I know it makes you all hip and tres cool to bash Microsoft, but they actually had this design wa-a-a-y back in NT 3.5/3.51. That would be in the mid/late 1990s for you youngsters in the audience. They made the change to the current model in NT 4.0.
Yeah well, where the drivers reside aside, is the OS still based on the assumption it's a GUI? Specifically, do we still have the idiotic and juvenile system architecture that specifies window parameters to low-level system calls? Like say, CreateProcess taking window parameters?
Or have they actually revamped the kernel no longer requires or assumes a GUI
at all? Have they finally caught up to 1970?
The big, bad, evil Sony has something like that. And it even streams TV to those useless PSPs everyone seems to hate. Apparently, you can change the channel, and stream TV from anyone (not just your own device).
(This is totally tongue-in-cheek, so don't take it seriously, I thought we might be amused by some mid-morning facetiousness.:-))
Look at it from the consumer's side. Why in hell would anyone want to buy a 360 *now* knowing that there would be a "better" version in the future?
That's what I said about the X360 when I saw the Revolution and PS3!
Now, look at it from Microsoft's side. They already have millions of 360s in circulation.
They will kill their sales of existing systems if they announce an upgrade because people will wait.
Or at least a few hundred thousand. Actually, since no one can buy one anyway, they might as well take advantage of the downtime and upgrade them! Call it the XBOX 360.11 for Workgroups.
But, then what about the bleeding edge people who just HAD to have an 360 NOW?
Dude, that's so last week.
Besides, this gives Microsoft the excuse that they needed to rush to market the Xbox 720 -- comes with HD-DVD! w00t! And as proven by the last craze, there are clearly millions of suckers who will buy it as soon as it's released just because they can.
Get a Gamestation 256! It's slightly faster... to the MAX!
The fact is, it's not only intelligent from a programming standpoint, it is also the correct medium for such a system. It makes sense for a player as well.
This may be suprising, but a lot of people have subscribed to the internet only for FFXI or other console games, and therefore may not have a web browser available. This isn't the case for a PC-only RPG like WoW, where you need a fair beast of a machine to play it, but it is for a console MMORPG. (See pages 8-10 of the PS2 manual which refer to various direct-connect configurations, both ethernet and modem.)
Imagine that my computer dies and I can't afford to replace it, or I have just stopped playing the game and uninstalled it but forgot to unsubscribe. How do I cancel my subscription now?
Let's see, page 24 of the manual under "Registration Process", we have:
Phone Support
(858) 790-7529 (PLAY)
Monday - Friday
9:00am - 6:00pm Pacific Time
Note: Long distance fees may apply
Phone support information is available in the PlayOnline Viewer's Service & Support section and on the PlayOnline site at http://www.playonline.com/
Additionally, if all methods of interaction are denied you; you tossed the manual, you broke your PS2, you lost your mind and can't use a phone book or call the operator, you can at last resort call the credit card company and either try to find contact information, or charge back a payment, which according to page 26 will cause your account to be suspended, and thus you're home free. That was hard.
Why in the heck should I have to reinstall the WHOLE DAMN GAME just to unsubscribe and then uninstall the WHOLE DAMN GAME? I hope this doesn't sound like a ridiculous scenario, because it happened to both me and my friend.
So are you lying, or can't you read?
The game executable should be just that. THE GAME. It should allow you to play THE GAME. Why should it handle accounts and subscriptions? Use a separate executable, or a website, or anything you want. It doesn't belong in the game, because it's wrong in two ways. First you're reinventing the wheel and then you're attaching it to an unnecessary place.
So I have my console hooked up, possibly to the only internet connection available, then I find I have to go register on some website. Then, given I have a computer, and it's hooked up, I have to copy registration information across.
Or, on the PC, I start the game, go to log in, and realize I now have to quit the game, launch a web browser, and register. Then write down all my information, start the game up, and type it in again.
Or, with PlayOnline, I can start the game, enter my information, and start playing, and have a center for communicating with fellow players and the like. And it works the same on any platform I play on.
As long as people are putting out games, why does Sony care? Even if they're not all winners and huge sellers, a variety of games is great for a console.
I agree, and this is a really stupid decision by Sony. Working Designs has over the year put out some "less popular" but wonderful, high-quality imports. Not having the talent these guys have is just stupid.
Some of the recent picks have been... questionable. Growlanser Generations was not great, from all reports, and neither have a few of the other recent picks. On the other hand, this is hardly an acceptable excuse, given the loads of crap we see from places like EA or Activision that produce movie titles or similar tie-ins. Any WD game is far better than these.
If anything, Sony should have invested in these or made them a first-party talent. While it's possible another side to the story is missing here, unless all the good people had already left WD, this is a sorry loss.
If Microsoft released a patch right away, administrators would complain they are patching too often and forcing them to test internal software more.
