Avantgo is an awesome service that I use because it takes the data from my PC's internet connection and feeds it down to my PocketPC. The information is fast, the data was tuned to the PocketPC (no mangled WWW like you said), and I don't have to be in a coverage area (try that on an plane) to view it. Even if fast wireless internet did exist, there'd still be a use for it.
Why? Because I'm punishing Mr. Lucas for Episode 1. I watched it on DVD recently and stopped it not just out of sheer boredom, but Jar Jar was getting way too much screen time.
I will see Episode 2. I basically have to as it will no doubt influence my industry. But Lucas isn't getting opening weekend ticket sales out of me.
I remember Jay Leno saying "Star Wars opening to a record setting 200 million dollars this weekend. They'd have made 400 million if they had brought dates!" heh. That opening figure meant so much. Well as punishment for E1, he's not getting it for E2. If E2 is good, then I'll see opening weekend of E3, but why do I think that's not gonna happen?
The shortest route to their brains is through their wallet. Sounds disgusting if you think about it...
How many people have an internet connection at work where they can listen all day to a streaming broadcast?
One person listening for hours is worth more than a few people listening for 15 minutes on their way to work. Then it's not such a gamble that their ads get hurt.
Does anybody else suspect that the RIAA has the impression people'll be able to keep the music they stream?
I think they're worried ppl will use streaming broadcasts to thwart copy restricted CD's, so they're limiting that to only the companies willing to shell out $$$ to play them.
I feel sorry for the people getting burned by this, but every time the RIAA makes another heavy handed attack on the internet, I feel like they're that much closer to being dissolved.
I think you bring up a really good point. There are some differences that I started to point out.. but to tell you the truth, now that I've absorbed your idea a bit, the details don't really matter. I think you're right. Seems like the party that works the hardest to fill people's needs ends up losing. Do you ever wonder why this is?
Part of me thinks is that some people have mixed up ideas about what's really important. I think the PS1 emphasized more than anything that quantity of titles was more important than quality. The only reason this bothers me is that it's exactly that situation that caused the video game crash back in the Atari days. I was really scared for a while that Sony'd ruin the market.
What saddens me is that in most cases, this is the wrong approach. Mac suffers a similar problem today. My original and unenlightened opinion of Mac is that it didn't have enough software support. But when I think about it now, Mac does everything I need! Out of the box I can go around and web surf, instant message, etc. I use my GameCube and Dreamcast for games, don't need my PC/Mac to do that. Mac also has Lightwave, Photoshop, After Effects, and probably even more tools that I use for my artwork. That's all I need to decide to buy a Mac. And you know what? I think it was a similar decision that caused me to buy an N64. Mario, Star Fox, Blast Dozer, and a few other titles were what I really wanted to play.
Thanks for writing that response, it gave me an interesting perspective to consider.:)
"A VERY major portion of the impetus for users to not change is a lack of familiarity with the desktop..."
I just wanted to mention that it wasn't the interface so much that makes me not us Linux, it's that I have no clue how to get hardware to work. Windows has me that spoiled. I'm so used to having neat little menu driven things I can run that allow me to get things up and running, that when I went to use Linux (KDE on Redhat, I believe), I was unable to find what I needed to get network and sound going.
You may chalk this up to me being a helpless newbie, but I don't have this problem with Windows or even Mac. I guess what I'm really saying is that KDE at 2.0 was fine, but tinkering with the hardware to make everything work was what turned me off. I admit that I didn't put all that much effort into it, but I only have so much time, you know?
Apple got the idea right, though. Look at what they did with OSX. They built upon the BSD Kernel (I think it was BSD... don't shoot me if I got it wrong. Please feel free to correct me, though) and made the interface with a target audience in mind. The result? I have a coworker who is able to tinker with his Mac, but he's never needed to know the root password to his machine.
Redhat's gotten close to this in 7.0. I really feel like 8 or 9 may be enough to get me going in the Linux world. A new version of KDE is icing on the cake.
Err no. Most Playstation games rated from crap to mediochre. It was Nintendo that was constantly trying to innovate, while the PS was a breeding ground of cookiecutter games, ports, and uninspired drivel.
The PS did have it's share of awesome games, but my search for those games was lost after sifting through all the crap that came out for it. I used to work at a game retailer, I had access to these games to play whenever I wanted, and still I found it hard to find anything worthwhile. Yet, my N64 kept me quite happy.
The PS had many more games than N64, but the number of great games paled in comparison to the mountain of crap. At least companies making games for the N64 were willing to take risks. The first run of PS games were Doom wannabes.
I just wanted to mention you might like FF3. It has a killer story. If you play the game to unfold the story, I think it'll easily make up for the 'walk a little bit... fight a monster... walk some more... fight a monster' style of game play that FF games seem to have. hehe.
I really wish, though, that there was a cheat code i could put in the game to just watch the story unfold.
"Meanwhile, that other console, the Xbox, with built-in broadband, hard drive, and superior graphics, and so ideally suited for FF series, gets no announcement"
Just to clarify, though the XBOX has broadband capability, it doesn't have a network. Nintendo could package a broadband adapter with a game if they really wanted to get it launched, and FF would be the best way to do it.
