"I think Sony also has some expertise in the console market, afterall they do have two of the best selling consoles ever. And of course they are the current king of the console market, so I would think that should stand for somthing as far as "expertise" goes."
Well, going by that logic, Microsoft's employees are experts on OS design.
"But yes, we will likely be underimpressed with the PS3 when it comes out. But all of the "non geeks" out there who never heard the five versions of the inflated specs that we were promised will still love the machine for what it is, a good game console."
I remember a lot of bitching because Dreamcast games looked better than the first batch of PS2 games. Now, that doesn't really dent your point, but Sony's arrogance in that regard nearly lost them some customers. I know I avoided the PS2 for quite a while after being promised 66 million polys a second and getting back a machine where the games have to be halve-res'd to fit within its video memory.
Anywhoo, can't say you're wrong, but I would point out that Sony's already creating a tidal wave of voices screaming "Bullshit!" whenever they promise specs.
"Not a successful venture? Based on what? Because you're not profitable enough 2 years into a long term investment based on a relatively new concept?"
Do you envision 10 million people using it and turning over a nice profit for MS? From your interesting choice of words "Not great, but not exactly a failure" I'm guessing you're not as optimistic. Frankly, there is little reason to believe a significant number of people would be willing to pay $10+ a month for an on-line service for gaming, especially when on-line PC gaming is free.
"Saying that Xbox Live is not very successful is either flamebait, inaccurate, or at least premature."
Not at all. If I had said "it'll never be very successful" I'd be forced to agree. MS has a huge uphill battle here, as does Sony. Unwarranted optimism is no better than inaccurately predicting the demise of a business model.
"DV is compressed, too. MPEG-2 I-frame only is the same type of video compression as DV uses, just in a different wrapper."... and a different bit-rate. (You care about this most when you're green-screening.)
"I do agree with this, but for the 3d design community [for movies and otherwise], this would be a great way to show models being worked on to an art director on the road without sending him/her a 3d model and requiring him/her to render, or sending a batch of renders."
Heck, it'd be great for those of us who make 3D models for a living! As it is, I rotate my models a LOT in order to work out that things are correct proportionally. The more detail, the slower this goes. If there was some way to 'bake' it into a 3D image, I'd be one happy dude.
Err sorry to leech off your post, but man I do agree with you. I'm aching for a 3D printer. Not quite as cool as a hologram, but I love the idea of studying prototype models that I'm holding in my hand.
"The part about Chile maybe be interesting, as I point out how Robotech may have helped the perception of the militar dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the young generation which watched the awesome adventures of the space militars."
Ah that sounds really cool! Think I'll needta fire up BabelFish and have a peek!
"The reason N64 did ok was because of fanboyism and hopes and dreams left over from the SNES era"
Actually, that had more to do with the quality games on the N64. There were quite a few must-haves including Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, etc.
" I bet the president of Nintendo wanted to kill himself after he allowed the hardware team to botch N64 hardware design."
I doubt it. It was not botched, nor was it unsuccessful. If anything, it gave Nintendo the ability to survive the battle against Sony.
A.) The N64 was considerably cheaper than the PS2.
B.) Fewer returns due to defective hardware.
C.) Nintendo controlled who published what. That may not seem like a big deal, but the problem with the original Playstation was the flood of crap games that was released on it. I was a games salesman during that time, and ugh, lots of people bought lots of games for the PS1 they just plain didn't like. I don't know what prevented Sony from creating another Atari, but I'm glad it didn't happen that way.
"They placed their bet on closed / inferior storage technology and lost because they are anal about piracy and didn't want people burning their games and they payed for it dearly."
I doubt that was their reasoning, though it's reasonable to assume that was a bright shiny bullet-point while designing the system. The problem is that CDs weren't all that superior. Sure they held more, but the slow access times and delicacy of the medium weren't ideal. Nintendo could have made a 32-bit unit with a CD-ROM... and then what? Sell a system fragile system for $100 more? Be virtually indistinguishable from the PS1? Get lower royalites for every game sold? Wasn't going to happen. Nintendo would likely have produced another Saturn. The fact of the matter was that CDs didn't automatically make Playstation games better. Sony certainly didn't have a Mario 64 on its hands. Developers were probably more attractied to the lower licensing and publishing fees than to the number of megabytes on the medium. I mean, let's be serious for a moment, how useful is having all that storage if a.) RAM is limited, b.) disc access is slow, c.) there's some burning need to use it? About the only real benefit that the PS1 saw was better audio, and.. weeeee Full Motion Video!!! (Which is what most of the data on FFVII comprised of. I read somewhere that it actually could have been ported to the N64 if not for the insistence on full-rendered graphics all over teh place.)
