I don't know why people keep bringing up Super Smash Bros. It's not relevant. Never has been. People like to tout that they get a couple hundred people to show up to Smash Bros Tournaments. Quake and UT bring in thousands. All Smash Bros. is is a button-masher's fighter.
I watched the entire presentation. I was underwhelmed. The graphics looked very close to Xbox 360 graphics (which falls in line with what developers were saying). The GT demo in particular had popup. The media store isn't going to be able to compete with iTunes. The controller, while it does have tilt features, doesn't work in a 3d space like Revolution (sorry: Wii -- absolutely hate that fucking name). No one is going to stick a PSP to the side of their TV as a rearview mirror in a racing game. You only get true HD resolution if you pony up $600.
The only thing I found remotely cool about the presentation was the idea of playing emulated PS1 games on my PSP. Then I realized that most PS1 games filled up entire CDs (or more than 1) -- how many are you going to be able to fit on the largest of memory sticks?
I picked up an Xbox 360 when it first came out and aside from a few titles (and the arcade, which is cool) it's been underwhelming. Nintendo is the last one to try to make this year of gaming interesting. Only other thing that can do it is Spore.
I already paid $150 for my silver one. Yes, it's bulky, but at least I can stick the GBA games in all the way.
At this point, considering the PSP library is getting better and there's rumors they'll be launching one with better battery life and a hard drive, you'd think Nintendo would drop down to $99. $130 is a lot of cash for a parent to drop on a kid's system.
"It's really different to have a separate entity promote your product and having yourself putting forward another of your product."
You don't think Google had some say with Safari's searchbox? Do you think Apple put a searchbox for only one provider out of the goodness of their heart? You're fooling yourself.
I wish people would stop calling marketing "PR" and PR "marketing". I've worked with years (unfortuantely) with both marketing and PR people. I know it's popular to confuse the two (even within companies) but they are not the same thing.
Marketing - is the act of propping up goods or services so they sell more. Advertising would fall under marketing (although they are usually kept separate in department charts). The sole purpose of marketing is to get items and services to sell more.
Public Relations (PR) - is the bomb defuser. They're the guys you go to when the CEO makes a monumental speaking blunder or your factories dump toxic waste into rivers. PR tries to soften the blow (and prop up the company image) -- an often nearly impossible task (that is why most PR people don't stay in any one position too long). Occasionally they'll go on the offensive, such as when the company gives to a charity (they'll issue a press release), but PRs primary role isn't to sell things. It's to save things.
With the word "Wii", I can assure you that PR people had nothing to do with it. This was purely a marketing decision, and the PR people are likely going to have to pay for it. Every parent that asks "Why did you make me ask for urine in a videogame store?" is going to have to be dealt with.
So, in summary, stop confusing marketing with PR. Thanks.
And I don't mean terrible in a "ha ha make fun of Microsoft" way. I mean terrible period.:P Who thought that a highly irritating ad would be a good idea?
Re:Don't forget the most important Nintendo name
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
There are no references in that article besides a single link to Kevin Bryan's book, which has been proven to be largely inaccurate. This is why you don't trust Wikipedia -- particularly with little to no references.
Fact of the matter: I was working (and still am freelancing) for popular gaming rags. We had the blue developer Playstations months before the public (I particularly recall "the pill trick" -- putting an Advil in a regular PS1 to boot up press alphas of games). We were in conversations with Sony for 2 years prior, as they wanted to drum up interest. The story I was told is accurate from the guys who wrote it.
If you want to believe Wikipedia, be my guest. The reality is that Nintendo had less of an effect on Sony than people give them credit for. There was never even a working SNES CD prototype that interfaced with the console. You can prove it yourself by looking at the hardware and assembly code for the Rev A PS1. There's not a single line of code or even a likely bus on the board where it could be used with the SNES. That's because they never really got that far before Nintendo aborted the project. It was for all intents and purposes a commercial CD player strapped to the SNES chassis. Sony rebuilt from scratch.
Re:Don't forget the most important Nintendo name
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
Incorrect. The original name of the CD addon by Nintendo was the "SNES CD". Sony completely rebuilt the addon from the ground up and came up with their own name: "Powerstation". American Sony executives felt it sounded more like a battery charger than a game system, so it was rechristened "Playstation". Look it up.
Re:A long historical tradition of dumb names
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
You said two things: it was subjective (which I agree with) and that subjective posts are without merit. The second statement is moronic -- every post on this story is subjective. There's no purely analytical way to approach the subject of console names.
