Only executives can speak on behalf of the company.
Sales reps are not executives and they're not "representatives" in the way you used that word. It's not whether they're accurate or inaccurate. It's just that they have no authority to state the position of the company as a whole. They may know the position, but their word on the subject is not binding in any kind of universal sense.
If a journalist talks to such a low-level employee, it's up to the him to determine how to report the story. The reporter certainly can report this as the statement of a sales rep, and leave it at that. That's actually valid news some of the time. But a journalist should always seek comment from someone higher and report on whether there was confirmation. If there is no confirmation, he should never report it as the company's official position.
I get all kinds of screwy answers from low-level employees at Target and Best Buy. I was told twice by CompUSA employees that they'd have PS3s at launch, which turned out to not be true. If I were a journalist I might have reported that information as rumor, but if I had reported it as the official word of the company CompUSA wouldn't be the bad guy, I would, and people who had made plans based on my story would have been happy to tell me so.
Wow. I'm amazed I got marked flaimbait. Not your fault, of course, but I can't help but be floored that posting this kind of material could be considered a flaim.
Anyway, I think I may have left off an important point. I'm not talking dual-boot, I'm talking about just windows with standard Mac hardware and perhaps the small concesion of putting two buttons on their laptops.
Mac laptops are the bomb. Every PC user I've ever seen look at one has been jealous. If that hardware had the Windows OS pre-insalled so no tech geeky, time consuming, scary to newbies OS load would be necessary, I think a lot of PC users would seriously consider it on their next notebook purchase.
Whether they'd actually buy it remains to be seen, but Apple has an excellent hardware story to tell and I personally think people would listen.
PC users are used to the same box, or worse, the same box with a different color and a slightly different facade. But Apple has completely redesigned the layout of the case for better airflow and quieter operation. On the laptop, it's thin and light and has a gorgeous display. It doesn't look or feel like the cheap plastic that PC manufacturers tend to use, even on their high-end boxes. These things have the potential to shake up an industry.
Why bother with OSX? PC users have not expressed a desire to use it in significant numbers. That's not a dig on Apple, just a statement of fact. If it was otherwise, Apple wouldn't have such a tiny market share. Why confuse potential customers. Just load Windows and tell them it's a 100% Windows box that they can run all of their favorite apps on. If they're not confused and they don't have anything they percieve as a downside, why not bennefit from the great hardware?
I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking having both OSs, just Windows. It would be a Pure Windows OS sitting on top of pure Apple hardware. The market would be exactly the same consumers who currently purchase Windows computers from Dell or HP.
I know, a lot of Apple folk would consider this setup an abomination. But the truth is that Windows users don't really give a shit about OSX. If they did, they would just buy a Mac. Windows users want to use Windows, so selling them a Windows box is the best way to get their money. You don't gain anything by also giving them OSX and, as your post outlines, there's a heck of a lot to loose, including all the prospective customer who would be too confused to buy such a setup.
Did you read the post I was responding to? I shouldn't have stooped to the level of the poster, but when I did, I used the exact words he used to describe the PS3, "boring and full of shit," I believe. I'm sorry if you interpreted this as some kind of an out of the blue rant.
So, with much nicer language and possibly even some thoughtful(open to interpretation) analysis, I'm going to say the Wii doesn't really fit my style for day-to-day gaming. I want something that was designed more for the "hardcore" gamer, by which I mean someone who is not a "casual" gamer. You can make the aregumet that Wii owners include many "real" gamers, and I'll buy that, but when Nintendo puts as much emphasis as they have on the word "casual" to describe the consumers of their product, I will decline to call those very same people "hardcore."
Nintendo made certain concessions in order to appeal to the casual gamer. The games made certain concession in order to work with the unique controller. The price is great, at least partially because high-end graphics were not seen as a necessity to attract casual gamers. Many of the most talked about games are simplistic, for pretty much the same reason. The more complicated games suffer from nonstandard ways of moving and aiming, because the game makers haven't yet figured out the best way to do things.
The truth is, I want to play games like Resistance: Fall of Man, or Gears of War, and I want to do it in a darkened room with surround sound blasting. I want the detail to be so realistic that my girlfriend leaves the room and that my daughter isn't even allowed to enter when I play. It's not that I don't like a party or that I wouldn't enjoy jumping around with my friends. It's not that I don't want to play games that my girlfriend and daughter can enjoy. But that's not the kind of gaming I do on a daily basis. Violent game sales would suggest that I'm not alone.
I know the Wii has some more advanced games, but the PS3 has a few friendly games too. That does not turn the Wii into a PS3 or visa versa. Game makers, with notable exceptions, have a tendency to stick to the perceived flavor of the console in question. It doesn't make much sense for them to push a type of game the core group of owners will give a lukewarm reception.
