Just to be clear, I was talking about the animated cartoon show that lasted less than a season. It didn't have time to get old or tired, heh.
As for your other comments, I disagree, but it's not worth discussing here. A good deal of the fun with Dilbert occurs when you work in a Dilbert-like environment. If you don't work that way, I can't make Dilbert funny to you.
The animated cartoon is pretty good, though. It's worth a gander if you get bored hanging around Kazaa.:)
I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree about it's humor. I appreciated South Park's take on the War on Terror, but I really think the joy of it came from the episode's focus on showing the US kick Bin Laden's ass.
I don't see the Simpsons being able to lift my spirits that way. Jokes about airport screenings may be funny, but when you put them in the terrorism context, it loses it's humor.
Bin Laden in a blender is a spoof of stuff we've already seen on the net. It's the lighter side of what happened. But to tackle the attacks directly without turning it into a drama... well I'd be very impressed if they pulled it off. As I said, South Park did, but I'm not sure Simpsons is quite up to it.
A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
The genre of literature comprising such works.
Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
There was a Dilbert cartoon on UPN that really wasn't bad. Unfortunately, being UPN and being on at an unusual time (well for me anyway...) made me miss alot of it. So I really didn't notice that it had disappeared. One night, I was inspired to check Kazaa for Dilbert and grabbed a few eps. That show was actually pretty good!
I think what killed that show was not so much time slot, but rather FOX has a virtual monopoly on prime-time animated shows. Sunday nights are when I watch like a string of cartoons. And... well damn, if Fox had bought Dilbert from UPN, that would have worked out really well:
7:00 PM: King of the Hill 7:30 PM: Family Guy 8:00 PM: Simpsons 8:30 PM: Futurama 9:00 PM: Dilbert 9:30 PM: X-Files
Tell me that wouldn't have been a cool night lineup.
"I do feel sorry for the people who think the Simpsons are "clever". I wonder if they've ever read anything by Evan Dorkin [houseoffun.com] or Dan Clowes [fantagraphics.com]."
Okay... so the Simpsons really isn't funny. I guess all my laughter was an allergic reaction to really bad TV?
I think it's funny how people use their individualism to try to rise above other people. They never seem to realize that the tip of their nose ends up higher than their forehead when they do that.
I have no regrets. Both the Simpsons and Futurama are quite amusing to watch, and their style of humor has yet to be replicated by anybody. Hmm... isn't that the definition of clever?
I'm amazed that when they aired Star Wars IV, they cancelled Futurama that night. Funny thing is, normally Futurama would have been right after SW, instead they put on two eps of King of the Hill.
Why they preempted Futurama from following Star Wars I'll never know.
The Simpsons has wider appeal than Futurama. Futurama is definitely tuned more towards the scifi/geek/even Slashdot audience. That might be part of why Fox is messing with it.
The humor in Futurama definitely has better bite than the Simpsons. If you don't believe me, watch an episode that has a lot of Bender in it. Some of Bender's robotic anatomy is well.. uh.. more functional than ours.;)
"Futerama would be good if it had better characters, better animation, better plots, better jokes, better acting, and better flow."
That's kind of funny, I was just thinking your post'd be good if it had better spelling, better presentation, a better point, better use of grammar, a better style of writing, and better use of commas.
Wouldn't have been easier to type "I don't like Futurama?". Even so, you picked a bad topic to post that under.
Oops, I forgot to establish context. I apologize for that.
It's not that I see Cali as the state paved with golden roads, it's because my profession (3D Animator / Visual Effects) is in the most demand there. It's tough enough getting a job like that here in Portland during a good job market. It is because of my profession I'd have to move. (Why I'm not there right now, I'll never know...)
One thing I definitely like about being a bachelor is that I can move on a moment's notice. I live in Portland where the unemployment rate is really high. If I lost my job, I'd likely have to move to California.
I'll tell you all something, you can budget and budget and budget, but shit will happen. The best advice I can give anybody is 'have a fallback plan in case you have to leave where you live.' In my case, I have family and friends I could stay with. If I lost my job, I'd probably have to wait about 4 months to get another one. Though I do have money saved up (barely) to pay the bills until then, I know what'll happen. The car will break down. I'll need dental work that I'm no longer insured for. And my girlfriend's birthday will come up. I think that I'd be able to move in with somebody I know, keep rent down. I even have plans in place to reimburse that person for when I do get a job for their time.