As for my opinions in particular, they are shared by many. People constantly bring up the "kiddie factor" with Nintendo products. Where do you think they get that idea from? My guess is star-shaped console designs and certain product names (notice they called it "Game Boy", not "Game Man").
You seem like you're an ardent Nintendo fan -- you appear to have owned every console. I have too (but I also purchase every other console out there -- my income is largely disposable). If you have watched Nintendo over the years, you know they have a serious image problem. They make good games, they make pretty good consoles -- but they don't sell as much. Why? Why did people rush to buy the Xbox 360 even though the games were lackluster? It's because Microsoft formulated an image (along with the MTV special) that portrayed the console as sophisticated and cool. Whether you agree with that "subjective" opinion or not, thousands camped out the day the console was released. Will we see the same with Wii? Doubt it. (I recall going into EB the first day N64 came out and literally picked one up off the shelf. Barely anyone cared that it had been launched).
The name "Wii" is dumb, pure and simple. If they wanted to really portray the idea of "getting together", "We" would've sufficed. Instead, they're going to get moms and dads heading into Gamestops this Christmas asking for "Nintendo whys". "Revolution", on the other hand, was a fantastic name. As I've said, it portrays Nintendo as the dominant powerhouse it was generations ago, and it represents going forward with new ideas. The only reason I can think of that they changed it is because the Japanese have a difficult time pronouncing "R", and they would've pronounced it "Wevolution". Cut the "volution" off the end and you get "We". (Which, again, would've been ok).
Re:A long historical tradition of dumb names
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
I'm actually referring to the attitude presented by each marketing team, not console sales (something can be very "cool" but not sell at all). Sega's plan with Genesis was to target teenagers and young adults with "hip, edgy" advertisements and partnerships with MTV, among others. Nintendo's plan was to continue to foster "whimsical, fun" images and partnerships with toy manufacturers.
If you asked the average 18-year old gamer (not hardcore) what they were playing in the early 90s, you'd get responses like Altered Beast, Golden Axe and the original Madden for Genesis. Their generation mostly moved to Playstation when it came out.
I mean, think back to the advertisements of that era. Can you think of one memorable Nintendo commercial? The only I can think of is Yoshi's Island, which depicted a guy eating pasta and exploding. The ad was almost universally shot down because of how disgusting it was. Contrast that with Sega's marketing plan for Sonic and Knuckles (MTV partnership ala Xbox 360, among other things) and you see the difference. Hardcore gamers may be against it, but that kind of stuff helps sales.
Re:A long historical tradition of dumb names
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
How so (please refrain from any fanboy logic)?
A long historical tradition of dumb names
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Nintendo Wii continues a strong tradition of incredibly moronic brand names out of Nintendo -- which is a shame because their games are incredible.
* Super Nintendo Entertainment System - Ok, I understand the need to maintain "a strong brand identity". But this is really just a copout versus coming up with a more creative name. Their ads were even worse: "Now you're playing with power... super power." Was it any wonder that the Sega Genesis (which had some great games of it own and I consider the best console name ever) had more "cool factor" going into the early 90s?
* Super Scope 6 - If you're wondering, this was the software that came with the bazooka-version of the lightgun for the SNES. Never mind the fact the gun itself was completely unwieldly -- the decision to make the name of the software roll off the tongue (Super Scope 6) made everyone forget that the Super Scope was supossed to support a bunch of games. Since everyone associated the gun with the 6 relatively crappy minigames it came with, no one thought to look for 3rd-party software that supported it. I think a total of 3 "full games" supported the thing.
* Game Boy - Immediately shot down as being "sexist", Nintendo Power held a contest to design your own and half the entries used the words "Game Girl". To this day they're still trying to get Game Boy moniker out of peoples' heads (to your non-gaming buddies, do you call your DS a "Nintendo DS" or "like a Gameboy")?
* Virtual Boy - Ditto. And add the fact it wasn't really virtual. All it was doing was drawing red lines a few inches in front of your eyes and giving headaches.
* Nintendo 64 - This began a line of consoles with relatively good codenames but terrible console names. Ultra 64, while derivative of Super Nes, at least had a "cool" element to it. Killer Insinct for the arcades even touted "Coming soon to the Ultra 64!" Nintendo instead decided to go with the incredibly bland Nintendo 64 and a gave it a suitably stupid Escher-like logo (which Rare's Conker amusing destroyed in Conker's Bad Fur Day). Again, wonderful games -- terrible name.