If Microsoft released patches right away and didn't have a history of patches that broke everything and introduced more holes... people would complain less.
WHAT?! The story is cutscenes. CUTSCENES. That's IT. JUST CUTSCENES. You play absolutely no roll in the story. None. There are no choices. There's no influence at all. Just cutscenes. Eventually someone will probably decode the datafiles and allow people to view the cutscenes without having to go through the task of playing the game.
OK... now, I'm a total Square fan. Hell I've spent more time playing the FFXII demo than DQ8 (not that I don't like the latter, but I'll get to it after WA:ACF).
That said, what exactly in most Square games is there to the story besides cutscenes? I mean really: you talk to someone and get dialog or cutscene. Then you fight your way around until you get to a boss, and another cutscene which furthers the story. Honestly I can't think of anything that has ever really influenced the storyline. I like the games, because they're fun and they have good stories, but... they're pretty much the same thing!
In FFXI, it's the same. There is longer between scenes, perhaps, and they're significantly more difficult, but... you still talk to people for tidbits of information, and then you go off to fight a battle or get an item somewhere or put an item somewhere, and you get a cutscene to further the story when you're done. Maybe you don't feel as "involved" in the process; admittedly the general lack of actual roleplay on most servers isn't conducive to an immersive environment, but still. It's the same thing.
I would recommend you find an RP Linkshell if you really want to get into this. (And be careful; avoid "RP" linkshells which are full of angsty emo kids. Drop them immediately.) They exist in varying degrees; you can probably find a few friends and do this yourself if you desire. To this extent, MMOs in general will require a bit of participation to complete the loop on your end. They can't force you to act in character without draconian oversight, but just because you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't. RP can be a great deal of fun and make all the difference in the world.
Cid does not make something Final Fantasy. The story is NOT Final-Fantasy-esque in that NOTHING HAPPENS. You can't alter the world. The world is ALWAYS the same. The story may as well just be a series of cutscenes you have to unlock, it's incidental to the game.
The world in Final Fantasy never "changes" outside of the story. "Stuff happens" in FFXI, as well. You have to play more than the first few missions to find it, though. You need to delve deeper into the world. This requires you become a high-level character, but once you are, there are many, many missions to go on. (And with the CoP expansion, there are a good number of missions for moderately-levelled players, too.)
Um, no. It's a hastle. A GIANT hastle. There's ONE GAME on PlayOnline: Final Fantasy XI. (Well, and their tech demo, Tetra Master.) There's no reason to have to touch PlayOnline. RTFA! The author is 100% correct.
I could barely put up with POL when I played on the PC, I can't imagine having to put up with it on the XBox360. POL is just an annoying hastle you have to go through to get to the game.
POL provides: Updates and information, chat, email, messaging, accounting, and it does it through an easy-to-use interface that doesn't require anything external, and works on any platform. If you don't like it, big deal; so you have to click an extra button or two before the game starts. The sound you hear is the world's tiniest violin, playing just for you. The people I know who play on the PC (which is actually most of them) have absolutely no problem with POL.
(In fact, when I first started playing WoW, for instance, I found that having to go to a website to register was quite tacky, and was annoyed I couldn't do it through the game.)
I am a LONG time fan of square, from back in the days of the original nes final fantasy games up though the "Secret of XXXXXXX" games and even up to FF7, but recently they have been pissing off a lot of long time fans such as myself by implementing dumb ideas like this. It seems that they are running out of ideas. Crystal Chronicals when compared to such gems as Chrono Trigger looks like they arent even trying anymore. There is no more story, there is no more feeling for the characters, there is no more fun. Just empty shells of what could have been really great games.
I'm not saying you're a troll, but I wonder exactly what you're talking about here. Specifically, what "dumb idea like this" you're referring to. Also the sanity of the article in question.
First, assuming you're referring to FFXI when you mean either "dumb ideas like this" or "there is no more story," this is far from true. FFXI has a very deep and long-running storyline; the fact it takes a lot of work to experience may turn off a lot of people, but no one is demanding they play it, either. In fact, I warn most people away from FFXI unless they have time to dedicate.
But the story is just about as Final-Fantasy-esque as they come. (There is even Cid!) I will not spoil it (and indeed I don't know a good bit of it, having not yet played all the way through it), but there is far, far more than your typical MMO, involving multiple large story arcs. Both current expansions (Rise of the Zilart and Chains of Promathia), as well as the upcoming Treasures of Aht Urhgan, are for the most part story additions, consisting of a large number of new missions.
While the game is obviously adapted toward a large multiplayer world, you still have all the typical Final Fantasy bits you'd expect, like riding chocobos, fighting large critters, summoning familiar faces, and going to weird magical worlds to save the planet. But you do it with your friends, and you are the characters that experience the story. (Given the fact FF1 and FF3 had "you" as the characters, not predefined roles, this not something unusual to the series.)
