"You have no idea what you're talking about. Let me clue you in."
If that wasn't flaimbait then I don't what is, but anyway...
I work in the industry, and I can tell you that you really, really, do not have a clue what you are talking about.
The only magazines that get versions from when the game has gone gold are those fairly uneducated "lifestyle" magazines (perhaps you work for one of them?). All the major games mags regularly get "unfinished" versions (normally post Beta), although 99% of the time the only things different between these versions and what end up in the stores is usually a few bugs, standards failures (console manufacturers are quite strict) and perhaps a bit of artwork. The time between a game going gold, and hitting the shelves is usually too short to allow the magazines to review finished games and have their mags on the shelves before the game comes out (the mags would be pretty useless if they couldn't do that).
Most games mags get "special" versions of the game at least a month before the game goes gold, along with a list of things that will be fixed before it hits the shops (frame rate improvements, bugs fixed, etc.).
The only time mags get final versions are if:
(a) The game is finished long before its release (i.e. they are delaying the game for the Xmas rush).
(b) The mag in question can't be trusted to ignore the faults in their review copy (mainstream "lifestyle" mags for example)
If you look carefully at the screenshots they use you will occasionally see how they are subtly different to the finished product.
I'm probably replying too late for anyone to actually bother reading this... but just in case anyone cares (Oh and for the record IAAGD (I Am A Game Developer)):
1) The economic reasoning for launching a console at a loss is pretty simple -
1.1) It is a damn tough market, i.e. at least 3 competitors per generaton (e.g. Saturn vs PS1 vs N64 OR Dreamcast vs PS2 vs Gamecube vs XBox) whilst most consumers are only willing to buy one platform per generation.
1.2) You can only really launch one console every 4 years at most (presuming a consistent R&D process along with Moore's Law so that the next generation is significantly different as to warrant a consumer purchase and game development in its own right (Note: At the moment (i.e. random observed value that is actually surprisingly accurate) It takes about a year and a half after launch to start getting anywhere near the most out of a given platform). You really don't want to muck up and miss between 4 and 6 years of major sales that are licenced through you just because they competitors out-priced, out-marketed or out-gamed you.
1.3) Combine the two above... and you can see that in a 4 year period you could try making a profit on the console but... (A) You'd start getting expensive enough as to compete with PCs, and in this market you want as little competition as possible... AND (B) Any other manufacturer could choose the opposite strategy, and make a loss on the console, saturate and control the market, sell its licenced games at an extreme profit (it would have no competitors as everyone owns their console and no-one else's, therefore they would effectively be in a Monopoly situation)... So it doesn't happen. Any console manufacturer tries to make the console's appeal as big as possible (i.e. some magic combination of marketing muscle (e.g. Wow That is Cool, I must have one), power to price ratio and fantastic games (i.e. exclusive titles, good examples being Mario and Pokemon for Nintendo, Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo for Sony, Sonic and the Virtua series for Sega (although since their hardware collapse this is obviously now more of a history lesson...)))
1.4) The console manufacturer/licencer can charge whatever they want from the developers etc. For example (this is reasonably accurate based on my knowledge amd experiences but it varies across platforms / publishers / developers / games), for a given price in the high street, the shop will be taking about 20%, the publisher about 25%, the developer about 10% and the console manufacturer/licencer about 45%. Therefore the console manufacturer can pull in obscene amounts of money from just a couple of big selling titles.
Examples of current console's prices/cost would be (1) the Xbox is selling for a large loss (at least 100$), whilst (2) Nintendo Gamecube is selling at no major loss, and yet the price of a Gamecube on the street compared to an Xbox will be about 100$ less... How does that work you may ask (especially given that they are of fairly similar power), well it is basically down to the design - Microsoft are trying to smash their way into the market with lots of BIG POWERFUL components cobbled together whilst Nintendo have gone for the slightly more modest approach in terms of components BUT whilst matching all of these components and the way that they interact very efficiently. In terms of cost and efficieny you could place Sony somewhere between the two (nearer the Nintendo end, mind...), Sony's only mistake being the programming complexity which appears to have done little to put off developers as the platform choices are so small (PC games are too easy to pirate, the Dreamcast having died (despite being a very good system, it just lacked marketing along with the fact that Sega screwed up the Saturn so much) and no other consoles out for over a year after PS2's release)
Note, the contradicting PC example of how various manufacturers might sell their products is pretty much irrelevant as they are competing in an entirely different market - MANY hardware manufacturers, each with NO control/licencing of software on the given platform.
