's regretable.
To everyone speculating on the legality / rules of this, I can comment on this with some authority.
I work for BBY, so first, it was simply some stores that took initiative on their own to create these bundles to drive their numbers. My store did not force people to buy bundles, we did put together folders with suggested accessories as well as coupons to entice people to purchase their accessories at a discount wiht the 360 that day. To my knowlege, none of the stores in my area participated in this practice, but clearly some did.
That said, BBY is very competative internally, so stores are always looking to innovate in ways like this. Unfortunatly, bundling in this way is against BBY's corperate policies. We can create all the bundles we like, but when we say you *HAVE TO* buy a bundle to purchase a product, that's where it steps over the line and is against BBY's corperate policies (not the law, though).
As far as law is concerned, it's not illegal at all. I seem to recall some of the game stores only sold bundles. If you wanted a 360 from [GameStoreX], you had to pay $800 or something retarded like that to get the system, controllers, a memory card, and like 4 games, or something. Didn't even get to pick the games. This makes sense to me, as if something is going to be ultra-rare, and it's price controled, like the consoles are, and you *know* you're going to sell out, why not make the most money possible for it?
You've got it all figured out! You're so clever!
I think what the grandparent is saying is that they liked the idea from SSBM's single player, but that they feel it was shallow and rushed. They would like to see a second attempt at the same where more care is used to give players a deeper, richer experience.
Thanks for the new .sig
As opposed to what?
I dunno, plenty of people seem to loooove Linus. ( :
I recently moved to PA, and know that you're probably only half-joking. God damn, it's a fucking GAME. I hate how people around here revolve their lives around football in general and the Eagles in particular. Unreal.
That, sir, is what's called "marketing".
No, that would be Jesux.
Actually, no. There are two types of contract for the pusposes of this discussion. The type found in an ELUA is what's called a "Contract of Adhesion". These are non-amendable / non-negotiable. They are "take it or leave it" contracts.
I posted a little more info about this here, or you can google for more info.
Agreed. Most people can't tell the difference. Most people are idiots, but that's annother story.
It's just like VGA vs DVI. People flock to VGA, and run LCDs at non-native resolutions (which looks like crap IMHO) and somehow fail to see the difference, except that VGA is slightly cheaper.
I fear that unless the industry strong arms us into HD-DVD / Blue Ray / Whatever, nobody will adopt it. I don't *want* to see the industry go that way, but I have this nagging suspicion that it's the only way it'll happen.