Yes, market segmentation is alive and well in the game industry. The thing is, I hear a lot of people who were happy PS2 customers complaining loudly about the PS3 and then going and buying a Wii. I think a lot of them will be back. They're in the wrong market segment for the kind of games they've traditionally enjoyed. I know everyone says that graphics shouldn't matter and there's something for everyone on the Wii, but I think a lot of these folks are going to see what they're missing and, well, they're going to miss it.
A lot of these guys will go to the Xbox 360 as well as the PS3. More power to them. But I think you'll find that a very large chunk of the folks the Wii has "converted" are going to be owning an additional console within a year or two. I know a lot guys who actually enjoyed "When Harry Met Sally," but I don't know any who gave up hardcore action flicks as a result.
The reverse, however, is a very doable possibility. If Apple were to pre-load Widows on Macs, or even better, partner with a PC maker like Dell to load and sell, they could make a nice profit selling desirable, expensive hardware, get massive application and driver support, and Microsoft would actually be on their side.
Why partner? Apple fans would interpret it as a move away from OSX. They would be unhappy in a major way. If they ship the computers to Dell and Dell loads the OS, taking a nice percentage in the process, then Apple fans might not feel so bad about the situation.
It would be a great experiment. If the Apple hardware turned out to not be so popular with PC folks, they could pull out without pissing off too much in their customer base. But if they turn out to be popular? Lets just say that the iPod and iTunes are available to PC users for a reason. That reason is that there are a lot more PC users than Mac users, therefore they have the opportunity to make more money. By "more money," I mean "huge fucking mountains of cash that they could never hope to make off of the tiny Mac community."
As the guy said, the evidence shows that Apple is a hardware company with a nice OS thrown in for "free". But via Boot Camp, Apple has freely acknowledged that other OSs can run just fine on their hardware. They'd be fools to not capitalize on the Windows market for high end hardware, if it exists in enough numbers. Even with a small percentage of the Windows market, Apple could make many times what they do now.
BTW, the biggest argument I've heard against this boils down to "Steve loves OS X like his wife, children and America combined! And Microsoft is Evil! So is Dell!" He went to Intel. He released boot camp. He makes most of his money from music players. He's on the board of Disney. Apple is a business. If it makes business sense, they'll do it.
The part where you gotta wave it around for almost everything. If you have a choice to wave or use the buttons, then I'll retract the statement. I've only really played one game on the system, but my impression is that you have to use the motion sensor. That's great for once in a while. That's superior for once in a while. But after a hard day's work, I think I'd rather just place my game pad in my hands, my hands on my knees, and kick back and play. And that's not even counting very long gaming sessions where keeping your hands in the air constantly could be a real hassle.
Also, most of the buttons on the Wiimote stick are not as a accessible as those on a gamepad. It's not even in the same ballpark. It may be a lot of good things, but since the gamepad is superior for many things, that means the Wiimote is not superior over all. Just different.
BTW, keyboard and mouse rock. Also not superior in general, but it just plain rocks.
Sony has shown that they think they know what's best for us, and to hell what we think
You could say the same thing about Nintendo. Nobody asked them to make the Wiimote, then to build their whole console around it. Nobody asked them to think of moms and little kids and everyone else in their game design. It just so happens it turned out pretty well so everyone is very happy.
Nobody asked Sony to turn the PS3 into a media center.... whoa! wait! Strike that. We did. We ask them when we praised them for the DVD in the PS2. We asked them when we praised the hard drive in the xbox.
They didn't take out the BluRay, they didn't lower the price and they didn't give us enough of them at launch. They probably should have fixed some or all of that. But dude, that is not disrespect. They made different choices than the competition and they kept in mind the things we gave them kudos for in the past. If anything, they were thinking of the customer.
the resulting product is as shallow as the typical American ethos: all glitz and glam, stupid, boring, and full of shit.
"Glitz and glam": yes.
"Shallow": You're really having a problem seeing the forest here. You're both giving it a hard time for building in too much, and then you're calling it shallow. On top of all the other functionality, which I happen to like, you get to load a whole separate OS completely sanctioned by the manufacturer. Don't like the web browser or music player? No problem, use your own. It is not as innovative as the Wii. Nintendo gets mad props for that. But it's by far the least shallow of all of this generation's game consoles.
"Boring and full of shit": I get it that you don't like Sony and that you don't like the PS3, almost certainly because you never gave it a chance. But at least I don't have to use a "Mii." I'm not a sibling or a mom, but I am a grown up. Nintendo may have made a console for "casual gaming," but I'm not a casual gamer. I'm not a huge fan of being forced to use chibi bullshit or, frankly, of being forced to get up off the couch if I just want to blow off steam blasting at bad guys. When playing kiddie games makes you bored and you start feeling like Nintendo is full of shit for making you waive that controller around for 98% of their games, your tune is very likely to change. You just might find the PS3 looks a lot better than you remembered it.