That's just me, of course. But I don't think you can ever have enough in your savings account to deal with unemployment for very long.
What they have is a mo-cap sort of device that a puppeteer moves around, causing the 3D image of the muppet to react on screen. I'm at a loss as to how to explain it. It's a device you stick your hand inside of that has several articulated sensors that sense a variety of positions. Your fingers end up in a clamshell shaped thing you can open and close, causing the muppet to move his mouth.
I guess the reason that Linux is necessary for this is because it's a combination of hardware and software. Is it a big deal that it's Linux? I don't feel that way. Personally, I think the reason this made it to Slashdot was because they said they use Linux, as opposed to the real news that they're talking about using 3D to do puppet animations.
This technology's not really very new either. It's been in use for aaaaaaaages. What's different today is that computers are powerful enough to render Muppets in real time now. This means that some very interesting, yet bizarre kids shows could start appearing soon. Heh. And you thought that Winnie the Pooh show was strange...
The Robots in Disguise series did lose some of the original Transformers spirit. But they do balance that somewhat by providing some really good visuals. They even seem to understand the underlying 'transforming' technology better.
Ever find it interesting that Megatron can transform into a gun that one of his soldiers can handle? There's a theory going around (do a Google search for 'Transformers FAQ' for more info...) that works along the lines that the Transformers have a 'pocket of subspace' they can store extra mass in.
The reason I bring that up is the new cartoon seems to take advantage of that. I caught an episode where there were Autobot trains that had tracks magically appear in front of them. I thought that detail was pretty cool. That new show is loaded with interesting new details that were never really brought out in the original series.
I found value in that show for that, but I agree it's just not the same as the original. Still, it's fun.:) I am a little tired of them announcing the weapons they're using. Those guys have a never ending supply of new weapons.
So... if you lost your job for 6 months, you'd be okay? If so, how much do you have in your savings account. I'll avoid being an idiot if you can just tell me the exact amount I need.
Personally, I hope digital projectors do take over. One potential improvement they can make is in frame rate. Sometimes, if I'm close enough to the screen, strobing is visible at 24fps. Particularly in animated movies where the screen scrolls without blurring, I can see a double image as it pans by. IMAX theaters are aware of this and have film that can run as high as 60fps. Unfortunately, for film that's pretty expensive.
But in the digital world, 60 fps is feasible (or will be before too long.) Even if the resolution's a little lower, the improvement in frame rate'd easily make up for it.
I'm sorry, but Olathe Kansas is not a big town. It's near Kansas City, Ks. Anybody living in Kansas City has to make a pretty good drive to get to Olathe. Of course, if I still lived in KC I'd probably go just for shits and giggles. However, I certainly think that Portland Oregon (where I live now...) would be a bigger market. I have trouble imagining that many people going all the way out to Olathe to see Star Wars on a digital screen instead of driving to Oak Park or other neighboring cities which are much, much closer. In other words, I seriously doubt that many people in KC would trouble themselves going to see it on a digital projector.
"Making better games is only part of it. You also need a large library in general to really make money. If you have a large library with many companies developing for you, you're more likely to find some real gems in that library.
I agree, sort of at least. I think Nintendo has proven that's not an unbreakable law. The Nintendo 64 was creamed by Playstation in terms of how many games were available. Yet, the N64 still made Nintendo a good deal of cash that they aren't complaining about. They were #2 to Sony in terms of how many ppl have a PS vs. N64, but Nintendo still got a good dosage of cash. Why? Because Nintendo also made some killer games for the N64 that sold really well. (With some help from Pokemon for the Game Boy)
Nintendo is in the unique situation where no matter how popular another console is, they still have an audience that'll follow them around. They'll still make oodles of money provided they keep their standards up.
Sega was in that position to an extent, unfortunately they relied on rehasing Sonic and Virtua Fighter a little too much. (I don't care what anybody says, a Mario sequal is always incredibly different from it's predecessors. Sonic games were essentially an extension of previous games.) They had a loyal audience, but they blew it.
