Now that both the 360 and PS3 will offer HD DVD/Blu-ray drives without HDMI, there's a LOT of rumors going around that hardware manufacturers have brokered a deal with studios to delay turning on the ICT flag until 2010. If so, that would make the $500 PS3 more viable, IMHO.
Fine-grained permissions don't gel with wikis in general, not just mediawiki. The idea behind a wiki is that most people are well-intentioned (this is triply true when they're using company resources), and that it's good to have lots of people collaborate. Even if readers aren't directly related with your project, if someone is interested enough to read the content, they might briefly stop to contribute in a number of different ways (some people will wander by and fix spelling mistakes... other people might wander by and hilight a possible security problem that isn't covered by the design document).
Those are their words, yes. Their actions have been to release a DVD player that doesn't successfully compete with other DVD players, attached to a console that competed very successfully. Will the PS3 Blu-ray player be the same, or different?
Does it really make sense to try to release an absolute-first-gen player to the mass market (given that most bleeding-edge first-gen buyers are typically both wealthy enough to buy the first round of players, and wealthy enough to quickly upgrade to 2nd or 3rd-gen players that have far fewer bugs)?
The survey asked whether gamers would tolerate games that contained ads. That doesn't meant that gamers and developers are enthusiastic about adding advertisements.
Will the best-loved games of the next decade contain in-game ads? How would Tolkien have reacted if his mythology had been required to include products and services from the real world? If, instead of pulling out lembas bread in the movie, would it have been better if Sam would have pulled out Go-GURT® brand Yogurt? I can't help but think that product placements mar otherwise highly-polished stories.
I know somebody who still uses their PS2 as a DVD player. Of course, they live near Tokyo, in a tiny tiny little room. So, the market for the PS3 Blu-ray drive is... Tokyo. I mean, that's 35 million people, that should be enough, right?
But if the options are $200 vs. $350 (if only the premium package were available), I can see that leaving some people with only one option that fits within their budget.
Oh, here: podcast #78, around 48:50... a rough transcript:
Joystiq asked Peter Moore at a blogger breakfast at GDC, and, um, i mean they've always been coy about the demand for the Core system, but, they were very defensive of it, saying that in order to appeal to a worldwide audience, it was very important for them to offer a lower price point, for certain countries, say in South America, or in Eastern Europe, it would be important for them have a lower price point, otherwise the console simply wouldn't be viable for whole parts of the world. But, the question becomes then, why are you still offering it for North America, where most gamers have no interesting in it, but...
(someone else starts talking) I mean, you can play almost every game on the core unit, without having to use the hard drive.
You'd THINK so, but Microsoft pretty clearly said they're not going to drop the Core unit. I can't find the exact reference, it's one of the last four Engadget podcasts...
Engadget asked one of the Microsoft guys about the core system, and one of their answers was that outside of the US, there are some consumers who simply don't have the budget for the higher-priced version, and who are fine with having partial functionality, as long as they can play modern games. Engadget also noted that the 360 CAN compete with the Wii... although it will be more expensive (at most $75 more, by the time the Wii comes out), it's much more powerful in terms of graphics, so for casual gamers who might buy just one console, and don't want to drop a lot of money, then a $200 Wii vs. a $275 360 Core might be two of the options they'd consider (granted, it's not remotely cost-effective if you ever want the hard drive later, but casual gamers may not care about that so much, especially if they're comparing it solely to the Wii).
Well, the XBox 360 core launched at $299. MS will probably drop the price at some point before PS3 launches, possibly to $250. Nintendo has stated that the Wii will be priced below the 360 and PS3... does that mean it will cost $250 or less?
I wouldn't call great gameplay... expensive. Certainly most things on XBox Live Arcade are low-budget, but some of them are enjoyable. And any random college kid might possibly come up with tommorow's quirky hit like Katamari Damacy. I suppose for very complex games, good gameplay takes a whole lot of bug-fixing, play-testing, and balancing. But games don't have to be big and complex to have good gameplay.
To be fair, the PS3 is almost half the price of the Neo Geo or the 3DO. Still, it's hanging out with CD-i and Sega Saturn, and yes, if it did well, it would definitely set a new record for successful console prices (at more than 40% higher than the current record holder, PS2).
What could help it be successful? BluRay maybe, but that's a long shot, especially with Sony execs saying that most people's TV's don't support HDMI and it's not all that important.
Are there that many must-have games for the system? Are developers going to commit to releasing more must-have games for it if they smell blood in the water?