The PS3 browser is a basically the same browser as they put in the PSP. It's nowhere near as good as Opera, but it shouldn't have raised the price much, if it raised it at all.
BluRay is another matter entirely, but adding the MP3, digital video and web browsing functionality added little or nothing to the price of the PS3. That's one of the big reasons I like those features so much. Why not use what you have to it's fullest capabilities if there's no other downside?
The problem is that Sony is trying to sell there system as "Not just a video game console", which is sort of a slap in the face of the gaming community.
This I don't understand. People have said similar things about the PSP but I can't quite figure out how this other stuff actually takes away from gaming. The PSP is a fine gaming machine, with(now) plenty of very cool games. It has a great display and plenty of horsepower, and the developers are making great use of it. Some people don't like the controls, but you'd have a very difficult time making the case that they're bad because of the media stuff. Good or bad, they're all about gaming.
The PS3 has very similar non-gaming functionality to the PSP, and much like the PSP it's courting game developers to make great games. Sure, there aren't a lot a launch, but lets face it, launch titles are never quite as abundant as us gamers would like. At least one of the launch titles is pretty cool. More are to come. So how does this hurt the gaming community?
I can understand why many people might have preferred just core gaming functionality for less money, but it's also arguable that not a single piece of hardware went into the box that wasn't intended to enhance gaming. The hard drive has already showed it's usefulness in the original xbox and the BluRay drive is at least partially there to avoid disk swaps on games like Final Fantasy that have huge amounts of data. I know this might seem like a stretch, but looking three years into the future it might not be as big of a stretch as you think. How many CDs did you load up for Battlefield 2 or Half-Life 2?
Either way, how does a decision to give great gaming functionality, plus a lot of other stuff equate to a "slap in the face?" It's the equivalent of complaining that Lexus offers way more features than you'll ever use. So what? It's not like the car is going to do a poor job getting you to work.
By all indications, the PS3 is going to be a great game machine. It doesn't look like anything was taken away in the process of also turning it into a nice media hub. There is no "slap in the face," unless you're making "expensive" into the same thing as "slap." If you think it's too expensive, I agree with you. But that's quite far from it actually being bad for gamers.
I started to laugh, but then I remembered MicroCenter is selling 1GB SD cards for $15. Of course loading from a flash memory can be pretty slow too, but at least in theory you could have a "cartridge" that loads right into your USB port.
Maybe what we really need to bring back is games that take up less than a megabyte of storage. They'd look really good and load really fast, but all you'd see is the hero's eyeball.
I think the problem is less whether the story is true or not than whether one conversation with a low-level Sony employee counts as any kind of news whatsoever.
It would be like me talking to a clerk at the Best Buy who says he's pretty sure Sony is going to ship a million PS3s on New Years day. Then I go ahead and write a story saying that "Best Buy says" a million units will show up and people should start camping out in line.
Why would this guy know? Why should I trust him? Why don't I confirm with a more authoritative source? Why on earth would I report it as the position of the company rather than random gossip from "some dude".
HELLO, he's just a sales rep! He's not a spokesman, an engineer, and he doesn't work in shipping. At best, he heard something from someone else and at worst he's making it up. If you believe the latter is not the case, then you should at least have the sense to check with the guy he heard if from before reporting it as the actual policy of the company.
TW
Oh, BTW, some guy who was giving away free Linux disks told me that Linux doesn't have good open source ATI drivers on purpose, because they want people writing code instead of playing video games. Do you think I should submit that to/. so they can put a story on the front page about this important news? I know it's the real policy of the Linux kernel project because the guy is an active participant in the Linux community.
Actually, the demo is quite fun and loads more rapidly then several ps2 games I have. Of course "fun" is subject to interpretation, but last I checked, "loads rapidly" is not. The PS3 well within the average time for many other consoles and modern PC games.
I've played Motor Storm in at least three Kiosks and I didn't experience hard lock ups that would require a manual reset. However, I did experience the game resetting after about about a round and a half. I always assumed it did this on purpose and never stopped to think it was because of instability, but now that it's brought up, I can see why it might look like a hardware issue. It would make more sense to give some kind of warning that "your turn is up buddy, give the controller to the next guy."
But you have to admit the that a lot of the Wii boosters were saying some pretty negative things about all the non game-specific stuff that's built into the PS3.
I'm one of the guys who likes convergence quite a lot. I like the fact that my PS3 can surf the web and I certainly wouldn't begrudge Wii fans having the same opportunity. But it's about time for the people who have a Wii to make a decision whether they like theis functionality or not. If they think this is cool, maybe they could take just a moment to consider that full web browsing functionality out of the box really is an added value to the PS3.
That's all good and fine, and right in line with Nintendo's stated philosophy about this console. I'm quite happy to hear that girlfriends, mothers and siblings that have never really gamed are now getting into the groove.