Sony doesn't have that. Microsoft doesn't have that. Niether company does any interesting in-house games. That will hurt them in the long run. Nobody has any real reason to stick with Sony or MS. Final Fantasy 7 was a good reason to have a PS back in the 95 gaming era, but Sony no longer has that exclusive today. You'll be able to play an FF sequal on another platform before too long, but you'll never play a Mario game on Sony or XBOX.
Consider that for a bit. Nintendo is likely to always be successful, even if they're #2 to somebody else. But the #1 place will always be up for grabs. It might have been Sony last time, but it could be anybody this time.
"That's because the design is skimpy and lean, not because it's 'clean, elegant design.'"
Really? Then how come this 'skimpy and lean [design]' isn't getting it's butt kicked by the presumably not-so-lean XBOX? XBOX might have a little bit of power superiority over GC, but not $100 (or twice the price of the GC) better.
Nintendo *always* puts all kinds of effort into making sure that the circuitry is as elegant and simple as possible. If you don't believe me, look at the Game Boy, Nintendo 64, and SNES. They always put extra development time into this. Some would say that's why Nintendo often misses their planned launch dates.
"Then they go to plan B - offer a similar product for free at a vastly reduced price (or free) - force them out of business - then you have a monopoly! "
Harldy a winning strategy. If MS were to drop the price of the XBOX, they'd go DEEPER into the hole on each machine sold. As it is, it costs like $400 or $500 to build one of the machines. Nintendo, however, is either close to break even point, or even making a profit on their $200 machine.
MS cannot legally undercut the price of the XBOX, it's called 'Dumping'. The FTC would strangle them over it. (In theory, so far the US gov't doesn't seem too wild about telling MS no to anything.) I vaguely remember Atari threatening to sue Sony over it when the Playstation was announced to be $200 (I think it was released at $300, though...) for similar reasons. (Anybody remember that?)
Nintendo could easily afford to drop the price of the Gamecube even farther. It'd either be extremely bold or extremely stupid of MS to try to get into a price war with them. That's not MS's biggest problem though.
XBOX just doesn't have the winning titles yet. There are some okay games for it, but they really need a Miyamoto on their side. One of the things that kind of drove me away from being a game player is the lack of imagination and thought being put into games. If MS were smart, they'd drag out every Miyamoto and RARE game ever made and devote a group to figuring out why they're fun. Then, they need to set up a division intended to make games like these. (not copy them, I mean continue the spirit of them.)
MS would be smart to make better games, that'd be a far better strategy than trying to beat them at price. That is unless they start giving away XBOX's along with the purchase of Gateway PC's....
"Notice how Nintendo is pricing their products to be cheaper than Microsoft's."
Correction: Notice how Nintendo is aware that parents don't want to spend a lot of money for a game system?
Their price motives have nothing to do with what they learned from MS. It has to do with the fact that $200 is far closer to an 'impulse buy' than a PS2, XBOX, or any of the other ridiculously priced systems. Even Sega knew this when they made the Dreamcast.
If you want more proof that Nintendo's pricing is a result of careful planning vs. leveraging of 'MS Price points...' (which they would not have known back in 99, heh), then crack open a GameCube, then crack open a PS2 and an XBOX. What you'll find upon opening a GameCube is that a bunch of guts won't fall out. It's a very clean, elegant design. They didn't add DVD player capability (i.e. no royalties to pay to MPEG/DVD groups...), it's small so it requires fewer resources, and there's only one main circuit board plus a riser card for the controller inputs.
Nintendo's pricing is based on knowledge of what people who buy games spend their money on, not based on what they couldn't have known about MS. Remember, it may sound great to have a DVD player built into a game machine, but this machine's main focus is kids. Parents buy the game machine. They look at price tag, not features.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dilbert is old and tired."
:)
Just to be clear, I was talking about the animated cartoon show that lasted less than a season. It didn't have time to get old or tired, heh.
As for your other comments, I disagree, but it's not worth discussing here. A good deal of the fun with Dilbert occurs when you work in a Dilbert-like environment. If you don't work that way, I can't make Dilbert funny to you.
The animated cartoon is pretty good, though. It's worth a gander if you get bored hanging around Kazaa.
I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree about it's humor. I appreciated South Park's take on the War on Terror, but I really think the joy of it came from the episode's focus on showing the US kick Bin Laden's ass.