...I can't believe most of the opinions in the comments I've just read.
When I first read about Nintendo's statement a couple of days ago my instant reaction was that they were really saying "at E3, we are going to blow all of your minds".
The hardware specs look good enough to compete with the XBox and PS2, and even more importantly they have the talent in games development (to this date nothing scheduled for the XBox looks to hot, and they lack Japanese support).
Nintendo aren't small or in trouble as some people here seem to think - the Pokemon franchise alone is worth _double_ what the entire US games industry is worth.
The GBA is an incredible machine (I've got one with F-Zero, and I can't put it down), and there are reportedly going to be some great uses of the GBA with the gamecube. The GBA is also the fastest selling console ever.
Nintendo don't just make kiddy games, they are fantastic whatever your age - "hardcore gamer" magazines such as Edge (in the UK) give 9/10 to most Nintendo games that I've seen.
Anyway, back to the point, Gamecube In Danger? IMHO absolutely not.
That is no different really to if the game crashes, I'd guess that almost all crashes whilst playing a game are going to be the game's fault. In my experience apps crash on Linux at least as frequently as they do under Windows, they just don't bring the whole OS down (which is of course good, but not such a big deal when you are only interested in running that one app).
"Why should I reboot to an O/S with crappier apps for the stuff I do regularly just to play a game?"
Surely the apps are actually normally better on Windows (well things like Office are for sure), and OS stability etc. isn't such a big deal when gaming.
"I don't have a windoze partition on any of my computers. Haven't since 1993, when I first discovered the joys of running OS/2."
Always amuses me when people diss something they haven't used for 8 years.
Personally, there are very few PC games that interest me full stop, console games is where all the innovation is. The PC industry is struggling as it is because of Piracy, surely the smaller market (and something for nothing mentality) with Linux is even less likely to be worth any cash...
Slashdot Mirror
"You have no idea what you're talking about. Let me clue you in."
If that wasn't flaimbait then I don't what is, but anyway...
I work in the industry, and I can tell you that you really, really, do not have a clue what you are talking about.
The only magazines that get versions from when the game has gone gold are those fairly uneducated "lifestyle" magazines (perhaps you work for one of them?). All the major games mags regularly get "unfinished" versions (normally post Beta), although 99% of the time the only things different between these versions and what end up in the stores is usually a few bugs, standards failures (console manufacturers are quite strict) and perhaps a bit of artwork. The time between a game going gold, and hitting the shelves is usually too short to allow the magazines to review finished games and have their mags on the shelves before the game comes out (the mags would be pretty useless if they couldn't do that).
Most games mags get "special" versions of the game at least a month before the game goes gold, along with a list of things that will be fixed before it hits the shops (frame rate improvements, bugs fixed, etc.).
The only time mags get final versions are if:
(a) The game is finished long before its release (i.e. they are delaying the game for the Xmas rush).
(b) The mag in question can't be trusted to ignore the faults in their review copy (mainstream "lifestyle" mags for example)
If you look carefully at the screenshots they use you will occasionally see how they are subtly different to the finished product.
Nitpicky I know, but I think the limit works out to be more like 500ml (just less than a pint) of 5%ABV beer (e.g. Kronenbourg, Stella).
I'm probably replying too late for anyone to actually bother reading this... but just in case anyone cares (Oh and for the record IAAGD (I Am A Game Developer)):
1) The economic reasoning for launching a console at a loss is pretty simple -
1.1) It is a damn tough market, i.e. at least 3 competitors per generaton (e.g. Saturn vs PS1 vs N64 OR Dreamcast vs PS2 vs Gamecube vs XBox) whilst most consumers are only willing to buy one platform per generation.
1.2) You can only really launch one console every 4 years at most (presuming a consistent R&D process along with Moore's Law so that the next generation is significantly different as to warrant a consumer purchase and game development in its own right (Note: At the moment (i.e. random observed value that is actually surprisingly accurate) It takes about a year and a half after launch to start getting anywhere near the most out of a given platform). You really don't want to muck up and miss between 4 and 6 years of major sales that are licenced through you just because they competitors out-priced, out-marketed or out-gamed you.