The graphics aren't that superior. They sound like they are on paper, but niether machine has decidedly proven that yet. Remember its artists that make graphics, not processors. I think Square could make a brilliant game on either machine.
I do agree with you, though, that the hard drive is exactly the type of feature that Square could make amazing use of. I don't see it happening though. If they are going to be the 'launch on all platforms' company, Final Fantasy won't be the game to do much with the HD. I think they could make either an exclusive FF game or a brand new game to use it, though...
I dunno if I'd go as far as to say that Square was mismanaged. Square is a risktaker company. Their decision to move from Nintendo (been around a long time) to Sony (hadn't proven themselves yet) to try an ambitious new game (FF7) that merges real time graphics with a full motion background was very risky. Anybody remember Tobal #1? That was a very robust fighting game that not a lot of people knew about. Square done a ton of other games in a variety of genres, mostly in Japan I think, and they manage to come out ahead.
Square hedged their bets on the FF movie too. I think what they were hoping to do was define a new genre, i.e. total CG drama. If they stayed on top of that genre the way they did with RPG's, then they could really diversify their business and be very profitable.
But they blew it. Pity, I think a few more months of work could have really defined that new genre. Who knows...
Well, its a good thing that Nintendo and Square made up again, their new games will blow Windows XP out of the water.
Seriously, though, Square is the type of company that can make consoles more interesting than PCs' for playing games. They not only innovate, but they also bring artistry to games that eclipses that of any game on PC. Rare is another company that excels at creativity. I can't wait to see what the Game Industry is like in 2 years!
"First they backstabbed Sony with the N64 CDROM deal."
Do you mean the Super Nintendo CD? If so... then this isn't exactly true. What happened there was that Sony wanted an all in one unit that played Super NES and the new CD-Based games where they could slap their name on the unit, call it 'PlayStation', and get royalties for every game made. Here's a website that tells part of the story: http://www.emulationzone.org/consoles/snes/cdrom.h tm... but the whole story is in an early issue of Next Generation magazine.
"They backstabbed Square by refusing to move from the outmoded cartridge game format, keeping Square from being able to create Final Fantasy VII."
Nintendo didn't backstab Square by going with cartridge format. Nintendo made a very wise choice that cartridge was the way to go with the N64. There were several advantages to it:
- Fast Load times.
- The system would be a lot cheaper (like $100 cheaper).
- The system would be far more reliable, ie. fewer moving parts. The original shipment of Playstations were horribly made and had a 1:4 defect rate where I worked.
- Game companies would be more inclined to make an original game for the N64 instead of diluting it with ports of PC games that used CD ROM. (Remember the 'Dream Team'?)
- Very hard to duplicate compared to CD's
- Nintendo could get more money per cartridge because CD's were cheap to make.
- Good games can be made to fit on cartridges. N64 proved that.
N64 royalties were high. I'm not disputing that. That wouldn't have hurt Square though, I remember people paying as much as $80 for FFIII (including myself). What really happened was that Square decided they wanted to do Full Motion video along with the game, they wanted to try something unique. The N64 wasn't what they wanted, so they moved to Playstation. That was a smart business decision to make, particularly since Sony gave them a deal they couldn't refuse. Where Square backstabbed Nintendo was when they told other developers not to develop for it. That was just wrong. Square may not have been able to do FFVII for the N64, but they could still have made games for it. They have a lot of franchises. Instead they just flipped Nintendo off and went into Sony's court.
"Thus the rise and domination of Sony. It's interesting to note that every platform Square has seriously developed for has been the dominant platform: NES, GameBoy, SNES, PlayStation, PS2."
Sony may have beaten Nintendo, but not by much. N64 did very well for itself. Nintendo also has provided a lot more to the game industry that Sony has. Nintendo has a game audience that Sony should be extremely envious of.
The N64 was not a fiasco of any sort. Nintendo was quite profitable with it. It has a lot of high quality titles for it. And, must amusingly, the first party work done for it carried most of the weight for it. Even if Sony sells a billion Playstations, Nintendo still has a loyal audience to play their games. Sega had that too, to a lesser degree. Sony does not. Sony and Microsoft could win the war in a particular generation of games, but they always risk getting ousted by a new guy. Nintendo can be very successful even when they aren't #1. I much prefer Nintendo's position than the other guys.
Square basically stabbed Nintendo in the back, telling game makers not to develop for the N64. It is my understanding this is why Enix didn't release an N64 RPG. Square publically apologized for this last year, for exactly that reason.
It's because of this, Yamamuchi's attitude was basically "We don't need Square. They need us. They lost money on the FF movie, and developing only for the Playstation won't make enough money to make up for that.".. or something along those lines. He didn't feel that Nintendo needed Square to be big, but Square needed Nintendo in order to get back in the black.
I have to admit, I'm surprised Yamamuchi is putting money into Square for this project. The only thing I can think of is that Square has something up their sleeve to make the Game Cube and the Game Boy Advance pair together. Square is an ambitious enough company that I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came up with an FF game for both GB and GC that can be played seperately, but when put together it brings a lot more.