"Part of the reason the original playstation 1 and now the Xbox and PS2 are so popular"
I find this rather unlikely. Especially with the PS1 considering that CD burners didn't become common items until the late 90's when the Dreamcast came along.
As for having clouded glasses, that may be true. I've stated it openly before, and I'll state it here just so there's no confusion: I'm a Nintendo fan and a zealot. I like to think I'm educated enough to be rational during the discussion, but I figured you'd at least appreciate hearing why I'm so thick headed about the topic. However, it also means I've followed their story quite thoroughly. So maybe a little credit is deserved?;)
"Nintendo was absolutely opposed to online gaming. The only reason why they are shifting gears is because they are under fire from Sony and M$. "
Niether are true. Nintendo's not opposed to on-line gaming, they're opposed to making a bad business move. Either on-line gaming is free to the customer at the big N's expense, or big N has to charge a fee and scare away a bunch of customers. Sony and MS aren't forcing Nintendo in this direction, they're not even very successful with their services. If anything, Sony and MS have caused Nintendo to step back a bit and work out a better way to do this. Console based on-line gaming is just plain not a successful venture.
This is a service that has to be done right. Until one of these companies works out a way to do it, everybody's behind.
"Doubtful. I would venture to guess that a lot of people who pirate music wouldn't pay for it anyway."
Alternatively, some people use 'piracy' to broaden their music tastes. $15-$20 is a lot to spend on an experiment. I doubt I would have ever downloaded music if I could have returned CDs I didn't like. Thankfully, services like Rhapsody and iTunes have made a huge step in the right direction for making the business fair for both the industry and its customers.
Sorry to be OT here, but I was wondering if you could tell me what the page in your sig is about? My spanish interpretation isn't too good, but I am a Robotech fan.:)
" You can play online using KAI or XBConnect for free;) "
Ah... Hadn't considered that. Boy I'm torn. On the one hand, I could see that making the game really popular. On the other, it's difficult to imagine millions of people headed that route. Big question mark over my head.
" I also doubt those are halo 2 actual sells."
I really should have clarified my line of thought. I was thinking "in the future...". The first Halo became a must-have title for the XBOX. I'm fairly certain it's enjoyed sales of more than 5 million. If 10 million were sold, I wouldn't exactly have a stunned look on my face. I really don't know either way. You're right, though, if only 2 million are sold, and there are that many Live users, then you're more likely to be right than I am. Hehe.
I remember reading somewhere that Live had 1-2 million users, but there was debate as to whether there would be that many after the first year. I really can't say, though, that I've stayed on top of that.
"You can argue all you want, but I seriously doubt halo 2 and socom would had ranked that many sales if they werent online."
If 10 million copies of Halo2 end up sold, and there are only 2 million people using XBOX Live, then your statement would be false.
Frankly, I do not know how many people are subscribed to that service. If you can tell me it's a pretty substantial number (preferably backed up with a source), I'll retract that comment.
"Nintendo did many great things in their time (specially in the snes) and did great games for the n64 (not many but they did), however not placing a CD tray in the n64 because of "load times" thus giving birth to the psx, has to be one of the greatest mistakes in game history."
Nintendo sold 30 million of those 'greatest mistakes in game history'. Frankly, if the N64 had been more like the Playstation, it really isn't all that clear they would have done better.
a.) Sony flooded stores with 3rd party crap games, making it seem like the 'must have' system to own. Nintendo wouldn't have done that.
b.) The Saturn's butt was kicked to the point of failure (unlike the 30 million N64s sold) and it had a CD drive.
c.) Nintendo made money on every cartridge sold, that would not have been the case with CDs. Sucks for the customer, great for Nintendo. The point is, the N64 is not a sour note in Nintendo's history. Gamers like the PS1 better, but Nintendo still made quite a healthy profit on it.