However, I've been playing video games for quite some time and I don't find the Dual-Shock controller intimidating in the least. And I'm quite happy to see improvements in the PS3 controller. The new triggers, especially, will make a real difference in the kinds of games I like to play.
Even if I did feel a need to play video games with my girlfriend (it might be fun), that's not going to take away my desire to play the more complicated games. I could see having two boxes, but I wouldn't really be satisfied with just a Wii. Yes, the Wii controller is very nice for certain things, but it's not superior to the controllers of the other consoles, just different.
BTW, my next-door neighbor has a Wii. He's trying to get four controllers for it. I bought him one for Christmas at the local Target, which wasn't easy because they're kind of in short supply. I was a little surprised to see it costs $40, but it was still better than a $50 PS3 controller. Then he told me that he'd need the "nunchuck" attachment for another $20 because most of his games required it. I mention this primarily because you and others have commented on how inexpensive the Wii can be. If you want to have a great time with four people, like they show in much of the advertising, count on adding another $120 (base controllers only) to $200 (everyone gets a "numchuck") to the price of your Box. Sure, you'd spend close to that to have four people play a PS3, but the types of games on the PS3 are much more often suited toward one or two people. I guess the price of having a great party is, well, paying for the party.
If people inadvertently get information wrong, I might have corrected them in a response. Marking it as a Troll isn't t really fair to an otherwise earnest post.
Even so, as far as the wrongness is concerned, I'm not so sure it's incorrect to say Nintendo is less focused on online play. Sony and Microsoft have both said this is a major thing for their new consoles, while Nintendo has advertised the Wii as more of a family and party console.
I don't think one necessarily precludes the other, but like a lot of things with console gaming, image counts for a lot as far as the direction of the box is concerned. If people don't see the Wii as a big online gaming machine, then those features are less likely to be emphasized in future games.
First: You're right about motion sensing controllers. I actually have an MS Freestyle Pro. It's good for a few games, like Motocross Madness, where it's a natural leaning motion much like you'd want your character to do on his bike. But other than that, it's usually worse than using the analog stick. I mostly just use it as a game pad. I also have an Air Mouse from Gyration. The motion stuff comes in handy every now and then, but for the most part I just use it as a desk mouse because as a desk mouse it's easier to move and more accurate.
Because of these experiences, I was one of the people who had a healthy dose of skepticism over the Wiimote and Sixaxis. They'll be fun for some games, but, as people playing Excite Truck are realizing, there are plenty of things where it's quite a bit worse than using a last-gen controller. Don't get me wrong, it's fun stuff, and a lot of games are super fun this way, but the players are gonna find that most things originally built for a game pad are probably going to work best on a game pad.
Second: You replied to one of my posts with something negative about the PS3. It wasn't a big deal, but then I noticed your sig. After seeing that, I looked at a few of your other posts and found a pattern. You seem to be pretty down on the PS3. I could see why a guy would prefer the 360 or Wii. Heck, I can even see why someone wouldn't want any of them. But I have a hard time seeing why anyone would go to so much effort to actually tear one of them apart.
Yesterday I lucked out and got an opportunity to get a PS3. I haven't opened it yet because it's becoming a household Christmas gift. I'm pretty excited about it. From everything I can see, it's going to be a lot of fun. We'll get to play games, watch movies surf the web and play music. It just happened to not break the bank for me.
Do you actually feel sorry for me or think the console will be so bad that I would not have fun with it? I might eventually come to find that I enjoy playing my next door neighbor's Wii better, or that a friend gets a 360 and I have more fun playing at his house, but do you think I'm going to come back home and dislike my PS3?
I like my PS2, my PSP and I'm sure I'll enjoy my PS3. My daughter has a GBA and her prefered PC game is the original Unreal Tournament. Her best friend, who lives next door, is the proud owner of a Wii. I've played all of these and have had a great time. What I don't understand is why anyone would would seem to be against something that is making other people happy.
Since console makers take in so much revenue from game sales, novelty alone is not a really good idea. You want people buying new games for years. They're not going to do that if it's in their closet somewhere.
I know Nintendo has said they make a profit on every Wii, so it's not like they're gonna go out of business if they don't sell enough games. But presumably, they'd like to have the best of both worlds and sell a lot of consoles and a lot of games. Unless playing games with the Wiimote continues to hold peoples' attention, they're not going to achieve this goal.
I know you can also get a classic controller and that you can use the Wiimote in ways other than wildly gesticulating, but if players end up using a more standard setup most of the time, it kind of begs the question of whether or not they would have been better off with one of the competitors.
The game lineup is tremendously dependent on the controller. If you didn't have the controller, you wouldn't have the great games. Notably, the sports title that ships with the box is one of the most popular of all as far as playing time is concerned. I wouldn't spend five minutes with the bowling game if not for the Wiimote.
Yeah, I know Zelda and others could have been done without it. But it's the games that use the Wiimote to best effect that's gotten people talking.