* Gamecube - Original codename: Dolphin. Exudes intelligence, the ability to swiftly get around competitors. Final name: a plastic block. The ads picture a bunch of gang-like teenagers walking the streets and then cut to a cartoon Advance Wars-like game. Huh? Although it could've been worse -- one of the final designs called for a star-shaped plastic fins and the name "Starcube". Picture the Disney PC for 4-year olds but in your living room. Again, incredible games -- dumb system name.
* Nintendo Wii - Original codename: Revolution. Gives off the vibes of doing completely new things (the controller) and harkens nostalgia for when Nintendo turned a hobby into a multibillion dollar industry in the 80s (NES, SNES, etc. emulation). Final name mirrors a number of terrible Japanese names. In particular, I'm reminded if Vaio and Wega from Sony. Wega, in particular, is actually supposed to be pronounced "vega". Why they didn't just stick the V in there is anyone's guess. Revolution would've been a brutally cool name but instead they decided to wreck it.
Again, I'm not saying anything against the games themselves -- they're incredible. Bottom line is Nintendo should fire their marketing department and hire the guys from Sega, Microsoft or even Sony.
"Don't most enterprise customers use scripted installs/images?"
The short answer is "no".
The long answer is that people typically take the base and try to tweak as few things as possible to get it to work. It makes better business sense to ship with the icons in their default place, for example, than waste time and money to decide to individually place each one.
Most corporations keep the Windows firewall off anyway, so this isn't a big change.
"Sure it's been over a year since launch, but they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000."
Actually, that's a little off. I read they estimated about 1-2 million subscribers the first year. Unfortunately, they got 1 million in the first month or so.
Part of the issue is just a basic fact: no one has ever had an online app on this scale before. Web sites have far more visitors but the content gets downloaded in drips and drabs. In Wow, millions of players are ALL connected at the SAME time for HOURS at a time. It's be stressful on any infrastructure.
Knowing Blizzard, I know they'll see a way through this. My realm is relatively problem-free besides the occasional prime time lag. The more popular realms are the ones really having the problems (and people should leave them).
Overbearing, needless atmosphere and a bunch of 14-year olds overhandling and scratching iPods attached to tables with string? No thanks. I don't want an "experience", I want to buy a computer and make up new experiences at home. I buy my Apples from apple.com.
I studied CS in college and got my BA. I got out school and was immediately bombarded with hundreds of requests for 3-6 month, low-paying contractual positions for programming/systems administration/etc. What wasn't being offshored was being outsourced at ridiculous levels. I took a look around and realized the only people with truly stable positions were IT management. I talked to others and they agreed. So I went back for my MBA. When I graduate I'm going to be looking to leave the programming/administration side entirely.
When you're faced with poor, unstable job prospects and declining salaries due to offshore competition, what do you EXPECT us to do? The smart ones are realizing management (unfortunately) is the way to go. The rest will wither and die, unfortunately.
"That has to be the most reaching analysis I've heard yet. His basic argument is that gamers have grown up, therefore they're willing to spend gobs more money."
Which is correct. The 20-30 bracket is a gold mine for gaming companies as you have young single adults with lots of disposable income. And they love to buy this stuff.
"I'm sorry, did he miss the $400 price tag?"
I didn't. When I saw it I did a little math in the back of my head: a PC rig that does those kinds of graphics (with 3 cores) would run at the very least $2000-2500. They're selling for 1/5 that. Not to mention the software which is actually quite good for playing music/movies/etc on an HDTV.
Hate to say it, but $400 isn't that much money for most people. Maybe for you, perhaps, but considering my clothing bill (4 pairs of pants, 4 casual business shirts and some shoes) ran me a ridiculous $380, $400 for a console that should last at least 3 years isn't that bad.
"Many of the early units were sold for far more than that! If it was priced any higher, consumers would start to wonder why they shouldn't get a new gaming-rig computer instead! (Or at least a bigger HDTV and a load of HD-DVDs or BlueRays.)"
Well, $400 isn't going to buy you that much more HDTV screen real-estate. And I mean, hell, $400 could be spent on a washing machine too. There's always "what ifs". I personally would rather spend my money on the console than the other choices.
"If Dave of GamerDad wants to know why the 360 isn't taking the market by storm, he needs to look no farther than the games. As X-Play on G4* said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "The XBox 360 needs to stop charging more money for less game." (In a review of Tiger Wood's Golf.) Microsoft and their affiliates need to realize that pretty graphics are not the only ingredient in making a good game."