It's not the most expensive, but it's nearly as much as the Sega Saturn, which wasn't all that successful. Really, the highest priced console so far that's done really well was the PS2 *, which is 40% cheaper than the low-end PS3. If it turns out that HDTV owners really should buy the high-end one instead, that makes the PS3 70% more expensive than high-priced successful consoles.
* except for first- and second-gen consoles, which were understandably expensive, since home electronics was a new market
I presume lenses have gotten slightly better over time too? For instance, Metropolis from 1927 seems somewhat blurry (or maybe it has some purple fringing or something?), and probably wouldn't have much extra useful resolution if scanned in to HD.
HDTV prices have been dropping, and in 10 years, they may well be affordable and commonplace, even in paycheck-to-paycheck households. Also, there are other reasons than gaming to buy an HDTV...
I mean, there *is* a lot of HDTV content out there... even 1970's movies have enough resolution to be scanned in in HD... PC games have been in "HD" for a long time now... and digital cameras have LONG gone beyond the 0.3 megapixels that SD TVs provide. These may well not be reasons to switch *now*, but if HDTV prices get down to $400-500 eventually, then all this HD content may be compelling enough at that point.
Also, the gaming market more diversified now than it was in 1983.... if PC gaming crashes, the MMORPG may well not crash... if consoles crash, handheld gaming may not crash... if all mainstream gaming crashes, web-based flash games and open-source concept games won't crash.
And, if I read it right, the 1983 crash was coincident with the introduction of a new gaming platform (the home computer) which destabilized the market a bit, whereas the gaming markets are largely stable now (unless handheld or cellphone gaming really takes off, or VR games become practical, but I don't see those happening).
This article is so full of statements that are a big stretch that's it's difficult to even discuss the core issue...
all Wii games are going to do very poorly. Why is none of the other gaming press writing about this, why has only this guy has seen the light?
the Wii controller is a cheap gimmick... true innovation won't come until we have sensory suits or neural inputs. True, but gamers aren't going to stop playing games just because the stuff we see on TV can't be bought right this instant.
console hardware loses money. Yeah? And they make money back through royalties on each game sold.
point #3: movies are more immersive than games. Huh?? And even if this is true, why has it not been constantly true, why does it mean that the gaming industry was doing well a couple years ago, but will crash any day now?
If it costs the copmany $45/month to give you the $15/unlimited service, then there's no way they can provide that service forever. Like I said, you're really just passing the cost onto other customers (or onto the company's creditors or investors). If there's huge demand for $15/unlimited, then there will be some demand for $60/unlimited (albeit smaller demand), and that is a tennable and long-term stable situation.
Companies... are sometimes more than a bit unresponsive/dense.
Cell phone companies did the same thing with packet data plans... they sold $15 plans for unlimited data, assuming people would only use the cell-phone as the endpoint.
When people started hooking their laptops up to cell phones, first thing they did was kick those people off, but continued to advertise "$15 unlimited!!". After a while, they realized there was demand for it, and thus money to be made, and they started advertising "$15/month unlimited (but no laptops!!), or $60/month unlimited wireless, laptops allowed". Voila, honest pricing, no abuse of the service (whose cost just gets spread to other customers anyway), and now some people can actually get what they want without worrying about losing their service without notice.
If there's too much demand for a company's product, you'd think they'd treat it as a good thing, but that's not always the case...
It's relatively easy for scammers to set up a website for a few hours or days, on a computer they don't own, located in a country far away from them, and get a couple of quick hits, with it being somewhat hard for authorities to track down the location that the scammer actually connects to the internet.
If scammers tried this with snail-mail, they would have to wait a week at least to wait for the responses. Also, while it's probably possible to hide your identity when receiving snail mail, it's not nearly as easy as it is online (since vulnerable Windows boxes are a dime a dozen). So, there's much more opportunity online, so it attracts scammers like flies, whereas snail mail boxes don't.
On the other hand, as others have noted, most YouTube videos are pretty low bit-rate and not that great for keeping around. Often with a little more work, you can find a higher bitrate version of the same video elsewhere on the net.
Look, at this point, it's not looking good for PS3. In terms of performance, PS3 may be somewhat more powerful than the XBox 360, but the current reviews say there's not a noticably large difference.
Do you know of anyone who's personally clamoring for the PS3 because of its BluRay player? Do most people prefer to watch DVD's on their PS2?
In terms of launch date, there's a one year gap for the PS3.