Dude, I was about to call bullshit on the "couldn't manage to turn a profit on eBay thing. I went to ebay to prove you wrong and shove it in your face. Instead, I found this.
Basically eBayers aren't getting much above retail right now. After you count what they're paying for the auction, shipping (many are offering this for free) and whatever tax they payed when purchasing it, I think many of them could be losing money. It's good news and bad news really. If you're a scalper, well, we didn't like your kind anyway. But if you want to be a buyer and you don't mind paying a little bit extra to not have to wait till March, I'd go to ebay right now.
People who buy a console because of its hardware are not hardcore gamers, they're assclowns. Hardcore gamers are primarily concerned with games, as the term implies.
I think the point is that you have more possibilities for great games with a more powerful system. Look at the Wii. It has a more "powerful" controller by many people's standards. That controller allows games that the others can't match. Similarly, the PS3 is more powerful in the traditional sense of the word. Theoretically, this could allow it to have more interesting games. Finally, both the Wii and PS3 have a tremendous amount of power over game publishers (including, of course, its parent company in the case of the Wii). This will also allow for the possibility of great games.
Judging any of the consoles by their launch titles is somewhat foolish. It's making the huge assumption that all the titles will be like that. In many cases, nothing could be further from the truth. Where's Mario, Halo and Final Fantasy? Those core games are yet to come.
If you want to wait a year to see which games show up then more power to you. It's not a bad idea. But those of us interested in starting to play now are going to pick the one that looks more "powerful" as it stands now, because the more powerful console has more possibilities.
" I mean, do people really want a realistic environment when they play sports games? "
Your hot dog and bathroom examples notwithstanding, people do appear to be asking for a more realistic environment. I was kinda surprised to see real players' faces in next-gen football, basketball and boxing games, but people seem to be snapping them up.
"If people don't want to have other negatives of the stadium experience, why would anyone expect us to have the advertising of the real stadium?"
I really don't agree with your apparent assertion that advertising is fundamentally negative. In some cases it's actually funny or otherwise interesting. In others, it's simply innocuous. I tend to put stadium advertising in the second category. If I were playing a sports game, I think I'd enjoy the immersion of being in an environment as indistinguishable from the real place as possible. You're right, I wouldn't want that much realism in the restroom or at the snack bar, but I've never actually played a game that offered those experiences so I suspect they won't be a problem.
You make an excellent point. I've seen TV shows where all the people, good, bad and otherwise, drive cars from the same manufacturer. To make matters worse, everyone drives this year's model. It's a little more subtle than advertising, but not much.
Movies are sometimes dinged for product placement. Sometimes this is justified, but other times the product placements are necessary. Do you really want to see characters drinking a generic soda or beer? how about driving through San Francisco and seeing fake billboards on the freeway? In some cases it can be funny, but if it's a realistic police drama, it would just pull you out of your suspension of disbelief.
As some games get more realistic and they try ever harder to portray a true-to-life atmosphere, they need to include more elements of the real world. If fake ads or no ads work better for your game, like in Duke Nukem, then terrific. But if you're trying to portray a realistic view of many major cities, like many driving games do, or you're trying to portray the realistic environment of a pro sports stadium, real advertising on real billboards is going to be crucial to the atmosphere. I personally never played the GTA games, but my guess is the same goes there.
Gratuitous advertising where the game creator just wants to rake in a few bucks is another story. Unless the game is ad-supported, like the US Army game which is completely free, but is essentially an infomercial for the Army, I see it as double-dipping the consumer. It would be like HBO all of a sudden putting ads in The Sopranos. It angers me that the game manufacturer would charge $60 for entertainment, but then put content in the game that is not only not entertaining, but actually annoying. It's like a friend inviting you to dinner and then pushing Amway. It's disrespectful.
I hated it when BF2 made me click through ads for expansion packs to get to the game. Yeah, I get the "informative" argument, but does that justify the ad showing up every time I play, adding one more step to an already tedious start-up procedure? It doesn't add atmosphere, it doesn't increase my enjoyment of the game, and BF2 costs the same as any other popular game so I'm not getting a break on the price. Furthermore, I had no clue when I purchased the game that this would be the case. When I watch broadcast TV or pick up a paper, at least I know ahead of time what the rules of the road are going to be. Here it was just a grab on my time.
As I mentioned before, it's all about respect. If the game manufacturers respect us, then they'll put ads where it's important for atmosphere and they'll avoid them where it's not. If they continue to try to annoy us and then continue to try to justify lining they're pockets by whining, "but games are so expensive to make!" I say fucke 'em.
In general, this also precludes the clustering Microsoft is talking about that they claim will eliminate tape. In short, tape creates a daily trail. The user or admin could wipe out every single message on the Exchange database, and you'd still have historical data sitting safely at your off-site location.