I hope he was paraphrasing. Microsoft didn't make Tiger Woods -- EA did. And I wouldn't touch EA games on any of the consoles.
"When you pay $60 for a game, you expect to get enough to entertain you until at least your next paycheck!"
Honestly, again dude, I can get a lot more games with 1 paycheck and still live confortably.:) Try 4-5. That keeps me busy.
While this is all very nice in theory, people seem to be forgetting a lingering issue: DirectX and games.
Let's face it: the home user doesn't really need Windows for much of anything (business users are obviously different). For home, Office runs on Mac OS, popular internet apps do, just about everything the home user needs... but games.
Apple very well may have their hand on some API code, but I sincerely doubt they got their hands on DirectX. And considering how often DirectX is updated to keep in pace with graphics hardware, whatever they had in 2002 is pretty much unusable at this point (I think they were at DirectX 8.0 then. We're up to 9.0c, which features a lot more support for shaders, among other things).
And to be honest, Direct3D is pretty well-written and offers very good performance compared to OpenGL (and there's still no really good dedicated open libraries for sound, network and tasks). You can't do games without DirectX.
Now, Apple has a huge cash stockpile, and all those 12-year olds buying iPods helps it grow everyday. Wouldn't it be interesting if they licensed DirectX? MS obviously wouldn't let it go for cheap, but if Apple were to combine that with whatever Windows APIs they have, they could theoretically crack the last remaining Windows nut for home users.
If I could run all my DirectX games at the same speed in MacOS I would never leave the platform to dualboot. I think most users wouldn't. Apple should shoot for that, if they can.
Just hours after announcing their latest change, the G4 management have decided to update the channel again.
"Even with the recent changes," Finn said, "we still don't think we're still not reaching our target audience. We've decided that every program will be replaced with a guy sitting in shorts and a wifebeater, drinking a low-quality beer. The guy will occasionally scratch himself, and of course the wifebeater will be covered in the requisite motor oil and pit stains. We feel this'll really gel with the 'masculine audience' we're striving for."
Audiences will have to wait for the fall season for "Guy in a Wifebeater", but focus groups are already responding by vomiting.
I already posted some benchmarks of a Core Duo Mac Mini running Windows (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182379&cid=15 077120) and to be honest I was fairly impressed. The gaming benchmark was obviously miserable, the "general purpose" benchmark (zipping files, encoding audio/video, etcdid very well. The Apple zealots may say "it's because it's a Mac", but really the hardware is almost identical to your average Intel laptop. The only major difference is the Core Duo, which not many laptops have (although that's increasing all the time), and that's what I'm putting my money on. Can't wait to see a benchmark with this thing in a gaming rig.
Well that's a biased opinion. And an incorrect one.
One could just as easily argue that the Japanese arguilty of rehashing the same old ideas. How many platformers did we have in the 80s that completely copied Mario? How many dating sims are actually needed in the world? And just think how many sequels there are for popular Japanese franchises. How many Mega Man and Final Fantasy games are there? Is there a single American game series that has (if I'm counting right) over a dozen sequels each?
I can think of a ton of original game concepts Americans have come up with. You're just not looking hard enough. Just the top of my head, I saw Will Wright's "Spore" demonstration the other day (use Google Video to find it). It's a simulator that starts you off as a bacteria and pulls the camera back farther and farther until you manage a creature, a society, a world, a galaxy and a universe. It includes procedural programming, incredible AI and a touch of the absurd. It's mindblowing in scope and the guy got a standing ovation at the end of the presentation.
In short, your view is narrowminded and somewhat unjustified. Gaming is a business and as such all businesses crank out new ideas and then ride on them. Japanese, American or otherwise. To think every American video company is the stereotypical EA (which, ironically, will be publishing Spore) is just foolish.
Keep in mind textures were extremely small and blocky back then. If I recall correctly the N64 had something like only 4MB of RAM (additional 4 with the underused expansion pack). It causes me great pain to see the same textures resurface in games like Super Mario 64 for the DS.
Also, "hell of a lot of content"? GoldenEye, Perfect Dark and OoT of time I can see. Turok 2 and Majora's Mask were godawful.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why people keep bringing up Super Smash Bros. It's not relevant. Never has been. People like to tout that they get a couple hundred people to show up to Smash Bros Tournaments. Quake and UT bring in thousands. All Smash Bros. is is a button-masher's fighter.