"IMO announcing they are going online now is the equivalent of a big: "OOOOOPS!""
I doubt it. Going on-line isn't exactly causing Sony or MS to build a 3 cubic acre money bin to swim in.
" However, Nintendo has neglected them for their entire history, and actively opposed them for a very long time. Last year, it was said that the Sega Saturn had more online games than the Nintendo GameCube. The numbers may have shifted by now, but that's still pretty sad compared to Sony and Microsoft (not to mention the PC, which has had online games almost longer than there's been a way to play them online).
Nintendo's caught playing catchup with Sony yet again because of that mistake...."
Nintendo isn't opposed to on-line gaming. They're holding out because for consoles, it's not an attractive market. The best example of this is Sony. 40 million people have PS2s, and only a million actually play on-line. (note: I'm open to corrections on that number, but it is something I read a couple of months ago.) Nintendo has quite openly stated that they don't feel an on-line experience is worth it if their customers have to pay monthly fees for it. Frankly, they're right. There are numbers backing them up.
The move into 802.11 with the DS is an interesting one in the direction we want. From the very start, they have a means of getting the unit onto the net. The other half of this is making it easy for individuals to host their own games. Since the DS has a stylus, they have a much easier interface for configuring a unit to host games. If Nintendo wisens up, games will include a downloadable 'server app' that PCs can run. Now, wouldn't that be slick? Download a Bomberman server app for your PC, fire it up, and people playing with DS's hooked up on-line can go find the game and play it. That would be pretty slick. More importantly, it'd be free.
"Definitely and when you see the ludicrous cost of DVD boxsets for some TV shows you can see why."
Sticker shock, not ludicrous prices. The most I ever paid for a DVD box set is $100 for a season of DS9. If memory serves, that was 16 hours of DS9. Basically, I paid a little over $6 per episode. That's a lot cheaper than what individual episodes are sold for.
Anyway, that was the most extreme case. I bought an entire season of the Osbournes for $30. A season of M*A*S*H... I want to say $30, maybe $40 tops. The first season of Quantum Leap was $40. See a pattern?
I think somebody else already commented and basically said the same thing. I just wanted to add that I don't really think they're all that ludicrous at all. I've been quite the happy little TV-season shopper. Cheaper than movies, really. I'm desperately looking forward to seasons 4 and up coming out for Oz.
"With the introduction of higher resolution phones like this all over the place what are the privacy implications people face?"
This problem is looming whether phones do it or not. Technology always gets better. The more connected we get, the less privacy we get.
Is this worrying? Depends on what your values are. The more we dabble in the electronic world,the more evidence we leave of our existence. What do we do? We adjust. Let's say, for example, that naked photos of everybody start popping up. It'll be shocking at first, no denying that. Consider, though, that the more it happens, the less shocking it is, the less of a big deal it becomes. Remember when it was taboo to talk about looking at porn on the internet? Now, it's well established pretty much all of us look at porn. Just isn't shocking anymore. No shock, no real interest.
I really don't think this'll be that big of deal. Maybe I'm naieve, definitely a strong possibility. I just think society is more adaptable than a lot of people fearing loss of privacy typically imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
"You'd think with how advanced PSP is you guys wouldn't be so against it."
"Advanced" isn't always better in the portable arena. Just look at the daily rantings about cell phones.
"Expensive as compared to what? The Xbox? Sony is profitable..."
I wonder how long that took. Rumor has it they spent 2 billion* on developing the PS2. That's quite an initial loss to take on a game system.
(*Anybody know if that number's accurate?)
"I think Sony also has some expertise in the console market, afterall they do have two of the best selling consoles ever. And of course they are the current king of the console market, so I would think that should stand for somthing as far as "expertise" goes."
Well, going by that logic, Microsoft's employees are experts on OS design.
"But yes, we will likely be underimpressed with the PS3 when it comes out. But all of the "non geeks" out there who never heard the five versions of the inflated specs that we were promised will still love the machine for what it is, a good game console."