Tapes are also important for the "oops!" factor. Sure, Exchanges has ways of dealing with this, such as deleted item retention, but those run out after 30 days by default(adjustable), long before your CEO realizes he needs that email he deleted in order to defend the company in court.
Clustered or synced data merely replicates the deletions or modifications. They also have a nasty tendency to replicate corruption (rare, but it does happen). Having real-time "backups" is great, but unless they're made to store data in an historical fashion, they can't replace tape.
Slashdot Mirror
Only executives can speak on behalf of the company.
Sales reps are not executives and they're not "representatives" in the way you used that word. It's not whether they're accurate or inaccurate. It's just that they have no authority to state the position of the company as a whole. They may know the position, but their word on the subject is not binding in any kind of universal sense.
If a journalist talks to such a low-level employee, it's up to the him to determine how to report the story. The reporter certainly can report this as the statement of a sales rep, and leave it at that. That's actually valid news some of the time. But a journalist should always seek comment from someone higher and report on whether there was confirmation. If there is no confirmation, he should never report it as the company's official position.
I get all kinds of screwy answers from low-level employees at Target and Best Buy. I was told twice by CompUSA employees that they'd have PS3s at launch, which turned out to not be true. If I were a journalist I might have reported that information as rumor, but if I had reported it as the official word of the company CompUSA wouldn't be the bad guy, I would, and people who had made plans based on my story would have been happy to tell me so.
TW
Wow. I'm amazed I got marked flaimbait. Not your fault, of course, but I can't help but be floored that posting this kind of material could be considered a flaim.
Anyway, I think I may have left off an important point. I'm not talking dual-boot, I'm talking about just windows with standard Mac hardware and perhaps the small concesion of putting two buttons on their laptops.
Mac laptops are the bomb. Every PC user I've ever seen look at one has been jealous. If that hardware had the Windows OS pre-insalled so no tech geeky, time consuming, scary to newbies OS load would be necessary, I think a lot of PC users would seriously consider it on their next notebook purchase.
Whether they'd actually buy it remains to be seen, but Apple has an excellent hardware story to tell and I personally think people would listen.
PC users are used to the same box, or worse, the same box with a different color and a slightly different facade. But Apple has completely redesigned the layout of the case for better airflow and quieter operation. On the laptop, it's thin and light and has a gorgeous display. It doesn't look or feel like the cheap plastic that PC manufacturers tend to use, even on their high-end boxes. These things have the potential to shake up an industry.
Why bother with OSX? PC users have not expressed a desire to use it in significant numbers. That's not a dig on Apple, just a statement of fact. If it was otherwise, Apple wouldn't have such a tiny market share. Why confuse potential customers. Just load Windows and tell them it's a 100% Windows box that they can run all of their favorite apps on. If they're not confused and they don't have anything they percieve as a downside, why not bennefit from the great hardware?
TW
I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking having both OSs, just Windows. It would be a Pure Windows OS sitting on top of pure Apple hardware. The market would be exactly the same consumers who currently purchase Windows computers from Dell or HP.
I know, a lot of Apple folk would consider this setup an abomination. But the truth is that Windows users don't really give a shit about OSX. If they did, they would just buy a Mac. Windows users want to use Windows, so selling them a Windows box is the best way to get their money. You don't gain anything by also giving them OSX and, as your post outlines, there's a heck of a lot to loose, including all the prospective customer who would be too confused to buy such a setup.
TW
Did you read the post I was responding to? I shouldn't have stooped to the level of the poster, but when I did, I used the exact words he used to describe the PS3, "boring and full of shit," I believe. I'm sorry if you interpreted this as some kind of an out of the blue rant.
So, with much nicer language and possibly even some thoughtful(open to interpretation) analysis, I'm going to say the Wii doesn't really fit my style for day-to-day gaming. I want something that was designed more for the "hardcore" gamer, by which I mean someone who is not a "casual" gamer. You can make the aregumet that Wii owners include many "real" gamers, and I'll buy that, but when Nintendo puts as much emphasis as they have on the word "casual" to describe the consumers of their product, I will decline to call those very same people "hardcore."
Nintendo made certain concessions in order to appeal to the casual gamer. The games made certain concession in order to work with the unique controller. The price is great, at least partially because high-end graphics were not seen as a necessity to attract casual gamers. Many of the most talked about games are simplistic, for pretty much the same reason. The more complicated games suffer from nonstandard ways of moving and aiming, because the game makers haven't yet figured out the best way to do things.
The truth is, I want to play games like Resistance: Fall of Man, or Gears of War, and I want to do it in a darkened room with surround sound blasting. I want the detail to be so realistic that my girlfriend leaves the room and that my daughter isn't even allowed to enter when I play. It's not that I don't like a party or that I wouldn't enjoy jumping around with my friends. It's not that I don't want to play games that my girlfriend and daughter can enjoy. But that's not the kind of gaming I do on a daily basis. Violent game sales would suggest that I'm not alone.