Imagine if the GameCube version was the full plot, battles, etc, but the GBA version was for training your characters and improving their skills. Or maybe something even more sophisticated like the GBA version is a stripped down version of the game. Like you play it on the Game Cube, then you stop and save your progress to the GBA version, then you can continue the adventure on the road.
I understand that people have concerns about their patterns being watched or 'spied on', but I'm really curious about what their reasoning is.
Let's say hypothetically that Netscape was logging every single website you go to or posts you make at a forum etc, what's the worst case scenario of they could do with that information? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious, not because I'm saying it's not a big deal. I just want to understand the privacy point of view.
Personally, I'm not bothered by it. The reason that I'm not worried about it is that if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to everybody. Seems like there's safety in numbers. The only useful data they could mine out if it is statistics. I don't mind being a statstic in this case.
Could somebody explain to me what's missing in my perspective?
Interesting, I remember coming across a 'novel sample' with a 12 pack of Diet Coke once heh. It'd be neat if you could download a 10 minute teaser for a movie where the Director explains what it is about the movie that makes it interesting. I think some movies would have a higher satisfaction rate if people were guided in the direction of what makes it interesting.
When I first saw Austin Powers, I hated it. I guess I was expecting a Hotshots type of slapstick movie from the trailers, but the movie was very different from that. Since it was different, I dind't really give it much of a chance. It wasn't until I watched it again with my cousin that I understood what made it funny. He was able to show me the satirical nature of the movie that I missed the first time, as I'm not that familiar with James Bond and Flint.
Maybe if a trailer highlighted the interesting part of the movie, I'd not only be more likely to see it, but it may even improve my chances of enjoying it.
Anybody ever run across the theatrical trailer of Empire Strikes Back? That trailer was seriously cool. I've seen that movie to death, but that trailer made me want to dig it back out heh.
That was an interesting post, HKTiger, you helped me clarify what I was thinking in my original post.:)
"...he RIAA estimates that - now listen to this - an astounding 3.6 billion songs are illegally downloaded every month."
I know last year wasn't very good for the RIAA, but it seems like there'd be a larger chunk taken out of their profits if this were as damaging as he's trying to make it out to be.
I think what's going to happen is that the RIAA is going to play this 'pity us' act for the next couple of years until it realizes it can't bend the law in their favor anymore. Eventually a new organization will form that will do basically what the RIAA does (finds and promotes talent...), and then make them big on the web.
Frankly, I'm glad I'm not an investor for the RIAA. I'd be plenty hacked off. I can liken this to Intel and 3D accellerators. 3D accelerators put less processing on the main (Intel) processor and more on the add-in card. So when a gamer wants to upgrade their machine, an investment in a video card has better yields than an investment in a new processor. This means Intel could potentially get less money.
Did Intel try to put a stop to 3D cards? Nope. The first thing they did was they tried to compete in that market. Unfortunately, their offering wasn't that great. Nividia kicked their buts basically. So what'd Intel do? They didn't try to pass laws that require computers to only use one brand of processors all across the board. They didn't accuse people of buying video cards instead of new processors of being theives or even disloyal. They didn't even muck around with the AGP standard to prevent these cards from reaching full potential. Instead, Intel worked with driver developers to make their CPUs talk more with the video card. Early in the 3D card game, the choice to make was which card do I want. Today it's 'which card/processor combination is ideal for me?'. Now I realize I'm oversimplifying what really happened, but instead of 'correcting my details', take away the point I'm making which is that Intel innovates to compete, instead of trying to buy legislature in their favor.
What the RIAA should have done was taken Mp3 trading as a call to innovate. The simple fact of the matter is that audio is easy to capture and easy to transmit. So what do they do? Well, one idea would be to release a new format that has more capabilites. One real simple idea is to have music "DVD's" with music videos and other goodies on board. This creates at least a temporary problem with would-be hackers because they have new challenges to overcome to transfer the full experience into a web deliverable component. The more features they add to these disks, the harder it is to get a satisfactory piaratable copy out there that'd truely devalue the media.
The RIAA could have been spearheading the MP3 player movement. They could have made a player that plays little chips/cards instead of discs, solving people's mobile needs. Maybe they could have created a new media that is smaller or can hold more.. or something like that. I dont know. The point is they could have done SOMETHING to try to compete. The idea that they think CD's should be all people listen to forever and ever seriously limits my estimation of how long they'll be around. If I were an investor, I'd be selling now. It's obvious this organization isn't trying to grow.
What made me go watch both Galaxy Quest and Blair Witch was that scifi-channel ran a cleverly written 'documentary' on them. In the case of Blair Witch, the documentary explained how some kids disappeared but their film was found... but in an Unsolved Mysteries kind of way which was meant to sound real. Galaxy Quest had a 'behind the scenes' documentary, pretending that Galaxy Quest was a real TV show. These documentaries were fake, but they were fun to watch. I actually liked the BW one better than the movie. It stood on it's own as a neat show.
It'd be cool if Hollywood would start releasing clever marketing 'shows' like this on the web. Give me some downloadable content to watch on my laptop while i'm flying! They could use the Internet as a powerful marketing tool, but they have to do more than use fancy Flash banner ads.
Can DVD sales suffer from internet piracy? Possibly. Can box-office sales? Nope. Pirating a movie in the theaters cannot hold a candle to going and seeing the movie. Frankly, if somebody is going to download the pirated movie, then the chances are they aren't going to pay to see it. It is too big of a hassle.