I remember a lot of bitching because Dreamcast games looked better than the first batch of PS2 games. Now, that doesn't really dent your point, but Sony's arrogance in that regard nearly lost them some customers. I know I avoided the PS2 for quite a while after being promised 66 million polys a second and getting back a machine where the games have to be halve-res'd to fit within its video memory.
Anywhoo, can't say you're wrong, but I would point out that Sony's already creating a tidal wave of voices screaming "Bullshit!" whenever they promise specs.
"Get the hint, you haven't paid for the privelege of a MS operating system in at least 3 years and they want more money."
Well he's got a point. Adobe, for example, asks you politely not to upgrade because you've already given them enough money.
"These guys have a lot of time on their hands...." ... said the guy posting on Slashdot.
"And it's not anywhere near being ready to replace Microsoft Office, but I guess they've only had 10 years..."
Add to that that MS hasn't made any real drastic changes to Office since 97. Not like MS has done much to shake them off their tail.
"seeing as how there is no ecosystem on any planet we know of there is nothing to destroy beyond our planet yet."
So... we don't know that we'll be creating problems, so we shouldn't worry about them despite the lessons we learned rather harshly here on Earth?
"Not a successful venture? Based on what? Because you're not profitable enough 2 years into a long term investment based on a relatively new concept?"
Do you envision 10 million people using it and turning over a nice profit for MS? From your interesting choice of words "Not great, but not exactly a failure" I'm guessing you're not as optimistic. Frankly, there is little reason to believe a significant number of people would be willing to pay $10+ a month for an on-line service for gaming, especially when on-line PC gaming is free.
"Saying that Xbox Live is not very successful is either flamebait, inaccurate, or at least premature."
Not at all. If I had said "it'll never be very successful" I'd be forced to agree. MS has a huge uphill battle here, as does Sony. Unwarranted optimism is no better than inaccurately predicting the demise of a business model.
"get there first, make exisistence possible, wait until you reach a population of >50- then worry about running out of pristine areas..."
You're right. We shouldn't be careful about how we arrive there. We should solve all the problems after we've caused them.
"DV is compressed, too. MPEG-2 I-frame only is the same type of video compression as DV uses, just in a different wrapper." ... and a different bit-rate. (You care about this most when you're green-screening.)
"1) Who owns the moon? Does the American flag mean we own it?"
If you'd like to challenge that claim, please feel free to take our flag down.
"Sorry, but All these things have been commercially viable projects since Nintendo was still 16 bit.."
And nobody's made a good business of it.
"I do agree with this, but for the 3d design community [for movies and otherwise], this would be a great way to show models being worked on to an art director on the road without sending him/her a 3d model and requiring him/her to render, or sending a batch of renders."
Heck, it'd be great for those of us who make 3D models for a living! As it is, I rotate my models a LOT in order to work out that things are correct proportionally. The more detail, the slower this goes. If there was some way to 'bake' it into a 3D image, I'd be one happy dude.
Err sorry to leech off your post, but man I do agree with you. I'm aching for a 3D printer. Not quite as cool as a hologram, but I love the idea of studying prototype models that I'm holding in my hand.
"The part about Chile maybe be interesting, as I point out how Robotech may have helped the perception of the militar dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the young generation which watched the awesome adventures of the space militars."
:)
Ah that sounds really cool! Think I'll needta fire up BabelFish and have a peek!
Thanks.
"The reason N64 did ok was because of fanboyism and hopes and dreams left over from the SNES era"
.. weeeee Full Motion Video!!! (Which is what most of the data on FFVII comprised of. I read somewhere that it actually could have been ported to the N64 if not for the insistence on full-rendered graphics all over teh place.)
;)
Actually, that had more to do with the quality games on the N64. There were quite a few must-haves including Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, etc.
" I bet the president of Nintendo wanted to kill himself after he allowed the hardware team to botch N64 hardware design."
I doubt it. It was not botched, nor was it unsuccessful. If anything, it gave Nintendo the ability to survive the battle against Sony.
A.) The N64 was considerably cheaper than the PS2.
B.) Fewer returns due to defective hardware.