I don't see the Simpsons being able to lift my spirits that way. Jokes about airport screenings may be funny, but when you put them in the terrorism context, it loses it's humor.
Bin Laden in a blender is a spoof of stuff we've already seen on the net. It's the lighter side of what happened. But to tackle the attacks directly without turning it into a drama... well I'd be very impressed if they pulled it off. As I said, South Park did, but I'm not sure Simpsons is quite up to it.
*would love to see Groenig prove him wrong.*
I personally think that if the show starts before 10 it's okay. I guess that's really up to the mass audience to decide, however.
If not 9:30 on Sundays, put it on after Boston Public on Monday's at 9pm.
ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
The genre of literature comprising such works.
Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or
madrigals.
There was a Dilbert cartoon on UPN that really wasn't bad. Unfortunately, being UPN and being on at an unusual time (well for me anyway...) made me miss alot of it. So I really didn't notice that it had disappeared. One night, I was inspired to check Kazaa for Dilbert and grabbed a few eps. That show was actually pretty good!
... well damn, if Fox had bought Dilbert from UPN, that would have worked out really well:
I think what killed that show was not so much time slot, but rather FOX has a virtual monopoly on prime-time animated shows. Sunday nights are when I watch like a string of cartoons. And
7:00 PM: King of the Hill
7:30 PM: Family Guy
8:00 PM: Simpsons
8:30 PM: Futurama
9:00 PM: Dilbert
9:30 PM: X-Files
Tell me that wouldn't have been a cool night lineup.
"I do feel sorry for the people who think the Simpsons are "clever". I wonder if they've ever read anything by Evan Dorkin [houseoffun.com] or Dan Clowes [fantagraphics.com]."
Okay... so the Simpsons really isn't funny. I guess all my laughter was an allergic reaction to really bad TV?
I think it's funny how people use their individualism to try to rise above other people. They never seem to realize that the tip of their nose ends up higher than their forehead when they do that.
I have no regrets. Both the Simpsons and Futurama are quite amusing to watch, and their style of humor has yet to be replicated by anybody. Hmm... isn't that the definition of clever?
I'm amazed that when they aired Star Wars IV, they cancelled Futurama that night. Funny thing is, normally Futurama would have been right after SW, instead they put on two eps of King of the Hill.
Why they preempted Futurama from following Star Wars I'll never know.
The Simpsons has wider appeal than Futurama. Futurama is definitely tuned more towards the scifi/geek/even Slashdot audience. That might be part of why Fox is messing with it.
;)
The humor in Futurama definitely has better bite than the Simpsons. If you don't believe me, watch an episode that has a lot of Bender in it. Some of Bender's robotic anatomy is well.. uh.. more functional than ours.
"Futerama would be good if it had better characters, better animation, better plots, better jokes, better acting, and better flow."
That's kind of funny, I was just thinking your post'd be good if it had better spelling, better presentation, a better point, better use of grammar, a better style of writing, and better use of commas.
Wouldn't have been easier to type "I don't like Futurama?". Even so, you picked a bad topic to post that under.
Oops, I forgot to establish context. I apologize for that.
It's not that I see Cali as the state paved with golden roads, it's because my profession (3D Animator / Visual Effects) is in the most demand there. It's tough enough getting a job like that here in Portland during a good job market. It is because of my profession I'd have to move. (Why I'm not there right now, I'll never know...)
One thing I definitely like about being a bachelor is that I can move on a moment's notice. I live in Portland where the unemployment rate is really high. If I lost my job, I'd likely have to move to California.
I'll tell you all something, you can budget and budget and budget, but shit will happen. The best advice I can give anybody is 'have a fallback plan in case you have to leave where you live.' In my case, I have family and friends I could stay with. If I lost my job, I'd probably have to wait about 4 months to get another one. Though I do have money saved up (barely) to pay the bills until then, I know what'll happen. The car will break down. I'll need dental work that I'm no longer insured for. And my girlfriend's birthday will come up. I think that I'd be able to move in with somebody I know, keep rent down. I even have plans in place to reimburse that person for when I do get a job for their time.
That's just me, of course. But I don't think you can ever have enough in your savings account to deal with unemployment for very long.
