iPhone sales were high from the start, so I have no idea what you are talking about. The DS kept selling well way after the iPhone was introduced.
The gaming market is not like other markets. The DS and Wii sold amazingly despite the "conventional wisdom" which people like you are preaching.
What sells game consoles is games. Increases and decreases in DS console sales have corresponded with whether games have been successes or not, not with what happened in the rest of the market.
What actually happened was that Nintendo didn't release any console sellers, and they were ending the DS's life cycle. Nintendo alone controls the sales of its consoles. It does so by releasing good or bad games.
No, sales cratered due to the lack of new games that appealed to a wide audience.
Remember, New Super Mario Bros. was released in 2006, and sold well for ages. It did not experience the typical first day/week sales spike only to completely fall on its face. It sold high numbers, consistently, for a long, long time.
Thanks for confirming that the DS sold well even after the iPhone was introduced. That is because there were games for the DS that people wanted to play, so they bought a DS.
If the iPhone had been the cause of the DS downfall, why did it not happen when the iPhone was actually launched?
Anecdotal: seeing some anonymous young kid in an elevator having fun with an Android game (not even an iPad/Phone!) is proof enough for me that there's no future in pure handheld consoles.
That's like saying that because someone went to one movie theater to watch one movie, they won't visit other movie theaters to watch other movies.
Oh sure, the Nintendo is a better gaming platform for that kid. But how will he know if an smartphone is shoved into his hands first? I'm using the old "Windows is crap but I don't have a Mac/Linux box argument".
How did the DS experience such explosive success when games like New Super Mario Bros. were released? Because the game was fun to play, and people told other people about it. That's why it didn't have the typical sales spike on release, only to take a nosedive the second week. NSMB sold consistently for a long, long time.
The DS also existed when everyone was carrying around a smartphone in their pocket. People will carry around a device which does what they want it to do.
The bottom line is that people buy hardware based on what games they want to play. They don't choose hardware first, and then games. This goes for the mass-market, of course. Hardcore fanboys will choose the hardware first, but they do not affect the sales much.
3D Mario is not the same as 2D Mario. You will notice that 2D Mario vastly outsells anything in 3D. Some will argue that 3D Mario isn't even real Mario.
Makers of handheld consoles should also look at the collapse in the market for dedicated Mp3 players. Just as the iPhone cannibalized the sales of the iPod, smartphones will eat into the market for handheld consoles.
The comparison is not a good one. With music, you can get the exact same content on an MP3 player as on an iPhone. You can not get Nintendo games for the iPhone. The iPhone does not cannibalize sale of portable gaming systems. Nintendo insisting on making the wrong games (those that don't sell systems) is what cannibalizes sales.
Full consoles like the XBox have a much better chance of weathering this gadget convergence since they offer the potential for a grander and more immersive experience.
With gaming, people (mass-market) don't want "grander and more immersive." They want interactive fun.
The DS was able to mop the floor with the PSP in terms of total units shipped largely because they appealed to the casual gamer, but the casual gamer is moving in droves to cell phones, largely because for them its one less thing to carry.
If you look at the success of the DS, it sold because there were games for it that a lot of people wanted to play. People won't mind carrying one more thing if it actually has the right games. Remember, battery is an issue with today's smartphones. Why waste it all on games?
The fallacy here is that you think it's about the hardware, but it isn't. It's about the games. If Nintendo can manage to create games people want to play, they will sell like mad.
Cell phones will never be a complete replacement for consoles, but they can still do a lot of damage to the portable market
This assumes that people choose games based on platforms. They don't. they choose the platform based on which games they want to play.
Unfortunately for Nintendo, the DS was also popular with groups like commuters on the subway. Those people have all migrated over to tablets and smartphones
How can you be so sure about that?
Turns out they like the convenience of having one device and the huge selection of games at low prices more then they like gimmicky 3D with no battery life. Go figure.
In other words, Nintendo's problem is not competition from phones and tablets, but rather their own inability to follow up on what made the DS sell?
I may be missing something, but I was amazed to find out that the article doesn't contain a single link to the videos in question. It seems somewhat rude and misplaced to leave out key information/links on the web, where people expect to be able to follow links and see for themselves.
I finally looked at the pictures, and used Google to search for the video title in one of them. But this should not be necessary on a web page!
This is the exact response I expected. Any claims that don't come true are just "one guy" or not really within the science (in your opinion).
So my guess was correct? You were indeed referring to this researcher who merely presented it as a possible scenario, and who was criticized by his peers? A single example where I correctly pointed this out does not make "any claims that don't come true." I was referring specifically to the situation I mentioned.
Any claims that do come true were solidly predicted by the science. You cherry-pick your sources.
Sources? I am still waiting for you to post yours. You are the one who made a bunch of claims, remember?
And that's a lot of call for citation from someone who provided not one cite himself.
I'm not the one who posted a whole bunch of unsourced claims.