C.) Nintendo controlled who published what. That may not seem like a big deal, but the problem with the original Playstation was the flood of crap games that was released on it. I was a games salesman during that time, and ugh, lots of people bought lots of games for the PS1 they just plain didn't like. I don't know what prevented Sony from creating another Atari, but I'm glad it didn't happen that way.
"They placed their bet on closed / inferior storage technology and lost because they are anal about piracy and didn't want people burning their games and they payed for it dearly."
I doubt that was their reasoning, though it's reasonable to assume that was a bright shiny bullet-point while designing the system. The problem is that CDs weren't all that superior. Sure they held more, but the slow access times and delicacy of the medium weren't ideal. Nintendo could have made a 32-bit unit with a CD-ROM... and then what? Sell a system fragile system for $100 more? Be virtually indistinguishable from the PS1? Get lower royalites for every game sold? Wasn't going to happen. Nintendo would likely have produced another Saturn. The fact of the matter was that CDs didn't automatically make Playstation games better. Sony certainly didn't have a Mario 64 on its hands. Developers were probably more attractied to the lower licensing and publishing fees than to the number of megabytes on the medium. I mean, let's be serious for a moment, how useful is having all that storage if a.) RAM is limited, b.) disc access is slow, c.) there's some burning need to use it? About the only real benefit that the PS1 saw was better audio, and
"Part of the reason the original playstation 1 and now the Xbox and PS2 are so popular"
I find this rather unlikely. Especially with the PS1 considering that CD burners didn't become common items until the late 90's when the Dreamcast came along.
As for having clouded glasses, that may be true. I've stated it openly before, and I'll state it here just so there's no confusion: I'm a Nintendo fan and a zealot. I like to think I'm educated enough to be rational during the discussion, but I figured you'd at least appreciate hearing why I'm so thick headed about the topic. However, it also means I've followed their story quite thoroughly. So maybe a little credit is deserved?
G'nite.
What's flamebait about my post?
"Nintendo was absolutely opposed to online gaming. The only reason why they are shifting gears is because they are under fire from Sony and M$. "
Niether are true. Nintendo's not opposed to on-line gaming, they're opposed to making a bad business move. Either on-line gaming is free to the customer at the big N's expense, or big N has to charge a fee and scare away a bunch of customers. Sony and MS aren't forcing Nintendo in this direction, they're not even very successful with their services. If anything, Sony and MS have caused Nintendo to step back a bit and work out a better way to do this. Console based on-line gaming is just plain not a successful venture.
This is a service that has to be done right. Until one of these companies works out a way to do it, everybody's behind.
"Doubtful. I would venture to guess that a lot of people who pirate music wouldn't pay for it anyway."
Alternatively, some people use 'piracy' to broaden their music tastes. $15-$20 is a lot to spend on an experiment. I doubt I would have ever downloaded music if I could have returned CDs I didn't like. Thankfully, services like Rhapsody and iTunes have made a huge step in the right direction for making the business fair for both the industry and its customers.
Sorry to be OT here, but I was wondering if you could tell me what the page in your sig is about? My spanish interpretation isn't too good, but I am a Robotech fan. :)
" You can play online using KAI or XBConnect for free ;) "
Ah... Hadn't considered that. Boy I'm torn. On the one hand, I could see that making the game really popular. On the other, it's difficult to imagine millions of people headed that route. Big question mark over my head.
" I also doubt those are halo 2 actual sells."
I really should have clarified my line of thought. I was thinking "in the future...". The first Halo became a must-have title for the XBOX. I'm fairly certain it's enjoyed sales of more than 5 million. If 10 million were sold, I wouldn't exactly have a stunned look on my face. I really don't know either way. You're right, though, if only 2 million are sold, and there are that many Live users, then you're more likely to be right than I am. Hehe.
I remember reading somewhere that Live had 1-2 million users, but there was debate as to whether there would be that many after the first year. I really can't say, though, that I've stayed on top of that.
"You can argue all you want, but I seriously doubt halo 2 and socom would had ranked that many sales if they werent online."
If 10 million copies of Halo2 end up sold, and there are only 2 million people using XBOX Live, then your statement would be false.