I've been gaming for a long, long, LONG time.
I watched the entire presentation. I was underwhelmed. The graphics looked very close to Xbox 360 graphics (which falls in line with what developers were saying). The GT demo in particular had popup. The media store isn't going to be able to compete with iTunes. The controller, while it does have tilt features, doesn't work in a 3d space like Revolution (sorry: Wii -- absolutely hate that fucking name). No one is going to stick a PSP to the side of their TV as a rearview mirror in a racing game. You only get true HD resolution if you pony up $600.
The only thing I found remotely cool about the presentation was the idea of playing emulated PS1 games on my PSP. Then I realized that most PS1 games filled up entire CDs (or more than 1) -- how many are you going to be able to fit on the largest of memory sticks?
I picked up an Xbox 360 when it first came out and aside from a few titles (and the arcade, which is cool) it's been underwhelming. Nintendo is the last one to try to make this year of gaming interesting. Only other thing that can do it is Spore.
My first grenade throw in the original FarCry: http://s133761904.onlinehome.us/FarCry0000.jpg If you're wondering, the guy's foot is stuck between the pipe and the wall.
:)
Realistic? Not at all. Amusing? Undoubtedly.
I already paid $150 for my silver one. Yes, it's bulky, but at least I can stick the GBA games in all the way.
At this point, considering the PSP library is getting better and there's rumors they'll be launching one with better battery life and a hard drive, you'd think Nintendo would drop down to $99. $130 is a lot of cash for a parent to drop on a kid's system.
"It's really different to have a separate entity promote your product and having yourself putting forward another of your product."
You don't think Google had some say with Safari's searchbox? Do you think Apple put a searchbox for only one provider out of the goodness of their heart? You're fooling yourself.
You're mistaking marketing and PR. See my post: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184487&c id=15234091
I wish people would stop calling marketing "PR" and PR "marketing". I've worked with years (unfortuantely) with both marketing and PR people. I know it's popular to confuse the two (even within companies) but they are not the same thing.
Marketing - is the act of propping up goods or services so they sell more. Advertising would fall under marketing (although they are usually kept separate in department charts). The sole purpose of marketing is to get items and services to sell more.
Public Relations (PR) - is the bomb defuser. They're the guys you go to when the CEO makes a monumental speaking blunder or your factories dump toxic waste into rivers. PR tries to soften the blow (and prop up the company image) -- an often nearly impossible task (that is why most PR people don't stay in any one position too long). Occasionally they'll go on the offensive, such as when the company gives to a charity (they'll issue a press release), but PRs primary role isn't to sell things. It's to save things.
With the word "Wii", I can assure you that PR people had nothing to do with it. This was purely a marketing decision, and the PR people are likely going to have to pay for it. Every parent that asks "Why did you make me ask for urine in a videogame store?" is going to have to be dealt with.
So, in summary, stop confusing marketing with PR. Thanks.
And I don't mean terrible in a "ha ha make fun of Microsoft" way. I mean terrible period. :P Who thought that a highly irritating ad would be a good idea?
There are no references in that article besides a single link to Kevin Bryan's book, which has been proven to be largely inaccurate. This is why you don't trust Wikipedia -- particularly with little to no references.
Fact of the matter: I was working (and still am freelancing) for popular gaming rags. We had the blue developer Playstations months before the public (I particularly recall "the pill trick" -- putting an Advil in a regular PS1 to boot up press alphas of games). We were in conversations with Sony for 2 years prior, as they wanted to drum up interest. The story I was told is accurate from the guys who wrote it.
If you want to believe Wikipedia, be my guest. The reality is that Nintendo had less of an effect on Sony than people give them credit for. There was never even a working SNES CD prototype that interfaced with the console. You can prove it yourself by looking at the hardware and assembly code for the Rev A PS1. There's not a single line of code or even a likely bus on the board where it could be used with the SNES. That's because they never really got that far before Nintendo aborted the project. It was for all intents and purposes a commercial CD player strapped to the SNES chassis. Sony rebuilt from scratch.
Incorrect. The original name of the CD addon by Nintendo was the "SNES CD". Sony completely rebuilt the addon from the ground up and came up with their own name: "Powerstation". American Sony executives felt it sounded more like a battery charger than a game system, so it was rechristened "Playstation". Look it up.