What they have is a mo-cap sort of device that a puppeteer moves around, causing the 3D image of the muppet to react on screen. I'm at a loss as to how to explain it. It's a device you stick your hand inside of that has several articulated sensors that sense a variety of positions. Your fingers end up in a clamshell shaped thing you can open and close, causing the muppet to move his mouth.
I guess the reason that Linux is necessary for this is because it's a combination of hardware and software. Is it a big deal that it's Linux? I don't feel that way. Personally, I think the reason this made it to Slashdot was because they said they use Linux, as opposed to the real news that they're talking about using 3D to do puppet animations.
This technology's not really very new either. It's been in use for aaaaaaaages. What's different today is that computers are powerful enough to render Muppets in real time now. This means that some very interesting, yet bizarre kids shows could start appearing soon. Heh. And you thought that Winnie the Pooh show was strange...
The Robots in Disguise series did lose some of the original Transformers spirit. But they do balance that somewhat by providing some really good visuals. They even seem to understand the underlying 'transforming' technology better.
:) I am a little tired of them announcing the weapons they're using. Those guys have a never ending supply of new weapons.
Ever find it interesting that Megatron can transform into a gun that one of his soldiers can handle? There's a theory going around (do a Google search for 'Transformers FAQ' for more info...) that works along the lines that the Transformers have a 'pocket of subspace' they can store extra mass in.
The reason I bring that up is the new cartoon seems to take advantage of that. I caught an episode where there were Autobot trains that had tracks magically appear in front of them. I thought that detail was pretty cool. That new show is loaded with interesting new details that were never really brought out in the original series.
I found value in that show for that, but I agree it's just not the same as the original. Still, it's fun.
I'm no Webster or anybody, but my definition of idiot includes the term 'over-simplification to make a point.'
Or maybe that's ass. Damn, I should start writing these things down.
So... if you lost your job for 6 months, you'd be okay? If so, how much do you have in your savings account. I'll avoid being an idiot if you can just tell me the exact amount I need.
"To summarize, it involved a Max Headroom mask, a bare ass and a fly swatter, while Dr. Who was supposed to be playing. "
That sounded great until you mentioned Dr Who geting preempted for it. I'm really sensitive to that now because of Futurama.
Tv networks have some strange ideas about what classifies as 'a good show'.
Personally, I hope digital projectors do take over. One potential improvement they can make is in frame rate. Sometimes, if I'm close enough to the screen, strobing is visible at 24fps. Particularly in animated movies where the screen scrolls without blurring, I can see a double image as it pans by. IMAX theaters are aware of this and have film that can run as high as 60fps. Unfortunately, for film that's pretty expensive.
But in the digital world, 60 fps is feasible (or will be before too long.) Even if the resolution's a little lower, the improvement in frame rate'd easily make up for it.
I'm sorry, but Olathe Kansas is not a big town. It's near Kansas City, Ks. Anybody living in Kansas City has to make a pretty good drive to get to Olathe. Of course, if I still lived in KC I'd probably go just for shits and giggles. However, I certainly think that Portland Oregon (where I live now...) would be a bigger market. I have trouble imagining that many people going all the way out to Olathe to see Star Wars on a digital screen instead of driving to Oak Park or other neighboring cities which are much, much closer. In other words, I seriously doubt that many people in KC would trouble themselves going to see it on a digital projector.
"And you know that because you read it somewhere in a magazine.
Remember, business is war. Telling stories like this makes people like you think they know what's going on."
Yah... how dare I attempt to sound informed after doing research.
I'm seriously tempted to buy one. Has anybody bought one? Done anything cool with it?
*likes buying high tech geek toys*
"Making better games is only part of it. You also need a large library in general to really make money. If you have a large library with many companies developing for you, you're more likely to find some real gems in that library.
I agree, sort of at least. I think Nintendo has proven that's not an unbreakable law. The Nintendo 64 was creamed by Playstation in terms of how many games were available. Yet, the N64 still made Nintendo a good deal of cash that they aren't complaining about. They were #2 to Sony in terms of how many ppl have a PS vs. N64, but Nintendo still got a good dosage of cash. Why? Because Nintendo also made some killer games for the N64 that sold really well. (With some help from Pokemon for the Game Boy)
Nintendo is in the unique situation where no matter how popular another console is, they still have an audience that'll follow them around. They'll still make oodles of money provided they keep their standards up.