Frankly, I do not know how many people are subscribed to that service. If you can tell me it's a pretty substantial number (preferably backed up with a source), I'll retract that comment.
"Nintendo did many great things in their time (specially in the snes) and did great games for the n64 (not many but they did), however not placing a CD tray in the n64 because of "load times" thus giving birth to the psx, has to be one of the greatest mistakes in game history."
Nintendo sold 30 million of those 'greatest mistakes in game history'. Frankly, if the N64 had been more like the Playstation, it really isn't all that clear they would have done better.
a.) Sony flooded stores with 3rd party crap games, making it seem like the 'must have' system to own. Nintendo wouldn't have done that.
b.) The Saturn's butt was kicked to the point of failure (unlike the 30 million N64s sold) and it had a CD drive.
c.) Nintendo made money on every cartridge sold, that would not have been the case with CDs. Sucks for the customer, great for Nintendo. The point is, the N64 is not a sour note in Nintendo's history. Gamers like the PS1 better, but Nintendo still made quite a healthy profit on it.
"IMO announcing they are going online now is the equivalent of a big: "OOOOOPS!""
I doubt it. Going on-line isn't exactly causing Sony or MS to build a 3 cubic acre money bin to swim in.
" However, Nintendo has neglected them for their entire history, and actively opposed them for a very long time. Last year, it was said that the Sega Saturn had more online games than the Nintendo GameCube. The numbers may have shifted by now, but that's still pretty sad compared to Sony and Microsoft (not to mention the PC, which has had online games almost longer than there's been a way to play them online).
Nintendo's caught playing catchup with Sony yet again because of that mistake...."
Nintendo isn't opposed to on-line gaming. They're holding out because for consoles, it's not an attractive market. The best example of this is Sony. 40 million people have PS2s, and only a million actually play on-line. (note: I'm open to corrections on that number, but it is something I read a couple of months ago.) Nintendo has quite openly stated that they don't feel an on-line experience is worth it if their customers have to pay monthly fees for it. Frankly, they're right. There are numbers backing them up.
The move into 802.11 with the DS is an interesting one in the direction we want. From the very start, they have a means of getting the unit onto the net. The other half of this is making it easy for individuals to host their own games. Since the DS has a stylus, they have a much easier interface for configuring a unit to host games. If Nintendo wisens up, games will include a downloadable 'server app' that PCs can run. Now, wouldn't that be slick? Download a Bomberman server app for your PC, fire it up, and people playing with DS's hooked up on-line can go find the game and play it. That would be pretty slick. More importantly, it'd be free.
Pity MS didn't do this with the XBOX.
"Definitely and when you see the ludicrous cost of DVD boxsets for some TV shows you can see why."
Sticker shock, not ludicrous prices. The most I ever paid for a DVD box set is $100 for a season of DS9. If memory serves, that was 16 hours of DS9. Basically, I paid a little over $6 per episode. That's a lot cheaper than what individual episodes are sold for.
Anyway, that was the most extreme case. I bought an entire season of the Osbournes for $30. A season of M*A*S*H... I want to say $30, maybe $40 tops. The first season of Quantum Leap was $40. See a pattern?
I think somebody else already commented and basically said the same thing. I just wanted to add that I don't really think they're all that ludicrous at all. I've been quite the happy little TV-season shopper. Cheaper than movies, really. I'm desperately looking forward to seasons 4 and up coming out for Oz.
"With the introduction of higher resolution phones like this all over the place what are the privacy implications people face?"
This problem is looming whether phones do it or not. Technology always gets better. The more connected we get, the less privacy we get.
Is this worrying? Depends on what your values are. The more we dabble in the electronic world,the more evidence we leave of our existence. What do we do? We adjust. Let's say, for example, that naked photos of everybody start popping up. It'll be shocking at first, no denying that. Consider, though, that the more it happens, the less shocking it is, the less of a big deal it becomes. Remember when it was taboo to talk about looking at porn on the internet? Now, it's well established pretty much all of us look at porn. Just isn't shocking anymore. No shock, no real interest.
I really don't think this'll be that big of deal. Maybe I'm naieve, definitely a strong possibility. I just think society is more adaptable than a lot of people fearing loss of privacy typically imagine.