DVD sales can be seriously hurt by P2P sharing. The MPAA has a few things they can do to prevent that, though. Loading DVD's up with features is one idea. The DVD still has value if the movie's getting downloaded, but the extras aren't. (Or am I in the minority of DVD purchasers because I care more about the bonus footage and making of scenes...?)
Another good approach would be to get a handle on why people download the movies. Are they just curious if the movie is any good? Well here's an idea, the MPAA should release an edited version of the movie, free to watch on the net. Maybe insert some ads into it or something to get some money per view. Edit out the language, and maybe cut out a few scenes. This way, somebody can watch the movie to see if it's interesting to them. Then they can go buy the DVD if it's interesting to them, or move on if it's not. If they can get ad revenue that way, then it's not wasted time for the MPAA.
Hopefully the MPAA will look at why people download movies and try to provide a profitable alternative to them, instead of trying to sue them out of existence. It works better for both sides if they take a more mature attitude about it.
Well it can't. The internet cannot completely replace the movie going experience. Theaters are (usually) the best place to watch movies. You have an enourmous screen, awesome audio (theater dependent...), and I think most people prefer watching movies as a group.
For somebody to pirate just released movies today, that usually requires taking a video camera to the theater and capturing the footage from that. The quality of that capture process is horrid. The cool theater audio gets ruined. And getting a group of friends together to huddle around your screen is a 1-way ticket to the geek table. No matter how good the piracy of first run movies gets, it still doesn't hold a candle to going and watching the movie.
What can and will hurt the movie industry is inflexibility with pricing. There are a LOT of movies coming out lately, but my budget's having a hard time shelling out $7 for myself and $7 for my gf, only to have the movie totally suck ass. *Cough Rollerball Cough*. If theaters would lower their prices to say $4.50, then I'd likely see 2 movies per weekend, instead of like 2 movies a month. If Hollywood's producing more movies, they're going to find themselves a bit diluted. Suddenly downloading a video taped movie overnight doesn't sound so bad.
"I assume from your screen name that you are an expert on gators, crocs, and all animals in general? You make the statement that crocs and gators are almost the same exept for minor differences. You don't back that up, however. In fact, your own analogy proves you wrong. Elements that differ by a single atom are in fact quite different in behavior (a helium bomb), and animals that are related like dogs and coyotes (or humans and chimpanzees) are DIFFERENT in more than just a superficial way."
Heh using my nickname to draw the conclusion that I know anything about aligators is an 'erroneous generalization'.;) I actally dont know a whole lot about them other than what I've seen on the Discovery Channel. The significance of my nickname is a totally different story that actually isn't related to aligators.
I see an element as being similar to saying 'vertibrate'. Vertibrate is a class of animal, animals with a backbone. A species, though, would be, metaphorically (simile?), a product that you create with chemicals. Diet Coke would be a species, like a coyote and a dog would be. But the 'element name' of a dog or coyote might be something like canine, or quadriped, or sometihng like that. (I don't really know if coyotes and dogs are canines, but lets pretend they are, then you'll get my point.)
I think the general point that blurb in the article about the periodic table was making was that without knowing what every type of animal is out there, then they won't have all of the classifications of what a similar group of animals fals into. If they're expecting to find another 25 million species out there, then there are likely animals they can't classify like 'canines'.
I think I should have fleshed this out in my earlier post, and I'm sorry about that. I don't know if you saw it or not, but the 'helium bomb' comment was a sarcastic response to somebody saying the only difference between elements is a few particles. *Shrug*
I think my response is pretty clear now. The original author's assesement was more accurate than the person's who responded to it.
"I, like:::most::: other tech savvy users have broadband. If your intention is to buy an album because of one good song....then you can certainly download it in far less time then it takes to get to the mall and back."
The RIAA sees that as piracy. The truth, though, is that it is demand. You're not downloading the music for the sake of getting it free, you're downloading it because the RIAA isn't providing something you demand. It's like they're trying to pass laws to force people to buy CD's. It's like payphone companies trying to pass laws that say cellular phone use is illegal because you can use payphones.
I appreciate your comment, it illustrates whey the RIAA is using the wrong weapon to fight a battle. What they should have done, several years ago, was made a website where you could either subscribe or buy MP3 music and download it really fast. P2P today is slow because of upload caps and how long it takes to search for the right song, but a dedicated webserver would mean I could download a song in like 15 seconds.
Now people probably won't pay for RIAA endorsed MP3s, partly because of free music saturation, and partly because the RIAA has made an enemy of some people by calling them thieves. Seems like the people running that place all went to law school instead of taking classes in economics.
Slashdot Mirror
Avantgo is an awesome service that I use because it takes the data from my PC's internet connection and feeds it down to my PocketPC. The information is fast, the data was tuned to the PocketPC (no mangled WWW like you said), and I don't have to be in a coverage area (try that on an plane) to view it. Even if fast wireless internet did exist, there'd still be a use for it.
Besides, try putting a laptop in your pocket.