But it takes a major time dedication. This is not something you will finish in 50-100 hours. This is for people who want to have the time they spend now still paying off after a year, two years, three years down the road. (Although you will be "into" the game in a much shorter period of time.) It's not for everyone.
On the issue of PlayOnline, having used POL on a regular basis (being a FFXI player since the PS2 release), I can say (along with many who have played it since the PC beta) that POL is very nice. This is one benefit of "some companies" to leave the online handling to publishers; when they need an integrated multiplatform framework, they're not locked in by the platform.
The article basically boils down to "waah, this UI is just like the PS2 version!" What do they expect? The interface provides uniform features to two other platforms. Unless Microsoft wants to provide its Live functionality to other platforms, only exclusive titles are going to use it. This is something XBOX fans had better get used to.
Additionally, it's somewhat humorous to note the complaint about 6GB of space taken up for the hdd image. The X360 drive is suprisingly small... even the PS2 HDD is 40GB, and the FFXI image there (which loads completely and requires no disc) is 12-16GB now with all the expansions loaded. Yes, this is a big game. Don't complain to Square about having a lot of content, complain to Microsoft about having restrictively small media.
I don't think I'm with you on this one. I tend not to watch commercials because they are an attempt to coerce me into buying thing I don't need
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Do these ads lower a gun from your television and threaten to shoot you if you don't swipe your card? I didn't think so.
A commercial society (not necessarily a consumer society) needs advertisement to some extent. This can be anything from word of mouth to a herald on the streetcorner. Even if we had absolutely perfect search techology with everything perfectly indexed, there would be interesting, useful things that you could use that someone invented, but you didn't think to search for.
I'm not talking about the Whizmo fad that everyone thinks they have to have because it's the Next Great Thing, earns the makers a huge amount of money, and quickly disappears. This is the sort of scum we all hate.
I'm talking about truly useful products. These sorts of things are today mostly lost among the screaming shiny baubles of consumerism, but they do exist. And, ultimately, there needs to be a way for you to find out about them.
That is exactly what they are doing; merging the advertisements with content you want to watch.
That's not what I said. I didn't say "be deceptive and slip your product into what I'm watching", I said "make an advertisement I want to watch". I don't want to watch something filled with tacky product placement.
Um, isn't that precisely the point of doing product placement? You then end up watching a pleasant 44 minute or whatever commercial. If done correctly, it doesn't have to come across as a commercial (and if it does, people will tune out).
No, because there is no "done right": the point is invasive deception. Best case, I don't notice, and so the placement was worthless (or perhaps they hope for some "subliminal" effect). If I notice, it's just tacky, and I'm going to think the same of the product and the company in question. This goes for anything, including the latest BMW in a James Bond flick (which is pretty much one big running advertisement these days anyway).
I'm saying be artistic, and honest. The latter is a word that probably doesn't exist on the planet marketers come from. Then again, the former is probably some hideous disease there, too. But these are things that here on Earth, most people appreciate.
One final thing that always helps: have a product that doesn't suck. It's always nice. I understand the need to get the word about The Latest Thing you've come up with. That's cool. As long as it's not just rebranded sugar water with a shinier logo, to somehow grab people's attention. Spend some of that advertising budget on actually making something worthwhile. (Of course, the problem is it doesn't matter; that shiny new logo slapped on Crapola Cola Extreme results in far more sales than anything else. Such is the state of modern consumer culture, but I can change that on my end by refusing to buy the stuff.)
At least, however, if you're going to make an ad, don't make me hate you when I'm done watching it. For the third time. In ten minutes. Or I'll start an arms race to avoid it, and I will ultimately win.
The real solution is so simple, it may be beyond the grasp of marketers: make advertisements worth watching.
It's simple. Why do I skip commercials? They're annoying, loud, repetitive, gaudy, mindless. I don't want to watch them, and the producer believes I won't be watching them (I wonder why?), so they scream and shout to get my attention.
So make a commercial that's funny, witty, beautiful. And don't play it every commercial break. Make something I want to see again, and instead of skipping it, I'll take advantage of the TiVo and watch it again.
Such a thing is possible: such commercials already exist. They've few and far between, but we've probably all seen at least one or two. It's possible. If the existing ad agencies can't come up with them, find new ones. I bet there are a thousand independent filmmakers out there who could come up with 30 second clips that fit this bill on half the budget they usually spend.
This is the real solution, one that doesn't involve literally forcing us to watch with DRM and legislation. Which is going to alienate people? Making something they desire, or making it illegal to avoid something they don't?
Now that is more accurate. The original comment was along the lines of "everything is entirely fake and has no basis in reality", which is obviously not the case. At this point, as you basically say, we don't know; we'll see when we're looking at both side-to-side (and, more importantly, again in 4-5 years when the Nth generation games show us what the hardware can really do).