You said two things: it was subjective (which I agree with) and that subjective posts are without merit. The second statement is moronic -- every post on this story is subjective. There's no purely analytical way to approach the subject of console names.
As for my opinions in particular, they are shared by many. People constantly bring up the "kiddie factor" with Nintendo products. Where do you think they get that idea from? My guess is star-shaped console designs and certain product names (notice they called it "Game Boy", not "Game Man").
You seem like you're an ardent Nintendo fan -- you appear to have owned every console. I have too (but I also purchase every other console out there -- my income is largely disposable). If you have watched Nintendo over the years, you know they have a serious image problem. They make good games, they make pretty good consoles -- but they don't sell as much. Why? Why did people rush to buy the Xbox 360 even though the games were lackluster? It's because Microsoft formulated an image (along with the MTV special) that portrayed the console as sophisticated and cool. Whether you agree with that "subjective" opinion or not, thousands camped out the day the console was released. Will we see the same with Wii? Doubt it. (I recall going into EB the first day N64 came out and literally picked one up off the shelf. Barely anyone cared that it had been launched).
The name "Wii" is dumb, pure and simple. If they wanted to really portray the idea of "getting together", "We" would've sufficed. Instead, they're going to get moms and dads heading into Gamestops this Christmas asking for "Nintendo whys". "Revolution", on the other hand, was a fantastic name. As I've said, it portrays Nintendo as the dominant powerhouse it was generations ago, and it represents going forward with new ideas. The only reason I can think of that they changed it is because the Japanese have a difficult time pronouncing "R", and they would've pronounced it "Wevolution". Cut the "volution" off the end and you get "We". (Which, again, would've been ok).
I'm actually referring to the attitude presented by each marketing team, not console sales (something can be very "cool" but not sell at all). Sega's plan with Genesis was to target teenagers and young adults with "hip, edgy" advertisements and partnerships with MTV, among others. Nintendo's plan was to continue to foster "whimsical, fun" images and partnerships with toy manufacturers.
If you asked the average 18-year old gamer (not hardcore) what they were playing in the early 90s, you'd get responses like Altered Beast, Golden Axe and the original Madden for Genesis. Their generation mostly moved to Playstation when it came out.
I mean, think back to the advertisements of that era. Can you think of one memorable Nintendo commercial? The only I can think of is Yoshi's Island, which depicted a guy eating pasta and exploding. The ad was almost universally shot down because of how disgusting it was. Contrast that with Sega's marketing plan for Sonic and Knuckles (MTV partnership ala Xbox 360, among other things) and you see the difference. Hardcore gamers may be against it, but that kind of stuff helps sales.
How so (please refrain from any fanboy logic)?
Nintendo Wii continues a strong tradition of incredibly moronic brand names out of Nintendo -- which is a shame because their games are incredible.
* Super Nintendo Entertainment System - Ok, I understand the need to maintain "a strong brand identity". But this is really just a copout versus coming up with a more creative name. Their ads were even worse: "Now you're playing with power... super power." Was it any wonder that the Sega Genesis (which had some great games of it own and I consider the best console name ever) had more "cool factor" going into the early 90s?
* Super Scope 6 - If you're wondering, this was the software that came with the bazooka-version of the lightgun for the SNES. Never mind the fact the gun itself was completely unwieldly -- the decision to make the name of the software roll off the tongue (Super Scope 6) made everyone forget that the Super Scope was supossed to support a bunch of games. Since everyone associated the gun with the 6 relatively crappy minigames it came with, no one thought to look for 3rd-party software that supported it. I think a total of 3 "full games" supported the thing.
* Game Boy - Immediately shot down as being "sexist", Nintendo Power held a contest to design your own and half the entries used the words "Game Girl". To this day they're still trying to get Game Boy moniker out of peoples' heads (to your non-gaming buddies, do you call your DS a "Nintendo DS" or "like a Gameboy")?
* Virtual Boy - Ditto. And add the fact it wasn't really virtual. All it was doing was drawing red lines a few inches in front of your eyes and giving headaches.
* Nintendo 64 - This began a line of consoles with relatively good codenames but terrible console names. Ultra 64, while derivative of Super Nes, at least had a "cool" element to it. Killer Insinct for the arcades even touted "Coming soon to the Ultra 64!" Nintendo instead decided to go with the incredibly bland Nintendo 64 and a gave it a suitably stupid Escher-like logo (which Rare's Conker amusing destroyed in Conker's Bad Fur Day). Again, wonderful games -- terrible name.