Why? Because I'm punishing Mr. Lucas for Episode 1. I watched it on DVD recently and stopped it not just out of sheer boredom, but Jar Jar was getting way too much screen time.
I will see Episode 2. I basically have to as it will no doubt influence my industry. But Lucas isn't getting opening weekend ticket sales out of me.
I remember Jay Leno saying "Star Wars opening to a record setting 200 million dollars this weekend. They'd have made 400 million if they had brought dates!" heh. That opening figure meant so much. Well as punishment for E1, he's not getting it for E2. If E2 is good, then I'll see opening weekend of E3, but why do I think that's not gonna happen?
The shortest route to their brains is through their wallet. Sounds disgusting if you think about it...
What does he do? Hold the lightsaber over his head so the bad guy can hit at it?
How many people have an internet connection at work where they can listen all day to a streaming broadcast?
One person listening for hours is worth more than a few people listening for 15 minutes on their way to work. Then it's not such a gamble that their ads get hurt.
I think you are fundamentally right, but the potential problem is that DJ's only work 8 hours a day. The internet removes all time zones, basically.
There are ways around that particular issue, of course, but I just wanted to mention that it's not as simple as that.
Maybe an automated thing? I dunno..
In any case, unless the RIAA requires what you suggest (that'd draw MORE heat I bet...), then they won't find that an adequate solution.
Does anybody else suspect that the RIAA has the impression people'll be able to keep the music they stream?
I think they're worried ppl will use streaming broadcasts to thwart copy restricted CD's, so they're limiting that to only the companies willing to shell out $$$ to play them.
I feel sorry for the people getting burned by this, but every time the RIAA makes another heavy handed attack on the internet, I feel like they're that much closer to being dissolved.
I think you bring up a really good point. There are some differences that I started to point out.. but to tell you the truth, now that I've absorbed your idea a bit, the details don't really matter. I think you're right. Seems like the party that works the hardest to fill people's needs ends up losing. Do you ever wonder why this is?
:)
Part of me thinks is that some people have mixed up ideas about what's really important. I think the PS1 emphasized more than anything that quantity of titles was more important than quality. The only reason this bothers me is that it's exactly that situation that caused the video game crash back in the Atari days. I was really scared for a while that Sony'd ruin the market.
What saddens me is that in most cases, this is the wrong approach. Mac suffers a similar problem today. My original and unenlightened opinion of Mac is that it didn't have enough software support. But when I think about it now, Mac does everything I need! Out of the box I can go around and web surf, instant message, etc. I use my GameCube and Dreamcast for games, don't need my PC/Mac to do that. Mac also has Lightwave, Photoshop, After Effects, and probably even more tools that I use for my artwork. That's all I need to decide to buy a Mac. And you know what? I think it was a similar decision that caused me to buy an N64. Mario, Star Fox, Blast Dozer, and a few other titles were what I really wanted to play.
Thanks for writing that response, it gave me an interesting perspective to consider.
"A VERY major portion of the impetus for users to not change is a lack of familiarity with the desktop..."
I just wanted to mention that it wasn't the interface so much that makes me not us Linux, it's that I have no clue how to get hardware to work. Windows has me that spoiled. I'm so used to having neat little menu driven things I can run that allow me to get things up and running, that when I went to use Linux (KDE on Redhat, I believe), I was unable to find what I needed to get network and sound going.
You may chalk this up to me being a helpless newbie, but I don't have this problem with Windows or even Mac. I guess what I'm really saying is that KDE at 2.0 was fine, but tinkering with the hardware to make everything work was what turned me off. I admit that I didn't put all that much effort into it, but I only have so much time, you know?
Apple got the idea right, though. Look at what they did with OSX. They built upon the BSD Kernel (I think it was BSD... don't shoot me if I got it wrong. Please feel free to correct me, though) and made the interface with a target audience in mind. The result? I have a coworker who is able to tinker with his Mac, but he's never needed to know the root password to his machine.
Redhat's gotten close to this in 7.0. I really feel like 8 or 9 may be enough to get me going in the Linux world. A new version of KDE is icing on the cake.
"Since you came along. Look it up in the dictionary, the definition for nerd is you."
Wow.. that was really clever. So what's it like being a graduate of the Bob Saget School of Comedy?
Err no. Most Playstation games rated from crap to mediochre. It was Nintendo that was constantly trying to innovate, while the PS was a breeding ground of cookiecutter games, ports, and uninspired drivel.
The PS did have it's share of awesome games, but my search for those games was lost after sifting through all the crap that came out for it. I used to work at a game retailer, I had access to these games to play whenever I wanted, and still I found it hard to find anything worthwhile. Yet, my N64 kept me quite happy.
The PS had many more games than N64, but the number of great games paled in comparison to the mountain of crap. At least companies making games for the N64 were willing to take risks. The first run of PS games were Doom wannabes.
I just wanted to mention you might like FF3. It has a killer story. If you play the game to unfold the story, I think it'll easily make up for the 'walk a little bit... fight a monster... walk some more ... fight a monster' style of game play that FF games seem to have. hehe.
I really wish, though, that there was a cheat code i could put in the game to just watch the story unfold.