The Playstation3 footage was not created by PS3 hardware. This has been confirmed dozens of times, there is no 'argument'.
Wrong. It is possible that some of the footage was not realtime; at least some of it was (unless you'd like to claim the various realtime demos were scripted as well). However I challenge you to find any reputable (that means not some fanboy posting on a forum, or Tim Sweeney) evidence that it wasn't created on PS3 hardware. In fact, some of the 3D demos were created using only a Cell, no GPU. (I believe the main argument is that the GPU was not even created yet, which was accurate, but slower GPUs were available and it was possible to gauge the final power of the PS3 GPU.)
Additionally, a number of developers have said, up front, that a number of the demos were realtime. We have also seen the MGS4 trailer, which is also realtime, and which is easily on par with anything else shown at E3. So if the demos weren't realtime, they were still a demo of the final power of the PS3.
The Microsoft presentation had actual playable software. I was there, and people cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more.
And a lot of other people were there who said the PS3 took the show. It certainly took the show for many people who weren't there. Maybe you mean "I was there, and I cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more".
MS can have the honor of having their logo visible on a plastic box in my living room if they put out the best gaming system out there.
Hell, even if they put a game system out there that has a decent supply of must-play games. Or one history-setting game. I got a PSX for FF7. (I ended up with a lot more titles of course, but that was the seller for me.) I got a Cube, not because it had better graphics, or had a funky controller... it had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and some others. Enough to make it worth owning.
Microsoft doesn't get a place in my livingroom because, their being Microsoft aside, they don't have any games. That's all it's about. Halo was---maybe---an A title, maybe a B+ title. It's a FPS, and it didn't do anything special, other than being the only top exclusive title on its system. You don't buy a system for a single A/B+ title. You may buy it for a AAA title, or if it has a lot of B-A titles. But the XBOX had neither. Nor, as of yet, does the 360.
This is, perhaps---probably---why people give Sony the benefit of the doubt and bank on their systems. The PS1 had tons of good games. The PS2 had tons of good games. The PS3 already has a ton of good games. (And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, the PSP also has tons of good games.) So they're safe to bank on.
This is also why people give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt: there's always going to be Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Kart, and a legion of other Nintendo franchises. And even if there aren't a ton of them, they'll all be AAA titles.
So in the end, if your definition of "the best" means "the best library of games," then I think you're spot on.
Now Xbox Live is featuring some of those things, and that's where the comparison came from. I don't know the extent to MS's multimedia ambitions with Xbox Live, but they were surpassed by those of Sony with the PS2.
Well this is true for the most part; my point is that Sony didn't really promise anything other than what was delivered.
If you remember the PSX... not the PS1, but the PSX that was a PS2 with extra networking and TiVo-like abilities... they actually did try some of this. And it didn't really go over well (doubtless due to the $700 pricetag). Little reason to do a wider launch if such a thing failed in Japan, I guess.
If reviews did correlate to game sales, that would still be useless information to the publisher, as game reviews are an independent, objective evaluation of a game's enjoyability.
Unless they aren't.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:
Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSP): Two of the major complaints are that there are cops that chase you, and there isn't a storyline. In a racing game. About avoiding cops while racing.
Magna Carta: The major complaint is that it's difficult. (And that the voice acting is "perhaps the worst on the PS2", which means the reviewer hasn't played much. Like Ys VI.)
Legend of Heroes: The major complaint is basically that the story is unoriginal and the graphics are "simple". (Compare this to the Golden Sun review; Golden Sun has a far more generic storyline and very generic characters.)
I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.
A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)
So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)
So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.
Again, still no claims of any sort of "PlayStation Live" in this article. We have:
Microsoft has made the biggest promises for Xbox Live, but Sony will actually get to the Internet first. The giant consumer electronics conglomerate will release on Aug. 27 a network adapter that allows its PlayStation 2 game console to tap into a broadband or a dial-up Internet connection.
So, MS promises Live, Sony is going to ship a network adaptor.
Q: Will Sony do all the heavy lifting with online gaming via the PS2, as far as it concerns maintaining servers, doing player-matching--that kind of thing?
A: Some publishers have already invested a lot of money in building their own infrastructures, or they have deals with outsourcing companies--they've been in this business on the PC side for a while. They certainly want to leverage the infrastructure they've set up already.
Other publishers are new to this. Some may decide to outsource it; some may decide to invest in technology. We're not going to mandate how they should approach it.
Specifically: "We're not going to mandate how they should approach it." This is Sony explicitly stating they will not have a Live-like service. What more needs said?
Will there be subscription charges?
It's also open as far as whether they want to charge a subscription. For the 13 titles we're going to see by the end of the year, those are nonsubscription services. But if and when publishers come up with titles they think warrant a subscription fee, they're free to do that.
It's an open-ended proposition for the consumer, too. We're not mandating how they get online. If you already have an ISP (Internet service provider), you're pretty much good to go.