In terms of price, the PS3 will launch at $500 (or will be $600, if it's like the XBox360 launch, where nobody in their right mind would get the low-end version? It's still not clear whether HDMI will be required to view BluRay movies or not)... the PS3 will launch at $500 or $600 at a time that the Wii is launching for $200-$300, and the XBox 360 will have dropped in price to $400 or $450 (for the high-end version). $600 vs $450 and $250 is really tough to swallow, in my humble opinion.
In terms of features, PS3 seems to have added some Wii-mote functionality last minute. PS3 rightly copied the XBox 360 central network service, and we'll have to wait to see if they did anything to innovate on top of XBox 360 (though MS did a pretty thorough job, implementing almost everything one could want with XBL).
And sentiment among many gamers right now is that PS3 has a poor showing at E3 so far compared to Nintendo. I don't think it's inaccurate to present PS3 in a poor light right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that both the 360 and PS3 will offer HD DVD/Blu-ray drives without HDMI, there's a LOT of rumors going around that hardware manufacturers have brokered a deal with studios to delay turning on the ICT flag until 2010. If so, that would make the $500 PS3 more viable, IMHO.
0 .htmlo wngrade-hd-video-for-now/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060521-688
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/22/studios-wont-d
[1]
And since the PDF download from wired is named att_klein_wired.pdf, I'm guessing you're right.
Fine-grained permissions don't gel with wikis in general, not just mediawiki. The idea behind a wiki is that most people are well-intentioned (this is triply true when they're using company resources), and that it's good to have lots of people collaborate. Even if readers aren't directly related with your project, if someone is interested enough to read the content, they might briefly stop to contribute in a number of different ways (some people will wander by and fix spelling mistakes... other people might wander by and hilight a possible security problem that isn't covered by the design document).
Does it really make sense to try to release an absolute-first-gen player to the mass market (given that most bleeding-edge first-gen buyers are typically both wealthy enough to buy the first round of players, and wealthy enough to quickly upgrade to 2nd or 3rd-gen players that have far fewer bugs)?
Will the best-loved games of the next decade contain in-game ads? How would Tolkien have reacted if his mythology had been required to include products and services from the real world? If, instead of pulling out lembas bread in the movie, would it have been better if Sam would have pulled out Go-GURT® brand Yogurt? I can't help but think that product placements mar otherwise highly-polished stories.
I know somebody who still uses their PS2 as a DVD player. Of course, they live near Tokyo, in a tiny tiny little room. So, the market for the PS3 Blu-ray drive is... Tokyo. I mean, that's 35 million people, that should be enough, right?
But if the options are $200 vs. $350 (if only the premium package were available), I can see that leaving some people with only one option that fits within their budget.
Joystiq asked Peter Moore at a blogger breakfast at GDC, and, um, i mean they've always been coy about the demand for the Core system, but, they were very defensive of it, saying that in order to appeal to a worldwide audience, it was very important for them to offer a lower price point, for certain countries, say in South America, or in Eastern Europe, it would be important for them have a lower price point, otherwise the console simply wouldn't be viable for whole parts of the world. But, the question becomes then, why are you still offering it for North America, where most gamers have no interesting in it, but...
(someone else starts talking) I mean, you can play almost every game on the core unit, without having to use the hard drive.
Engadget asked one of the Microsoft guys about the core system, and one of their answers was that outside of the US, there are some consumers who simply don't have the budget for the higher-priced version, and who are fine with having partial functionality, as long as they can play modern games. Engadget also noted that the 360 CAN compete with the Wii... although it will be more expensive (at most $75 more, by the time the Wii comes out), it's much more powerful in terms of graphics, so for casual gamers who might buy just one console, and don't want to drop a lot of money, then a $200 Wii vs. a $275 360 Core might be two of the options they'd consider (granted, it's not remotely cost-effective if you ever want the hard drive later, but casual gamers may not care about that so much, especially if they're comparing it solely to the Wii).
Well, the XBox 360 core launched at $299. MS will probably drop the price at some point before PS3 launches, possibly to $250. Nintendo has stated that the Wii will be priced below the 360 and PS3... does that mean it will cost $250 or less?
I wouldn't call great gameplay... expensive. Certainly most things on XBox Live Arcade are low-budget, but some of them are enjoyable. And any random college kid might possibly come up with tommorow's quirky hit like Katamari Damacy. I suppose for very complex games, good gameplay takes a whole lot of bug-fixing, play-testing, and balancing. But games don't have to be big and complex to have good gameplay.