"Meanwhile, that other console, the Xbox, with built-in broadband, hard drive, and superior graphics, and so ideally suited for FF series, gets no announcement"
Just to clarify, though the XBOX has broadband capability, it doesn't have a network. Nintendo could package a broadband adapter with a game if they really wanted to get it launched, and FF would be the best way to do it.
The graphics aren't that superior. They sound like they are on paper, but niether machine has decidedly proven that yet. Remember its artists that make graphics, not processors. I think Square could make a brilliant game on either machine.
I do agree with you, though, that the hard drive is exactly the type of feature that Square could make amazing use of. I don't see it happening though. If they are going to be the 'launch on all platforms' company, Final Fantasy won't be the game to do much with the HD. I think they could make either an exclusive FF game or a brand new game to use it, though...
I dunno if I'd go as far as to say that Square was mismanaged. Square is a risktaker company. Their decision to move from Nintendo (been around a long time) to Sony (hadn't proven themselves yet) to try an ambitious new game (FF7) that merges real time graphics with a full motion background was very risky. Anybody remember Tobal #1? That was a very robust fighting game that not a lot of people knew about. Square done a ton of other games in a variety of genres, mostly in Japan I think, and they manage to come out ahead.
Square hedged their bets on the FF movie too. I think what they were hoping to do was define a new genre, i.e. total CG drama. If they stayed on top of that genre the way they did with RPG's, then they could really diversify their business and be very profitable.
But they blew it. Pity, I think a few more months of work could have really defined that new genre. Who knows...
You can't win every bet.
Well, its a good thing that Nintendo and Square made up again, their new games will blow Windows XP out of the water.
Seriously, though, Square is the type of company that can make consoles more interesting than PCs' for playing games. They not only innovate, but they also bring artistry to games that eclipses that of any game on PC. Rare is another company that excels at creativity. I can't wait to see what the Game Industry is like in 2 years!
"First they backstabbed Sony with the N64 CDROM deal."
h tm ... but the whole story is in an early issue of Next Generation magazine.
Do you mean the Super Nintendo CD? If so... then this isn't exactly true. What happened there was that Sony wanted an all in one unit that played Super NES and the new CD-Based games where they could slap their name on the unit, call it 'PlayStation', and get royalties for every game made. Here's a website that tells part of the story: http://www.emulationzone.org/consoles/snes/cdrom.
"They backstabbed Square by refusing to move from the outmoded cartridge game format, keeping Square from being able to create Final Fantasy VII."
Nintendo didn't backstab Square by going with cartridge format. Nintendo made a very wise choice that cartridge was the way to go with the N64. There were several advantages to it:
- Fast Load times.
- The system would be a lot cheaper (like $100 cheaper).
- The system would be far more reliable, ie. fewer moving parts. The original shipment of Playstations were horribly made and had a 1:4 defect rate where I worked.
- Game companies would be more inclined to make an original game for the N64 instead of diluting it with ports of PC games that used CD ROM. (Remember the 'Dream Team'?)
- Very hard to duplicate compared to CD's
- Nintendo could get more money per cartridge because CD's were cheap to make.
- Good games can be made to fit on cartridges. N64 proved that.
N64 royalties were high. I'm not disputing that. That wouldn't have hurt Square though, I remember people paying as much as $80 for FFIII (including myself). What really happened was that Square decided they wanted to do Full Motion video along with the game, they wanted to try something unique. The N64 wasn't what they wanted, so they moved to Playstation. That was a smart business decision to make, particularly since Sony gave them a deal they couldn't refuse. Where Square backstabbed Nintendo was when they told other developers not to develop for it. That was just wrong. Square may not have been able to do FFVII for the N64, but they could still have made games for it. They have a lot of franchises. Instead they just flipped Nintendo off and went into Sony's court.
"Thus the rise and domination of Sony. It's interesting to note that every platform Square has seriously developed for has been the dominant platform: NES, GameBoy, SNES, PlayStation, PS2."
Sony may have beaten Nintendo, but not by much. N64 did very well for itself. Nintendo also has provided a lot more to the game industry that Sony has. Nintendo has a game audience that Sony should be extremely envious of.
The N64 was not a fiasco of any sort. Nintendo was quite profitable with it. It has a lot of high quality titles for it. And, must amusingly, the first party work done for it carried most of the weight for it. Even if Sony sells a billion Playstations, Nintendo still has a loyal audience to play their games. Sega had that too, to a lesser degree. Sony does not. Sony and Microsoft could win the war in a particular generation of games, but they always risk getting ousted by a new guy. Nintendo can be very successful even when they aren't #1. I much prefer Nintendo's position than the other guys.
Square basically stabbed Nintendo in the back, telling game makers not to develop for the N64. It is my understanding this is why Enix didn't release an N64 RPG. Square publically apologized for this last year, for exactly that reason.
It's because of this, Yamamuchi's attitude was basically "We don't need Square. They need us. They lost money on the FF movie, and developing only for the Playstation won't make enough money to make up for that.".. or something along those lines. He didn't feel that Nintendo needed Square to be big, but Square needed Nintendo in order to get back in the black.
I have to admit, I'm surprised Yamamuchi is putting money into Square for this project. The only thing I can think of is that Square has something up their sleeve to make the Game Cube and the Game Boy Advance pair together. Square is an ambitious enough company that I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came up with an FF game for both GB and GC that can be played seperately, but when put together it brings a lot more.