When your first post on the site is glowing praise using PR language, alarm bells are setting off for me too. You ask for evidence. Well, that glowing first post from a brand new account is evidence. It might not be conclusive proof, but it follows the common pattern astroturfers use.
And like other people, I think you are the same person, only using the "Post Anonymously" checkbox to create the fake impression that there is a whole group of guys supporting you.
people like you are tossing around "astroturfing" accusations and allegations day-in and day-out
People may be over-eager with such accusations in many cases, but in your case it seems appropriate.
As I said, you are mistaken. You should read the Wikipedia article on the subject. It is only a fallacy if used wrongly.
Quote from Wikipedia: "Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section."
No, the basic understanding of the observed warming was settled long before Al Gore made that movie. Al Gore isn't even a scientist, so he's quite irrelevant.
There is a debate, but that debate is in actual scientific circles where actual researchers are debating the topic. They are figuring out the finer details after the fact that the planet is warming and it was caused by humans was established.
There's no debate outside of those circles. Just deniers spewing lies and talking points, and rational people refuting them as best they can.
The APS can speak out if they are basing their statements on what the actual experts are saying. Their statements would be a problem if they claimed to know better than actual experts in the field.
The discussion about climate change has at least two sides and it has not in any way, shape or form been settled yet.
The overall picture, that the warming is man-made, has been settled. They have moved on to figuring out the smaller details now (things that won't change the bigger settled picture anyway).
The issues: We don't know if there's any unusual change occurring now. Some even argue that we're seeing no unusual change now.
We do know, and those "some" can argue whatever the hell they want, because they most certainly are not doing it using science.
We don't know what kind of changes are natural and which are human influenced.
We do.
We don't know what caused the changes seen in the far past.
But we do.
The Sun obviously plays a part but how much does it affect the things we see and we've seen? Until we fully understand the natural processes, we cannot even begin to make guesses about how humans are influencing them.
We already know these things, and the scientists have moved on to figuring out more details because the big picture (man-made global warming) has been established beyond any doubt already.
I am sorry, but he is smart enough to understand ever single issue related to climate science.
Clearly he isn't because his claims about the climate are factually wrong.
What do you guys think that climate science is? It is not medicine (meaning: something completely unrelated to current math and physics studies). It is, in fact, a very primitive branch of physics. Extremely based on basic statistics.
No, it is in fact a highly complex area of research, particularly because of the huge number of variables.
Global warming science predicted that 30-40% of the Great Barrier Reef coral could die within a month. That was in 2006, and the reef is doing just fine.
Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Global warming science predicted the large Australian cities would be under severe drought. Didn't happen.
Again: Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Global warming science was predicting an ice-free Arctic around 2008. The projection has been extended due to it not happening.
Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
The UK Met Office predicted continual record-breaking temperatures in the 2000s, didn't happen (the infamous Phil Jones was not happy).
Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Basically, you have made a bunch of claims, but failed to provide any sources. And I think I know why. For example, your claim about the Arctic was not "global warming science", but one guy. This one guy mentioned ice-free Arctic summers by 2013 as a possibility. He was also criticized by his peers, and his prediction never gained any popularity among them. In other words, your claims are simply misleading and not at all what you are portraying them to be. But to know for sure, again, you'll have to provide citations for each of your claims.
I accept on fact that climate change as a constant thing that has happened before mankind and will likely continue afterwards.
That is not relevant to the fact that the warming we're observing today is due to human acitivy. This is not unsettled. It is settled. Humans are causing the warming.
Slashdot Mirror
iPhone sales were high from the start, so I have no idea what you are talking about. The DS kept selling well way after the iPhone was introduced.
The gaming market is not like other markets. The DS and Wii sold amazingly despite the "conventional wisdom" which people like you are preaching.
What sells game consoles is games. Increases and decreases in DS console sales have corresponded with whether games have been successes or not, not with what happened in the rest of the market.
What actually happened was that Nintendo didn't release any console sellers, and they were ending the DS's life cycle. Nintendo alone controls the sales of its consoles. It does so by releasing good or bad games.
No, sales cratered due to the lack of new games that appealed to a wide audience.
Remember, New Super Mario Bros. was released in 2006, and sold well for ages. It did not experience the typical first day/week sales spike only to completely fall on its face. It sold high numbers, consistently, for a long, long time.
Thanks for confirming that the DS sold well even after the iPhone was introduced. That is because there were games for the DS that people wanted to play, so they bought a DS.
If the iPhone had been the cause of the DS downfall, why did it not happen when the iPhone was actually launched?
The hardware doesn't matter. The games do.
That's like saying that because someone went to one movie theater to watch one movie, they won't visit other movie theaters to watch other movies.
How did the DS experience such explosive success when games like New Super Mario Bros. were released? Because the game was fun to play, and people told other people about it. That's why it didn't have the typical sales spike on release, only to take a nosedive the second week. NSMB sold consistently for a long, long time.