* Gamecube - Original codename: Dolphin. Exudes intelligence, the ability to swiftly get around competitors. Final name: a plastic block. The ads picture a bunch of gang-like teenagers walking the streets and then cut to a cartoon Advance Wars-like game. Huh? Although it could've been worse -- one of the final designs called for a star-shaped plastic fins and the name "Starcube". Picture the Disney PC for 4-year olds but in your living room. Again, incredible games -- dumb system name.
* Nintendo Wii - Original codename: Revolution. Gives off the vibes of doing completely new things (the controller) and harkens nostalgia for when Nintendo turned a hobby into a multibillion dollar industry in the 80s (NES, SNES, etc. emulation). Final name mirrors a number of terrible Japanese names. In particular, I'm reminded if Vaio and Wega from Sony. Wega, in particular, is actually supposed to be pronounced "vega". Why they didn't just stick the V in there is anyone's guess. Revolution would've been a brutally cool name but instead they decided to wreck it.
Again, I'm not saying anything against the games themselves -- they're incredible. Bottom line is Nintendo should fire their marketing department and hire the guys from Sega, Microsoft or even Sony.
"Don't most enterprise customers use scripted installs/images?"
The short answer is "no".
The long answer is that people typically take the base and try to tweak as few things as possible to get it to work. It makes better business sense to ship with the icons in their default place, for example, than waste time and money to decide to individually place each one.
Most corporations keep the Windows firewall off anyway, so this isn't a big change.
I was going to moderate this down, but instead I decided to post so I could create my own moderation.
-5 So ridiculously unfunny not even Britney Spears would giggle at it.
"Sure it's been over a year since launch, but they were expecting 250,000 subscribers and got 6,000,000."
Actually, that's a little off. I read they estimated about 1-2 million subscribers the first year. Unfortunately, they got 1 million in the first month or so.
Part of the issue is just a basic fact: no one has ever had an online app on this scale before. Web sites have far more visitors but the content gets downloaded in drips and drabs. In Wow, millions of players are ALL connected at the SAME time for HOURS at a time. It's be stressful on any infrastructure.
Knowing Blizzard, I know they'll see a way through this. My realm is relatively problem-free besides the occasional prime time lag. The more popular realms are the ones really having the problems (and people should leave them).
Overbearing, needless atmosphere and a bunch of 14-year olds overhandling and scratching iPods attached to tables with string? No thanks. I don't want an "experience", I want to buy a computer and make up new experiences at home. I buy my Apples from apple.com.
I studied CS in college and got my BA. I got out school and was immediately bombarded with hundreds of requests for 3-6 month, low-paying contractual positions for programming/systems administration/etc. What wasn't being offshored was being outsourced at ridiculous levels. I took a look around and realized the only people with truly stable positions were IT management. I talked to others and they agreed. So I went back for my MBA. When I graduate I'm going to be looking to leave the programming/administration side entirely.
When you're faced with poor, unstable job prospects and declining salaries due to offshore competition, what do you EXPECT us to do? The smart ones are realizing management (unfortunately) is the way to go. The rest will wither and die, unfortunately.
"That has to be the most reaching analysis I've heard yet. His basic argument is that gamers have grown up, therefore they're willing to spend gobs more money."
:) Try 4-5. That keeps me busy.
Which is correct. The 20-30 bracket is a gold mine for gaming companies as you have young single adults with lots of disposable income. And they love to buy this stuff.
"I'm sorry, did he miss the $400 price tag?"
I didn't. When I saw it I did a little math in the back of my head: a PC rig that does those kinds of graphics (with 3 cores) would run at the very least $2000-2500. They're selling for 1/5 that. Not to mention the software which is actually quite good for playing music/movies/etc on an HDTV.
Hate to say it, but $400 isn't that much money for most people. Maybe for you, perhaps, but considering my clothing bill (4 pairs of pants, 4 casual business shirts and some shoes) ran me a ridiculous $380, $400 for a console that should last at least 3 years isn't that bad.
"Many of the early units were sold for far more than that! If it was priced any higher, consumers would start to wonder why they shouldn't get a new gaming-rig computer instead! (Or at least a bigger HDTV and a load of HD-DVDs or BlueRays.)"
Well, $400 isn't going to buy you that much more HDTV screen real-estate. And I mean, hell, $400 could be spent on a washing machine too. There's always "what ifs". I personally would rather spend my money on the console than the other choices.