Imagine if the GameCube version was the full plot, battles, etc, but the GBA version was for training your characters and improving their skills. Or maybe something even more sophisticated like the GBA version is a stripped down version of the game. Like you play it on the Game Cube, then you stop and save your progress to the GBA version, then you can continue the adventure on the road.
Man... if they did that, that'd be killer.
I understand that people have concerns about their patterns being watched or 'spied on', but I'm really curious about what their reasoning is.
Let's say hypothetically that Netscape was logging every single website you go to or posts you make at a forum etc, what's the worst case scenario of they could do with that information? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious, not because I'm saying it's not a big deal. I just want to understand the privacy point of view.
Personally, I'm not bothered by it. The reason that I'm not worried about it is that if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to everybody. Seems like there's safety in numbers. The only useful data they could mine out if it is statistics. I don't mind being a statstic in this case.
Could somebody explain to me what's missing in my perspective?
Interesting, I remember coming across a 'novel sample' with a 12 pack of Diet Coke once heh. It'd be neat if you could download a 10 minute teaser for a movie where the Director explains what it is about the movie that makes it interesting. I think some movies would have a higher satisfaction rate if people were guided in the direction of what makes it interesting.
:)
When I first saw Austin Powers, I hated it. I guess I was expecting a Hotshots type of slapstick movie from the trailers, but the movie was very different from that. Since it was different, I dind't really give it much of a chance. It wasn't until I watched it again with my cousin that I understood what made it funny. He was able to show me the satirical nature of the movie that I missed the first time, as I'm not that familiar with James Bond and Flint.
Maybe if a trailer highlighted the interesting part of the movie, I'd not only be more likely to see it, but it may even improve my chances of enjoying it.
Anybody ever run across the theatrical trailer of Empire Strikes Back? That trailer was seriously cool. I've seen that movie to death, but that trailer made me want to dig it back out heh.
That was an interesting post, HKTiger, you helped me clarify what I was thinking in my original post.
"...he RIAA estimates that - now listen to this - an astounding 3.6 billion songs are illegally downloaded every month."
I know last year wasn't very good for the RIAA, but it seems like there'd be a larger chunk taken out of their profits if this were as damaging as he's trying to make it out to be.
I think what's going to happen is that the RIAA is going to play this 'pity us' act for the next couple of years until it realizes it can't bend the law in their favor anymore. Eventually a new organization will form that will do basically what the RIAA does (finds and promotes talent...), and then make them big on the web.
Frankly, I'm glad I'm not an investor for the RIAA. I'd be plenty hacked off. I can liken this to Intel and 3D accellerators. 3D accelerators put less processing on the main (Intel) processor and more on the add-in card. So when a gamer wants to upgrade their machine, an investment in a video card has better yields than an investment in a new processor. This means Intel could potentially get less money.
Did Intel try to put a stop to 3D cards? Nope. The first thing they did was they tried to compete in that market. Unfortunately, their offering wasn't that great. Nividia kicked their buts basically. So what'd Intel do? They didn't try to pass laws that require computers to only use one brand of processors all across the board. They didn't accuse people of buying video cards instead of new processors of being theives or even disloyal. They didn't even muck around with the AGP standard to prevent these cards from reaching full potential. Instead, Intel worked with driver developers to make their CPUs talk more with the video card. Early in the 3D card game, the choice to make was which card do I want. Today it's 'which card/processor combination is ideal for me?'. Now I realize I'm oversimplifying what really happened, but instead of 'correcting my details', take away the point I'm making which is that Intel innovates to compete, instead of trying to buy legislature in their favor.
What the RIAA should have done was taken Mp3 trading as a call to innovate. The simple fact of the matter is that audio is easy to capture and easy to transmit. So what do they do? Well, one idea would be to release a new format that has more capabilites. One real simple idea is to have music "DVD's" with music videos and other goodies on board. This creates at least a temporary problem with would-be hackers because they have new challenges to overcome to transfer the full experience into a web deliverable component. The more features they add to these disks, the harder it is to get a satisfactory piaratable copy out there that'd truely devalue the media.
The RIAA could have been spearheading the MP3 player movement. They could have made a player that plays little chips/cards instead of discs, solving people's mobile needs. Maybe they could have created a new media that is smaller or can hold more.. or something like that. I dont know. The point is they could have done SOMETHING to try to compete. The idea that they think CD's should be all people listen to forever and ever seriously limits my estimation of how long they'll be around. If I were an investor, I'd be selling now. It's obvious this organization isn't trying to grow.
Yes, I see your point. I am a bit spoiled there.
You don't happen to know the main reason a movie's released in US first and delayed elsewhere, do you?
Does anybody? I would find that bit of information interesting.
What made me go watch both Galaxy Quest and Blair Witch was that scifi-channel ran a cleverly written 'documentary' on them. In the case of Blair Witch, the documentary explained how some kids disappeared but their film was found... but in an Unsolved Mysteries kind of way which was meant to sound real. Galaxy Quest had a 'behind the scenes' documentary, pretending that Galaxy Quest was a real TV show. These documentaries were fake, but they were fun to watch. I actually liked the BW one better than the movie. It stood on it's own as a neat show.