The DS also existed when everyone was carrying around a smartphone in their pocket. People will carry around a device which does what they want it to do.
The bottom line is that people buy hardware based on what games they want to play. They don't choose hardware first, and then games. This goes for the mass-market, of course. Hardcore fanboys will choose the hardware first, but they do not affect the sales much.
Not really. The iPad is not relevant because what sells a gaming console is the games. The iPad does not have Nintendo's games.
3D Mario is not the same as 2D Mario. You will notice that 2D Mario vastly outsells anything in 3D. Some will argue that 3D Mario isn't even real Mario.
Also far more cumbersome.
The comparison is not a good one. With music, you can get the exact same content on an MP3 player as on an iPhone. You can not get Nintendo games for the iPhone. The iPhone does not cannibalize sale of portable gaming systems. Nintendo insisting on making the wrong games (those that don't sell systems) is what cannibalizes sales.
With gaming, people (mass-market) don't want "grander and more immersive." They want interactive fun.
Not exactly a hard thing to beat, since the DS sold really poorly at first (until Nintendo started making games people wanted to play).
If you look at the success of the DS, it sold because there were games for it that a lot of people wanted to play. People won't mind carrying one more thing if it actually has the right games. Remember, battery is an issue with today's smartphones. Why waste it all on games?
The fallacy here is that you think it's about the hardware, but it isn't. It's about the games. If Nintendo can manage to create games people want to play, they will sell like mad.
This assumes that people choose games based on platforms. They don't. they choose the platform based on which games they want to play.
How can you be so sure about that?
In other words, Nintendo's problem is not competition from phones and tablets, but rather their own inability to follow up on what made the DS sell?
I may be missing something, but I was amazed to find out that the article doesn't contain a single link to the videos in question. It seems somewhat rude and misplaced to leave out key information/links on the web, where people expect to be able to follow links and see for themselves.
I finally looked at the pictures, and used Google to search for the video title in one of them. But this should not be necessary on a web page!
So my guess was correct? You were indeed referring to this researcher who merely presented it as a possible scenario, and who was criticized by his peers? A single example where I correctly pointed this out does not make "any claims that don't come true." I was referring specifically to the situation I mentioned.
Sources? I am still waiting for you to post yours. You are the one who made a bunch of claims, remember?
I'm not the one who posted a whole bunch of unsourced claims.
Now, where are your sources? Quit stalling.
Your point was not supported I'm afraid. Try again.
On the contrary, Wikipedia is correct. And you need to stop looking up my comments.
When your first post on the site is glowing praise using PR language, alarm bells are setting off for me too. You ask for evidence. Well, that glowing first post from a brand new account is evidence. It might not be conclusive proof, but it follows the common pattern astroturfers use.
And like other people, I think you are the same person, only using the "Post Anonymously" checkbox to create the fake impression that there is a whole group of guys supporting you.
People may be over-eager with such accusations in many cases, but in your case it seems appropriate.
I did not support your point at all. I explained how your comment was completely off target.
As I said, you are mistaken. You should read the Wikipedia article on the subject. It is only a fallacy if used wrongly.
Quote from Wikipedia: "Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section."
By the way, are you stalking me?
Only if applied incorrectly. Appealing to an actual authority is not a logical fallacy.
Nice theory, but they don't have an unlimited amount of time.
No, the basic understanding of the observed warming was settled long before Al Gore made that movie. Al Gore isn't even a scientist, so he's quite irrelevant.
There is a debate, but that debate is in actual scientific circles where actual researchers are debating the topic. They are figuring out the finer details after the fact that the planet is warming and it was caused by humans was established.
There's no debate outside of those circles. Just deniers spewing lies and talking points, and rational people refuting them as best they can.
The APS can speak out if they are basing their statements on what the actual experts are saying. Their statements would be a problem if they claimed to know better than actual experts in the field.
The overall picture, that the warming is man-made, has been settled. They have moved on to figuring out the smaller details now (things that won't change the bigger settled picture anyway).
We do know, and those "some" can argue whatever the hell they want, because they most certainly are not doing it using science.
We do.
But we do.
We already know these things, and the scientists have moved on to figuring out more details because the big picture (man-made global warming) has been established beyond any doubt already.
Clearly he isn't because his claims about the climate are factually wrong.
No, it is in fact a highly complex area of research, particularly because of the huge number of variables.
Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Again: Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Who predicted this? Do you have a source?
Basically, you have made a bunch of claims, but failed to provide any sources. And I think I know why. For example, your claim about the Arctic was not "global warming science", but one guy. This one guy mentioned ice-free Arctic summers by 2013 as a possibility. He was also criticized by his peers, and his prediction never gained any popularity among them. In other words, your claims are simply misleading and not at all what you are portraying them to be. But to know for sure, again, you'll have to provide citations for each of your claims.
That is not relevant to the fact that the warming we're observing today is due to human acitivy. This is not unsettled. It is settled. Humans are causing the warming.