"If Dave of GamerDad wants to know why the 360 isn't taking the market by storm, he needs to look no farther than the games. As X-Play on G4* said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "The XBox 360 needs to stop charging more money for less game." (In a review of Tiger Wood's Golf.) Microsoft and their affiliates need to realize that pretty graphics are not the only ingredient in making a good game."
I hope he was paraphrasing. Microsoft didn't make Tiger Woods -- EA did. And I wouldn't touch EA games on any of the consoles.
"When you pay $60 for a game, you expect to get enough to entertain you until at least your next paycheck!"
Honestly, again dude, I can get a lot more games with 1 paycheck and still live confortably.
While this is all very nice in theory, people seem to be forgetting a lingering issue: DirectX and games.
Let's face it: the home user doesn't really need Windows for much of anything (business users are obviously different). For home, Office runs on Mac OS, popular internet apps do, just about everything the home user needs... but games.
Apple very well may have their hand on some API code, but I sincerely doubt they got their hands on DirectX. And considering how often DirectX is updated to keep in pace with graphics hardware, whatever they had in 2002 is pretty much unusable at this point (I think they were at DirectX 8.0 then. We're up to 9.0c, which features a lot more support for shaders, among other things).
And to be honest, Direct3D is pretty well-written and offers very good performance compared to OpenGL (and there's still no really good dedicated open libraries for sound, network and tasks). You can't do games without DirectX.
Now, Apple has a huge cash stockpile, and all those 12-year olds buying iPods helps it grow everyday. Wouldn't it be interesting if they licensed DirectX? MS obviously wouldn't let it go for cheap, but if Apple were to combine that with whatever Windows APIs they have, they could theoretically crack the last remaining Windows nut for home users.
If I could run all my DirectX games at the same speed in MacOS I would never leave the platform to dualboot. I think most users wouldn't. Apple should shoot for that, if they can.
Just hours after announcing their latest change, the G4 management have decided to update the channel again.
"Even with the recent changes," Finn said, "we still don't think we're still not reaching our target audience. We've decided that every program will be replaced with a guy sitting in shorts and a wifebeater, drinking a low-quality beer. The guy will occasionally scratch himself, and of course the wifebeater will be covered in the requisite motor oil and pit stains. We feel this'll really gel with the 'masculine audience' we're striving for."
Audiences will have to wait for the fall season for "Guy in a Wifebeater", but focus groups are already responding by vomiting.
I already posted some benchmarks of a Core Duo Mac Mini running Windows (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182379&cid=15 077120) and to be honest I was fairly impressed. The gaming benchmark was obviously miserable, the "general purpose" benchmark (zipping files, encoding audio/video, etcdid very well. The Apple zealots may say "it's because it's a Mac", but really the hardware is almost identical to your average Intel laptop. The only major difference is the Core Duo, which not many laptops have (although that's increasing all the time), and that's what I'm putting my money on. Can't wait to see a benchmark with this thing in a gaming rig.
Well that's a biased opinion. And an incorrect one.
One could just as easily argue that the Japanese arguilty of rehashing the same old ideas. How many platformers did we have in the 80s that completely copied Mario? How many dating sims are actually needed in the world? And just think how many sequels there are for popular Japanese franchises. How many Mega Man and Final Fantasy games are there? Is there a single American game series that has (if I'm counting right) over a dozen sequels each?
I can think of a ton of original game concepts Americans have come up with. You're just not looking hard enough. Just the top of my head, I saw Will Wright's "Spore" demonstration the other day (use Google Video to find it). It's a simulator that starts you off as a bacteria and pulls the camera back farther and farther until you manage a creature, a society, a world, a galaxy and a universe. It includes procedural programming, incredible AI and a touch of the absurd. It's mindblowing in scope and the guy got a standing ovation at the end of the presentation.
In short, your view is narrowminded and somewhat unjustified. Gaming is a business and as such all businesses crank out new ideas and then ride on them. Japanese, American or otherwise. To think every American video company is the stereotypical EA (which, ironically, will be publishing Spore) is just foolish.
Keep in mind textures were extremely small and blocky back then. If I recall correctly the N64 had something like only 4MB of RAM (additional 4 with the underused expansion pack). It causes me great pain to see the same textures resurface in games like Super Mario 64 for the DS.
Also, "hell of a lot of content"? GoldenEye, Perfect Dark and OoT of time I can see. Turok 2 and Majora's Mask were godawful.