Again, an "open-ended proposition" which has no necessary subscription fees or explicit model.
Some publishers are going to need to buy servers, set up login and authentication systems and do all kinds of expensive stuff to make online gaming work. Are there ways to reduce the investment it takes to get online?
Each publisher is going to have an approach that makes sense for them. Someone like Electronic Arts, where they already have a big online infrastructure, I don't know that they're going to need to invest much to get their PS2 games online. On the other hand, smaller Japanese publishers may need to make some adjustments.
Again, publishers will need to do their own thing.
There's been a lot of speculation about using game consoles for other tasks, from e-mail to music playback. What do you see as the function of the game console a couple of years out?
Given the functionality the PS2 has right out of the box--with the DVD capability, audio CDs, and now the network adapter bringing it online--I think it's one of the most versatile entertainment platforms you're going to have in the living room.
And it's very important, when you go online, to know you're part of a very large community of PS2 users you can interact with. You can try to be the center of the home digital network, but if you don't have the installed base to create a large community, the experience just isn't that good.
"There's a lot of speculation", but here it's stated that DVD and CD playback are what make it an "entertainment platform". The final line is an obvious jab at Microsoft's long-tried goal of a "home digital network" and the fact the installed base won't be anything near the PS2.
So tell me, where in this article is Sony promising a Live-like service again, despite multiple repeated comments to the contrary?
Sony barely beat MS online (with a year head start), the HDD barely even released in the states, and Sony promised pretty much what Xbox Live currently is back when the console was in its infancy, and they failed to deliver.
They did? Where? They say the same thing about the PS3 they said about the PS2... that the hardware would be there, and the developers could use it as they saw fit. Where did they ever say they'd deliver XBOX Live?
Also, on the Toy Stoy matter, no I can't find quotes relating the a Sony exec to it, but countless previews did, and that's where the correlation comes from.
"Countless previews did"? So basically, some journalists made things up, and you blame Sony?
I remember reading a Popular Science article on it which pretty much blatantly stated that it was as powerful as the machines that were used to create Toy Story.
Citation please? Otherwise this is unsubstantiated bullshit. Which it is, anyway, because Toy Story was made on a large rendering cluster. You could probably build a nice rendering cluster of PS2s, but even if that's what they claimed, it's not what you're saying.
So the implication was there but they cleverly avoided making quotable statements, as far as I care.
So, they didn't actually say anything or mislead anyone, but you're happy to spread misinformation and you don't care that it is.
It seems to be SOP for them to make as many deniable claims as possible to boast their machine up ("Spring 2006" launch announcement comes to mind, but TFA indicates that they feel more bold now) and quickly point out that their statements were taken out of context if the need ever arises.
They didn't make "deniable claims" in the first place. They didn't claim any such thing at all! For people who would otherwise claim to demand factual evidence for everything, there seems to be a lot of stubborn belief that something happened despite every fact to the contrary.
I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.
I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:
Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date
The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).
The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:
Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:
Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.
The PSP is the gamegear 2.0, Sony has horridly failed to dethrone Nintendo in the handheld space, and unless something drastic happens, soon, it's all-but-dead. Things are bleak, hope you didn't buy one.
Eh. We'll see. It hasn't even been a year yet, no less five. Far too soon to look back and tell. Remember, the PS1 had a really, really slow start as well. They were also up against Nintendo, and Sega. Two huge names in the industry, and no one expects the Playstation to go anywhere. Nor did it, for awhile; then it got its killer app, that the competition couldn't run: FF7. The rest is history.
Now they're breaking into another new area: handhelds. They're up against Nintendo, again. It's a slow start. Maybe they'll succeed, maybe not, but it's already worth owning based on the games that are already out. When the PS3 hits, and possibly has various PSP tie-ins, things could change yet again. We'll see. The race isn't over; it's barely begun.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah well, where the drivers reside aside, is the OS still based on the assumption it's a GUI? Specifically, do we still have the idiotic and juvenile system architecture that specifies window parameters to low-level system calls? Like say, CreateProcess taking window parameters?
Or have they actually revamped the kernel no longer requires or assumes a GUI at all? Have they finally caught up to 1970?
The big, bad, evil Sony has something like that. And it even streams TV to those useless PSPs everyone seems to hate. Apparently, you can change the channel, and stream TV from anyone (not just your own device).
It's the Dilbert Principle.
That's what I said about the X360 when I saw the Revolution and PS3!
Or at least a few hundred thousand. Actually, since no one can buy one anyway, they might as well take advantage of the downtime and upgrade them! Call it the XBOX 360.11 for Workgroups.
Dude, that's so last week.
Get a Gamestation 256! It's slightly faster ... to the MAX!
Oh, always... "back in my day when we didn't have computers", etc, but I was referring to things that were precursors to Sid-Meier-like games.