1.3) Combine the two above... and you can see that in a 4 year period you could try making a profit on the console but... (A) You'd start getting expensive enough as to compete with PCs, and in this market you want as little competition as possible... AND (B) Any other manufacturer could choose the opposite strategy, and make a loss on the console, saturate and control the market, sell its licenced games at an extreme profit (it would have no competitors as everyone owns their console and no-one else's, therefore they would effectively be in a Monopoly situation)... So it doesn't happen. Any console manufacturer tries to make the console's appeal as big as possible (i.e. some magic combination of marketing muscle (e.g. Wow That is Cool, I must have one), power to price ratio and fantastic games (i.e. exclusive titles, good examples being Mario and Pokemon for Nintendo, Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo for Sony, Sonic and the Virtua series for Sega (although since their hardware collapse this is obviously now more of a history lesson...)))
1.4) The console manufacturer/licencer can charge whatever they want from the developers etc. For example (this is reasonably accurate based on my knowledge amd experiences but it varies across platforms / publishers / developers / games), for a given price in the high street, the shop will be taking about 20%, the publisher about 25%, the developer about 10% and the console manufacturer/licencer about 45%. Therefore the console manufacturer can pull in obscene amounts of money from just a couple of big selling titles.
Examples of current console's prices/cost would be (1) the Xbox is selling for a large loss (at least 100$), whilst (2) Nintendo Gamecube is selling at no major loss, and yet the price of a Gamecube on the street compared to an Xbox will be about 100$ less... How does that work you may ask (especially given that they are of fairly similar power), well it is basically down to the design - Microsoft are trying to smash their way into the market with lots of BIG POWERFUL components cobbled together whilst Nintendo have gone for the slightly more modest approach in terms of components BUT whilst matching all of these components and the way that they interact very efficiently. In terms of cost and efficieny you could place Sony somewhere between the two (nearer the Nintendo end, mind...), Sony's only mistake being the programming complexity which appears to have done little to put off developers as the platform choices are so small (PC games are too easy to pirate, the Dreamcast having died (despite being a very good system, it just lacked marketing along with the fact that Sega screwed up the Saturn so much) and no other consoles out for over a year after PS2's release)
Note, the contradicting PC example of how various manufacturers might sell their products is pretty much irrelevant as they are competing in an entirely different market - MANY hardware manufacturers, each with NO control/licencing of software on the given platform.
...I can't believe most of the opinions in the comments I've just read.
When I first read about Nintendo's statement a couple of days ago my instant reaction was that they were really saying "at E3, we are going to blow all of your minds".
The hardware specs look good enough to compete with the XBox and PS2, and even more importantly they have the talent in games development (to this date nothing scheduled for the XBox looks to hot, and they lack Japanese support).
Nintendo aren't small or in trouble as some people here seem to think - the Pokemon franchise alone is worth _double_ what the entire US games industry is worth.
The GBA is an incredible machine (I've got one with F-Zero, and I can't put it down), and there are reportedly going to be some great uses of the GBA with the gamecube. The GBA is also the fastest selling console ever.
Nintendo don't just make kiddy games, they are fantastic whatever your age - "hardcore gamer" magazines such as Edge (in the UK) give 9/10 to most Nintendo games that I've seen.
Anyway, back to the point, Gamecube In Danger? IMHO absolutely not.
That is no different really to if the game crashes, I'd guess that almost all crashes whilst playing a game are going to be the game's fault. In my experience apps crash on Linux at least as frequently as they do under Windows, they just don't bring the whole OS down (which is of course good, but not such a big deal when you are only interested in running that one app).
"Why should I reboot to an O/S with crappier apps for the stuff I do regularly just to play a game?"
Surely the apps are actually normally better on Windows (well things like Office are for sure), and OS stability etc. isn't such a big deal when gaming.
"I don't have a windoze partition on any of my computers. Haven't since 1993, when I first discovered the joys of running OS/2."
Always amuses me when people diss something they haven't used for 8 years.
Personally, there are very few PC games that interest me full stop, console games is where all the innovation is. The PC industry is struggling as it is because of Piracy, surely the smaller market (and something for nothing mentality) with Linux is even less likely to be worth any cash...