It'd be cool if Hollywood would start releasing clever marketing 'shows' like this on the web. Give me some downloadable content to watch on my laptop while i'm flying! They could use the Internet as a powerful marketing tool, but they have to do more than use fancy Flash banner ads.
Can DVD sales suffer from internet piracy? Possibly. Can box-office sales? Nope. Pirating a movie in the theaters cannot hold a candle to going and seeing the movie. Frankly, if somebody is going to download the pirated movie, then the chances are they aren't going to pay to see it. It is too big of a hassle.
DVD sales can be seriously hurt by P2P sharing. The MPAA has a few things they can do to prevent that, though. Loading DVD's up with features is one idea. The DVD still has value if the movie's getting downloaded, but the extras aren't. (Or am I in the minority of DVD purchasers because I care more about the bonus footage and making of scenes...?)
Another good approach would be to get a handle on why people download the movies. Are they just curious if the movie is any good? Well here's an idea, the MPAA should release an edited version of the movie, free to watch on the net. Maybe insert some ads into it or something to get some money per view. Edit out the language, and maybe cut out a few scenes. This way, somebody can watch the movie to see if it's interesting to them. Then they can go buy the DVD if it's interesting to them, or move on if it's not. If they can get ad revenue that way, then it's not wasted time for the MPAA.
Hopefully the MPAA will look at why people download movies and try to provide a profitable alternative to them, instead of trying to sue them out of existence. It works better for both sides if they take a more mature attitude about it.
Well it can't. The internet cannot completely replace the movie going experience. Theaters are (usually) the best place to watch movies. You have an enourmous screen, awesome audio (theater dependent...), and I think most people prefer watching movies as a group.
For somebody to pirate just released movies today, that usually requires taking a video camera to the theater and capturing the footage from that. The quality of that capture process is horrid. The cool theater audio gets ruined. And getting a group of friends together to huddle around your screen is a 1-way ticket to the geek table. No matter how good the piracy of first run movies gets, it still doesn't hold a candle to going and watching the movie.
What can and will hurt the movie industry is inflexibility with pricing. There are a LOT of movies coming out lately, but my budget's having a hard time shelling out $7 for myself and $7 for my gf, only to have the movie totally suck ass. *Cough Rollerball Cough*. If theaters would lower their prices to say $4.50, then I'd likely see 2 movies per weekend, instead of like 2 movies a month. If Hollywood's producing more movies, they're going to find themselves a bit diluted. Suddenly downloading a video taped movie overnight doesn't sound so bad.
"I assume from your screen name that you are an expert on gators, crocs, and all animals in general? You make the statement that crocs and gators are almost the same exept for minor differences. You don't back that up, however. In fact, your own analogy proves you wrong. Elements that differ by a single atom are in fact quite different in behavior (a helium bomb), and animals that are related like dogs and coyotes (or humans and chimpanzees) are DIFFERENT in more than just a superficial way."
;) I actally dont know a whole lot about them other than what I've seen on the Discovery Channel. The significance of my nickname is a totally different story that actually isn't related to aligators.
Heh using my nickname to draw the conclusion that I know anything about aligators is an 'erroneous generalization'.
I see an element as being similar to saying 'vertibrate'. Vertibrate is a class of animal, animals with a backbone. A species, though, would be, metaphorically (simile?), a product that you create with chemicals. Diet Coke would be a species, like a coyote and a dog would be. But the 'element name' of a dog or coyote might be something like canine, or quadriped, or sometihng like that. (I don't really know if coyotes and dogs are canines, but lets pretend they are, then you'll get my point.)
I think the general point that blurb in the article about the periodic table was making was that without knowing what every type of animal is out there, then they won't have all of the classifications of what a similar group of animals fals into. If they're expecting to find another 25 million species out there, then there are likely animals they can't classify like 'canines'.
I think I should have fleshed this out in my earlier post, and I'm sorry about that. I don't know if you saw it or not, but the 'helium bomb' comment was a sarcastic response to somebody saying the only difference between elements is a few particles. *Shrug*
I think my response is pretty clear now. The original author's assesement was more accurate than the person's who responded to it.
"I, like :::most::: other tech savvy users have broadband. If your intention is to buy an album because of one good song....then you can certainly download it in far less time then it takes to get to the mall and back."
The RIAA sees that as piracy. The truth, though, is that it is demand. You're not downloading the music for the sake of getting it free, you're downloading it because the RIAA isn't providing something you demand. It's like they're trying to pass laws to force people to buy CD's. It's like payphone companies trying to pass laws that say cellular phone use is illegal because you can use payphones.
I appreciate your comment, it illustrates whey the RIAA is using the wrong weapon to fight a battle. What they should have done, several years ago, was made a website where you could either subscribe or buy MP3 music and download it really fast. P2P today is slow because of upload caps and how long it takes to search for the right song, but a dedicated webserver would mean I could download a song in like 15 seconds.
Now people probably won't pay for RIAA endorsed MP3s, partly because of free music saturation, and partly because the RIAA has made an enemy of some people by calling them thieves. Seems like the people running that place all went to law school instead of taking classes in economics.