Seriously, especially for those of us who remember stuff like M.U.L.E. (more info), even the first Civilization wasn't "back in the day".
This may be suprising, but a lot of people have subscribed to the internet only for FFXI or other console games, and therefore may not have a web browser available. This isn't the case for a PC-only RPG like WoW, where you need a fair beast of a machine to play it, but it is for a console MMORPG. (See pages 8-10 of the PS2 manual which refer to various direct-connect configurations, both ethernet and modem.)
Let's see, page 24 of the manual under "Registration Process", we have:
Additionally, if all methods of interaction are denied you; you tossed the manual, you broke your PS2, you lost your mind and can't use a phone book or call the operator, you can at last resort call the credit card company and either try to find contact information, or charge back a payment, which according to page 26 will cause your account to be suspended, and thus you're home free. That was hard.
So are you lying, or can't you read?
So I have my console hooked up, possibly to the only internet connection available, then I find I have to go register on some website. Then, given I have a computer, and it's hooked up, I have to copy registration information across.
Or, on the PC, I start the game, go to log in, and realize I now have to quit the game, launch a web browser, and register. Then write down all my information, start the game up, and type it in again.
Or, with PlayOnline, I can start the game, enter my information, and start playing, and have a center for communicating with fellow players and the like. And it works the same on any platform I play on.
I agree, and this is a really stupid decision by Sony. Working Designs has over the year put out some "less popular" but wonderful, high-quality imports. Not having the talent these guys have is just stupid.
Some of the recent picks have been... questionable. Growlanser Generations was not great, from all reports, and neither have a few of the other recent picks. On the other hand, this is hardly an acceptable excuse, given the loads of crap we see from places like EA or Activision that produce movie titles or similar tie-ins. Any WD game is far better than these.
If anything, Sony should have invested in these or made them a first-party talent. While it's possible another side to the story is missing here, unless all the good people had already left WD, this is a sorry loss.
If Microsoft released patches right away and didn't have a history of patches that broke everything and introduced more holes... people would complain less.
OK... now, I'm a total Square fan. Hell I've spent more time playing the FFXII demo than DQ8 (not that I don't like the latter, but I'll get to it after WA:ACF).
That said, what exactly in most Square games is there to the story besides cutscenes? I mean really: you talk to someone and get dialog or cutscene. Then you fight your way around until you get to a boss, and another cutscene which furthers the story. Honestly I can't think of anything that has ever really influenced the storyline. I like the games, because they're fun and they have good stories, but ... they're pretty much the same thing!
In FFXI, it's the same. There is longer between scenes, perhaps, and they're significantly more difficult, but ... you still talk to people for tidbits of information, and then you go off to fight a battle or get an item somewhere or put an item somewhere, and you get a cutscene to further the story when you're done. Maybe you don't feel as "involved" in the process; admittedly the general lack of actual roleplay on most servers isn't conducive to an immersive environment, but still. It's the same thing.
I would recommend you find an RP Linkshell if you really want to get into this. (And be careful; avoid "RP" linkshells which are full of angsty emo kids. Drop them immediately.) They exist in varying degrees; you can probably find a few friends and do this yourself if you desire. To this extent, MMOs in general will require a bit of participation to complete the loop on your end. They can't force you to act in character without draconian oversight, but just because you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't. RP can be a great deal of fun and make all the difference in the world.
The world in Final Fantasy never "changes" outside of the story. "Stuff happens" in FFXI, as well. You have to play more than the first few missions to find it, though. You need to delve deeper into the world. This requires you become a high-level character, but once you are, there are many, many missions to go on. (And with the CoP expansion, there are a good number of missions for moderately-levelled players, too.)
POL provides: Updates and information, chat, email, messaging, accounting, and it does it through an easy-to-use interface that doesn't require anything external, and works on any platform. If you don't like it, big deal; so you have to click an extra button or two before the game starts. The sound you hear is the world's tiniest violin, playing just for you. The people I know who play on the PC (which is actually most of them) have absolutely no problem with POL.
(In fact, when I first started playing WoW, for instance, I found that having to go to a website to register was quite tacky, and was annoyed I couldn't do it through the game.)
I'm not saying you're a troll, but I wonder exactly what you're talking about here. Specifically, what "dumb idea like this" you're referring to. Also the sanity of the article in question.
First, assuming you're referring to FFXI when you mean either "dumb ideas like this" or "there is no more story," this is far from true. FFXI has a very deep and long-running storyline; the fact it takes a lot of work to experience may turn off a lot of people, but no one is demanding they play it, either. In fact, I warn most people away from FFXI unless they have time to dedicate.
But the story is just about as Final-Fantasy-esque as they come. (There is even Cid!) I will not spoil it (and indeed I don't know a good bit of it, having not yet played all the way through it), but there is far, far more than your typical MMO, involving multiple large story arcs. Both current expansions (Rise of the Zilart and Chains of Promathia), as well as the upcoming Treasures of Aht Urhgan, are for the most part story additions, consisting of a large number of new missions.