I know the Wii has some more advanced games, but the PS3 has a few friendly games too. That does not turn the Wii into a PS3 or visa versa. Game makers, with notable exceptions, have a tendency to stick to the perceived flavor of the console in question. It doesn't make much sense for them to push a type of game the core group of owners will give a lukewarm reception.
Yes, market segmentation is alive and well in the game industry. The thing is, I hear a lot of people who were happy PS2 customers complaining loudly about the PS3 and then going and buying a Wii. I think a lot of them will be back. They're in the wrong market segment for the kind of games they've traditionally enjoyed. I know everyone says that graphics shouldn't matter and there's something for everyone on the Wii, but I think a lot of these folks are going to see what they're missing and, well, they're going to miss it.
A lot of these guys will go to the Xbox 360 as well as the PS3. More power to them. But I think you'll find that a very large chunk of the folks the Wii has "converted" are going to be owning an additional console within a year or two. I know a lot guys who actually enjoyed "When Harry Met Sally," but I don't know any who gave up hardcore action flicks as a result.
TW
The reverse, however, is a very doable possibility. If Apple were to pre-load Widows on Macs, or even better, partner with a PC maker like Dell to load and sell, they could make a nice profit selling desirable, expensive hardware, get massive application and driver support, and Microsoft would actually be on their side.
Why partner? Apple fans would interpret it as a move away from OSX. They would be unhappy in a major way. If they ship the computers to Dell and Dell loads the OS, taking a nice percentage in the process, then Apple fans might not feel so bad about the situation.
It would be a great experiment. If the Apple hardware turned out to not be so popular with PC folks, they could pull out without pissing off too much in their customer base. But if they turn out to be popular? Lets just say that the iPod and iTunes are available to PC users for a reason. That reason is that there are a lot more PC users than Mac users, therefore they have the opportunity to make more money. By "more money," I mean "huge fucking mountains of cash that they could never hope to make off of the tiny Mac community."
As the guy said, the evidence shows that Apple is a hardware company with a nice OS thrown in for "free". But via Boot Camp, Apple has freely acknowledged that other OSs can run just fine on their hardware. They'd be fools to not capitalize on the Windows market for high end hardware, if it exists in enough numbers. Even with a small percentage of the Windows market, Apple could make many times what they do now.
BTW, the biggest argument I've heard against this boils down to "Steve loves OS X like his wife, children and America combined! And Microsoft is Evil! So is Dell!" He went to Intel. He released boot camp. He makes most of his money from music players. He's on the board of Disney. Apple is a business. If it makes business sense, they'll do it.
TW
What part of that is not superior?
The part where you gotta wave it around for almost everything. If you have a choice to wave or use the buttons, then I'll retract the statement. I've only really played one game on the system, but my impression is that you have to use the motion sensor. That's great for once in a while. That's superior for once in a while. But after a hard day's work, I think I'd rather just place my game pad in my hands, my hands on my knees, and kick back and play. And that's not even counting very long gaming sessions where keeping your hands in the air constantly could be a real hassle.
Also, most of the buttons on the Wiimote stick are not as a accessible as those on a gamepad. It's not even in the same ballpark. It may be a lot of good things, but since the gamepad is superior for many things, that means the Wiimote is not superior over all. Just different.
BTW, keyboard and mouse rock. Also not superior in general, but it just plain rocks.
TW
Sony has shown that they think they know what's best for us, and to hell what we think
You could say the same thing about Nintendo. Nobody asked them to make the Wiimote, then to build their whole console around it. Nobody asked them to think of moms and little kids and everyone else in their game design. It just so happens it turned out pretty well so everyone is very happy.
Nobody asked Sony to turn the PS3 into a media center.... whoa! wait! Strike that. We did. We ask them when we praised them for the DVD in the PS2. We asked them when we praised the hard drive in the xbox.
They didn't take out the BluRay, they didn't lower the price and they didn't give us enough of them at launch. They probably should have fixed some or all of that. But dude, that is not disrespect. They made different choices than the competition and they kept in mind the things we gave them kudos for in the past. If anything, they were thinking of the customer.
the resulting product is as shallow as the typical American ethos: all glitz and glam, stupid, boring, and full of shit.
"Glitz and glam": yes.
"Shallow": You're really having a problem seeing the forest here. You're both giving it a hard time for building in too much, and then you're calling it shallow. On top of all the other functionality, which I happen to like, you get to load a whole separate OS completely sanctioned by the manufacturer. Don't like the web browser or music player? No problem, use your own. It is not as innovative as the Wii. Nintendo gets mad props for that. But it's by far the least shallow of all of this generation's game consoles.