What could help it be successful? BluRay maybe, but that's a long shot, especially with Sony execs saying that most people's TV's don't support HDMI and it's not all that important.
Are there that many must-have games for the system? Are developers going to commit to releasing more must-have games for it if they smell blood in the water?
It's not the most expensive, but it's nearly as much as the Sega Saturn, which wasn't all that successful. Really, the highest priced console so far that's done really well was the PS2 *, which is 40% cheaper than the low-end PS3. If it turns out that HDTV owners really should buy the high-end one instead, that makes the PS3 70% more expensive than high-priced successful consoles.
* except for first- and second-gen consoles, which were understandably expensive, since home electronics was a new market
I presume lenses have gotten slightly better over time too? For instance, Metropolis from 1927 seems somewhat blurry (or maybe it has some purple fringing or something?), and probably wouldn't have much extra useful resolution if scanned in to HD.
I mean, there *is* a lot of HDTV content out there... even 1970's movies have enough resolution to be scanned in in HD... PC games have been in "HD" for a long time now... and digital cameras have LONG gone beyond the 0.3 megapixels that SD TVs provide. These may well not be reasons to switch *now*, but if HDTV prices get down to $400-500 eventually, then all this HD content may be compelling enough at that point.
And, if I read it right, the 1983 crash was coincident with the introduction of a new gaming platform (the home computer) which destabilized the market a bit, whereas the gaming markets are largely stable now (unless handheld or cellphone gaming really takes off, or VR games become practical, but I don't see those happening).
If it costs the copmany $45/month to give you the $15/unlimited service, then there's no way they can provide that service forever. Like I said, you're really just passing the cost onto other customers (or onto the company's creditors or investors). If there's huge demand for $15/unlimited, then there will be some demand for $60/unlimited (albeit smaller demand), and that is a tennable and long-term stable situation.
Cell phone companies did the same thing with packet data plans... they sold $15 plans for unlimited data, assuming people would only use the cell-phone as the endpoint.
When people started hooking their laptops up to cell phones, first thing they did was kick those people off, but continued to advertise "$15 unlimited!!". After a while, they realized there was demand for it, and thus money to be made, and they started advertising "$15/month unlimited (but no laptops!!), or $60/month unlimited wireless, laptops allowed". Voila, honest pricing, no abuse of the service (whose cost just gets spread to other customers anyway), and now some people can actually get what they want without worrying about losing their service without notice.
If there's too much demand for a company's product, you'd think they'd treat it as a good thing, but that's not always the case...
that's awesome. :) mod parent up.
It's relatively easy for scammers to set up a website for a few hours or days, on a computer they don't own, located in a country far away from them, and get a couple of quick hits, with it being somewhat hard for authorities to track down the location that the scammer actually connects to the internet.
If scammers tried this with snail-mail, they would have to wait a week at least to wait for the responses. Also, while it's probably possible to hide your identity when receiving snail mail, it's not nearly as easy as it is online (since vulnerable Windows boxes are a dime a dozen). So, there's much more opportunity online, so it attracts scammers like flies, whereas snail mail boxes don't.
On the other hand, as others have noted, most YouTube videos are pretty low bit-rate and not that great for keeping around. Often with a little more work, you can find a higher bitrate version of the same video elsewhere on the net.
Oops. Right, so $500 or $600 for PS3, vs $350 for the upper 360, and ~$250 for the Wii.
Do you know of anyone who's personally clamoring for the PS3 because of its BluRay player? Do most people prefer to watch DVD's on their PS2?
In terms of launch date, there's a one year gap for the PS3.
In terms of price, the PS3 will launch at $500 (or will be $600, if it's like the XBox360 launch, where nobody in their right mind would get the low-end version? It's still not clear whether HDMI will be required to view BluRay movies or not) ... the PS3 will launch at $500 or $600 at a time that the Wii is launching for $200-$300, and the XBox 360 will have dropped in price to $400 or $450 (for the high-end version). $600 vs $450 and $250 is really tough to swallow, in my humble opinion.
In terms of features, PS3 seems to have added some Wii-mote functionality last minute. PS3 rightly copied the XBox 360 central network service, and we'll have to wait to see if they did anything to innovate on top of XBox 360 (though MS did a pretty thorough job, implementing almost everything one could want with XBL).
And sentiment among many gamers right now is that PS3 has a poor showing at E3 so far compared to Nintendo. I don't think it's inaccurate to present PS3 in a poor light right now.