Sega was in that position to an extent, unfortunately they relied on rehasing Sonic and Virtua Fighter a little too much. (I don't care what anybody says, a Mario sequal is always incredibly different from it's predecessors. Sonic games were essentially an extension of previous games.) They had a loyal audience, but they blew it.
Sony doesn't have that. Microsoft doesn't have that. Niether company does any interesting in-house games. That will hurt them in the long run. Nobody has any real reason to stick with Sony or MS. Final Fantasy 7 was a good reason to have a PS back in the 95 gaming era, but Sony no longer has that exclusive today. You'll be able to play an FF sequal on another platform before too long, but you'll never play a Mario game on Sony or XBOX.
Consider that for a bit. Nintendo is likely to always be successful, even if they're #2 to somebody else. But the #1 place will always be up for grabs. It might have been Sony last time, but it could be anybody this time.
"That's because the design is skimpy and lean, not because it's 'clean, elegant design.'"
Really? Then how come this 'skimpy and lean [design]' isn't getting it's butt kicked by the presumably not-so-lean XBOX? XBOX might have a little bit of power superiority over GC, but not $100 (or twice the price of the GC) better.
Nintendo *always* puts all kinds of effort into making sure that the circuitry is as elegant and simple as possible. If you don't believe me, look at the Game Boy, Nintendo 64, and SNES. They always put extra development time into this. Some would say that's why Nintendo often misses their planned launch dates.
Ooops... now that I think about it, I think you're right...
Sorry for the misinfo!
"Then they go to plan B - offer a similar product for free at a vastly reduced price (or free) - force them out of business - then you have a monopoly! "
Harldy a winning strategy. If MS were to drop the price of the XBOX, they'd go DEEPER into the hole on each machine sold. As it is, it costs like $400 or $500 to build one of the machines. Nintendo, however, is either close to break even point, or even making a profit on their $200 machine.
MS cannot legally undercut the price of the XBOX, it's called 'Dumping'. The FTC would strangle them over it. (In theory, so far the US gov't doesn't seem too wild about telling MS no to anything.) I vaguely remember Atari threatening to sue Sony over it when the Playstation was announced to be $200 (I think it was released at $300, though...) for similar reasons. (Anybody remember that?)
Nintendo could easily afford to drop the price of the Gamecube even farther. It'd either be extremely bold or extremely stupid of MS to try to get into a price war with them. That's not MS's biggest problem though.
XBOX just doesn't have the winning titles yet. There are some okay games for it, but they really need a Miyamoto on their side. One of the things that kind of drove me away from being a game player is the lack of imagination and thought being put into games. If MS were smart, they'd drag out every Miyamoto and RARE game ever made and devote a group to figuring out why they're fun. Then, they need to set up a division intended to make games like these. (not copy them, I mean continue the spirit of them.)
MS would be smart to make better games, that'd be a far better strategy than trying to beat them at price. That is unless they start giving away XBOX's along with the purchase of Gateway PC's....
"Notice how Nintendo is pricing their products to be cheaper than Microsoft's."
Correction: Notice how Nintendo is aware that parents don't want to spend a lot of money for a game system?
Their price motives have nothing to do with what they learned from MS. It has to do with the fact that $200 is far closer to an 'impulse buy' than a PS2, XBOX, or any of the other ridiculously priced systems. Even Sega knew this when they made the Dreamcast.
If you want more proof that Nintendo's pricing is a result of careful planning vs. leveraging of 'MS Price points...' (which they would not have known back in 99, heh), then crack open a GameCube, then crack open a PS2 and an XBOX. What you'll find upon opening a GameCube is that a bunch of guts won't fall out. It's a very clean, elegant design. They didn't add DVD player capability (i.e. no royalties to pay to MPEG/DVD groups...), it's small so it requires fewer resources, and there's only one main circuit board plus a riser card for the controller inputs.
Nintendo's pricing is based on knowledge of what people who buy games spend their money on, not based on what they couldn't have known about MS. Remember, it may sound great to have a DVD player built into a game machine, but this machine's main focus is kids. Parents buy the game machine. They look at price tag, not features.