While the game is obviously adapted toward a large multiplayer world, you still have all the typical Final Fantasy bits you'd expect, like riding chocobos, fighting large critters, summoning familiar faces, and going to weird magical worlds to save the planet. But you do it with your friends, and you are the characters that experience the story. (Given the fact FF1 and FF3 had "you" as the characters, not predefined roles, this not something unusual to the series.)
But it takes a major time dedication. This is not something you will finish in 50-100 hours. This is for people who want to have the time they spend now still paying off after a year, two years, three years down the road. (Although you will be "into" the game in a much shorter period of time.) It's not for everyone.
On the issue of PlayOnline, having used POL on a regular basis (being a FFXI player since the PS2 release), I can say (along with many who have played it since the PC beta) that POL is very nice. This is one benefit of "some companies" to leave the online handling to publishers; when they need an integrated multiplatform framework, they're not locked in by the platform.
The article basically boils down to "waah, this UI is just like the PS2 version!" What do they expect? The interface provides uniform features to two other platforms. Unless Microsoft wants to provide its Live functionality to other platforms, only exclusive titles are going to use it. This is something XBOX fans had better get used to.
Additionally, it's somewhat humorous to note the complaint about 6GB of space taken up for the hdd image. The X360 drive is suprisingly small... even the PS2 HDD is 40GB, and the FFXI image there (which loads completely and requires no disc) is 12-16GB now with all the expansions loaded. Yes, this is a big game. Don't complain to Square about having a lot of content, complain to Microsoft about having restrictively small media.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Do these ads lower a gun from your television and threaten to shoot you if you don't swipe your card? I didn't think so.
A commercial society (not necessarily a consumer society) needs advertisement to some extent. This can be anything from word of mouth to a herald on the streetcorner. Even if we had absolutely perfect search techology with everything perfectly indexed, there would be interesting, useful things that you could use that someone invented, but you didn't think to search for.
I'm not talking about the Whizmo fad that everyone thinks they have to have because it's the Next Great Thing, earns the makers a huge amount of money, and quickly disappears. This is the sort of scum we all hate.
I'm talking about truly useful products. These sorts of things are today mostly lost among the screaming shiny baubles of consumerism, but they do exist. And, ultimately, there needs to be a way for you to find out about them.
That's not what I said. I didn't say "be deceptive and slip your product into what I'm watching", I said "make an advertisement I want to watch". I don't want to watch something filled with tacky product placement.
No, because there is no "done right": the point is invasive deception. Best case, I don't notice, and so the placement was worthless (or perhaps they hope for some "subliminal" effect). If I notice, it's just tacky, and I'm going to think the same of the product and the company in question. This goes for anything, including the latest BMW in a James Bond flick (which is pretty much one big running advertisement these days anyway).
I'm saying be artistic, and honest. The latter is a word that probably doesn't exist on the planet marketers come from. Then again, the former is probably some hideous disease there, too. But these are things that here on Earth, most people appreciate.
One final thing that always helps: have a product that doesn't suck. It's always nice. I understand the need to get the word about The Latest Thing you've come up with. That's cool. As long as it's not just rebranded sugar water with a shinier logo, to somehow grab people's attention. Spend some of that advertising budget on actually making something worthwhile. (Of course, the problem is it doesn't matter; that shiny new logo slapped on Crapola Cola Extreme results in far more sales than anything else. Such is the state of modern consumer culture, but I can change that on my end by refusing to buy the stuff.)
At least, however, if you're going to make an ad, don't make me hate you when I'm done watching it. For the third time. In ten minutes. Or I'll start an arms race to avoid it, and I will ultimately win.
The real solution is so simple, it may be beyond the grasp of marketers: make advertisements worth watching.
It's simple. Why do I skip commercials? They're annoying, loud, repetitive, gaudy, mindless. I don't want to watch them, and the producer believes I won't be watching them (I wonder why?), so they scream and shout to get my attention.
So make a commercial that's funny, witty, beautiful. And don't play it every commercial break. Make something I want to see again, and instead of skipping it, I'll take advantage of the TiVo and watch it again.
Such a thing is possible: such commercials already exist. They've few and far between, but we've probably all seen at least one or two. It's possible. If the existing ad agencies can't come up with them, find new ones. I bet there are a thousand independent filmmakers out there who could come up with 30 second clips that fit this bill on half the budget they usually spend.
This is the real solution, one that doesn't involve literally forcing us to watch with DRM and legislation. Which is going to alienate people? Making something they desire, or making it illegal to avoid something they don't?
Now that is more accurate. The original comment was along the lines of "everything is entirely fake and has no basis in reality", which is obviously not the case. At this point, as you basically say, we don't know; we'll see when we're looking at both side-to-side (and, more importantly, again in 4-5 years when the Nth generation games show us what the hardware can really do).
Wrong. It is possible that some of the footage was not realtime; at least some of it was (unless you'd like to claim the various realtime demos were scripted as well). However I challenge you to find any reputable (that means not some fanboy posting on a forum, or Tim Sweeney) evidence that it wasn't created on PS3 hardware. In fact, some of the 3D demos were created using only a Cell, no GPU. (I believe the main argument is that the GPU was not even created yet, which was accurate, but slower GPUs were available and it was possible to gauge the final power of the PS3 GPU.)
Additionally, a number of developers have said, up front, that a number of the demos were realtime. We have also seen the MGS4 trailer, which is also realtime, and which is easily on par with anything else shown at E3. So if the demos weren't realtime, they were still a demo of the final power of the PS3.
And a lot of other people were there who said the PS3 took the show. It certainly took the show for many people who weren't there. Maybe you mean "I was there, and I cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more".
Hell, even if they put a game system out there that has a decent supply of must-play games. Or one history-setting game. I got a PSX for FF7. (I ended up with a lot more titles of course, but that was the seller for me.) I got a Cube, not because it had better graphics, or had a funky controller... it had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and some others. Enough to make it worth owning.
Microsoft doesn't get a place in my livingroom because, their being Microsoft aside, they don't have any games. That's all it's about. Halo was---maybe---an A title, maybe a B+ title. It's a FPS, and it didn't do anything special, other than being the only top exclusive title on its system. You don't buy a system for a single A/B+ title. You may buy it for a AAA title, or if it has a lot of B-A titles. But the XBOX had neither. Nor, as of yet, does the 360.
This is, perhaps---probably---why people give Sony the benefit of the doubt and bank on their systems. The PS1 had tons of good games. The PS2 had tons of good games. The PS3 already has a ton of good games. (And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, the PSP also has tons of good games.) So they're safe to bank on.
This is also why people give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt: there's always going to be Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Kart, and a legion of other Nintendo franchises. And even if there aren't a ton of them, they'll all be AAA titles.
So in the end, if your definition of "the best" means "the best library of games," then I think you're spot on.
Well this is true for the most part; my point is that Sony didn't really promise anything other than what was delivered.
If you remember the PSX... not the PS1, but the PSX that was a PS2 with extra networking and TiVo-like abilities... they actually did try some of this. And it didn't really go over well (doubtless due to the $700 pricetag). Little reason to do a wider launch if such a thing failed in Japan, I guess.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:
I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.
A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)
So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)
So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.
But probably not.
Again, still no claims of any sort of "PlayStation Live" in this article. We have:
So, MS promises Live, Sony is going to ship a network adaptor.
Specifically: "We're not going to mandate how they should approach it." This is Sony explicitly stating they will not have a Live-like service. What more needs said?
Again, an "open-ended proposition" which has no necessary subscription fees or explicit model.
Again, publishers will need to do their own thing.
"There's a lot of speculation", but here it's stated that DVD and CD playback are what make it an "entertainment platform". The final line is an obvious jab at Microsoft's long-tried goal of a "home digital network" and the fact the installed base won't be anything near the PS2.
So tell me, where in this article is Sony promising a Live-like service again, despite multiple repeated comments to the contrary?
They did? Where? They say the same thing about the PS3 they said about the PS2... that the hardware would be there, and the developers could use it as they saw fit. Where did they ever say they'd deliver XBOX Live?
"Countless previews did"? So basically, some journalists made things up, and you blame Sony?
Citation please? Otherwise this is unsubstantiated bullshit. Which it is, anyway, because Toy Story was made on a large rendering cluster. You could probably build a nice rendering cluster of PS2s, but even if that's what they claimed, it's not what you're saying.
So, they didn't actually say anything or mislead anyone, but you're happy to spread misinformation and you don't care that it is.
They didn't make "deniable claims" in the first place. They didn't claim any such thing at all! For people who would otherwise claim to demand factual evidence for everything, there seems to be a lot of stubborn belief that something happened despite every fact to the contrary.
Er, yes they did.
I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:
The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).
The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:
Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:
Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:
Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.
Eh. We'll see. It hasn't even been a year yet, no less five. Far too soon to look back and tell. Remember, the PS1 had a really, really slow start as well. They were also up against Nintendo, and Sega. Two huge names in the industry, and no one expects the Playstation to go anywhere. Nor did it, for awhile; then it got its killer app, that the competition couldn't run: FF7. The rest is history.
Now they're breaking into another new area: handhelds. They're up against Nintendo, again. It's a slow start. Maybe they'll succeed, maybe not, but it's already worth owning based on the games that are already out. When the PS3 hits, and possibly has various PSP tie-ins, things could change yet again. We'll see. The race isn't over; it's barely begun.