"Boring and full of shit": I get it that you don't like Sony and that you don't like the PS3, almost certainly because you never gave it a chance. But at least I don't have to use a "Mii." I'm not a sibling or a mom, but I am a grown up. Nintendo may have made a console for "casual gaming," but I'm not a casual gamer. I'm not a huge fan of being forced to use chibi bullshit or, frankly, of being forced to get up off the couch if I just want to blow off steam blasting at bad guys. When playing kiddie games makes you bored and you start feeling like Nintendo is full of shit for making you waive that controller around for 98% of their games, your tune is very likely to change. You just might find the PS3 looks a lot better than you remembered it.
TW
The PS3 browser is a basically the same browser as they put in the PSP. It's nowhere near as good as Opera, but it shouldn't have raised the price much, if it raised it at all.
BluRay is another matter entirely, but adding the MP3, digital video and web browsing functionality added little or nothing to the price of the PS3. That's one of the big reasons I like those features so much. Why not use what you have to it's fullest capabilities if there's no other downside?
TW
The problem is that Sony is trying to sell there system as "Not just a video game console", which is sort of a slap in the face of the gaming community.
This I don't understand. People have said similar things about the PSP but I can't quite figure out how this other stuff actually takes away from gaming. The PSP is a fine gaming machine, with(now) plenty of very cool games. It has a great display and plenty of horsepower, and the developers are making great use of it. Some people don't like the controls, but you'd have a very difficult time making the case that they're bad because of the media stuff. Good or bad, they're all about gaming.
The PS3 has very similar non-gaming functionality to the PSP, and much like the PSP it's courting game developers to make great games. Sure, there aren't a lot a launch, but lets face it, launch titles are never quite as abundant as us gamers would like. At least one of the launch titles is pretty cool. More are to come. So how does this hurt the gaming community?
I can understand why many people might have preferred just core gaming functionality for less money, but it's also arguable that not a single piece of hardware went into the box that wasn't intended to enhance gaming. The hard drive has already showed it's usefulness in the original xbox and the BluRay drive is at least partially there to avoid disk swaps on games like Final Fantasy that have huge amounts of data. I know this might seem like a stretch, but looking three years into the future it might not be as big of a stretch as you think. How many CDs did you load up for Battlefield 2 or Half-Life 2?
Either way, how does a decision to give great gaming functionality, plus a lot of other stuff equate to a "slap in the face?" It's the equivalent of complaining that Lexus offers way more features than you'll ever use. So what? It's not like the car is going to do a poor job getting you to work.
By all indications, the PS3 is going to be a great game machine. It doesn't look like anything was taken away in the process of also turning it into a nice media hub. There is no "slap in the face," unless you're making "expensive" into the same thing as "slap." If you think it's too expensive, I agree with you. But that's quite far from it actually being bad for gamers.
TW
I started to laugh, but then I remembered MicroCenter is selling 1GB SD cards for $15. Of course loading from a flash memory can be pretty slow too, but at least in theory you could have a "cartridge" that loads right into your USB port.
Maybe what we really need to bring back is games that take up less than a megabyte of storage. They'd look really good and load really fast, but all you'd see is the hero's eyeball.
TW
I think the problem is less whether the story is true or not than whether one conversation with a low-level Sony employee counts as any kind of news whatsoever.
/. so they can put a story on the front page about this important news? I know it's the real policy of the Linux kernel project because the guy is an active participant in the Linux community.
It would be like me talking to a clerk at the Best Buy who says he's pretty sure Sony is going to ship a million PS3s on New Years day. Then I go ahead and write a story saying that "Best Buy says" a million units will show up and people should start camping out in line.
Why would this guy know? Why should I trust him? Why don't I confirm with a more authoritative source? Why on earth would I report it as the position of the company rather than random gossip from "some dude".
HELLO, he's just a sales rep! He's not a spokesman, an engineer, and he doesn't work in shipping. At best, he heard something from someone else and at worst he's making it up. If you believe the latter is not the case, then you should at least have the sense to check with the guy he heard if from before reporting it as the actual policy of the company.
TW
Oh, BTW, some guy who was giving away free Linux disks told me that Linux doesn't have good open source ATI drivers on purpose, because they want people writing code instead of playing video games. Do you think I should submit that to
Actually, the demo is quite fun and loads more rapidly then several ps2 games I have. Of course "fun" is subject to interpretation, but last I checked, "loads rapidly" is not. The PS3 well within the average time for many other consoles and modern PC games.
I've played Motor Storm in at least three Kiosks and I didn't experience hard lock ups that would require a manual reset. However, I did experience the game resetting after about about a round and a half. I always assumed it did this on purpose and never stopped to think it was because of instability, but now that it's brought up, I can see why it might look like a hardware issue. It would make more sense to give some kind of warning that "your turn is up buddy, give the controller to the next guy."
TW
But you have to admit the that a lot of the Wii boosters were saying some pretty negative things about all the non game-specific stuff that's built into the PS3.
I'm one of the guys who likes convergence quite a lot. I like the fact that my PS3 can surf the web and I certainly wouldn't begrudge Wii fans having the same opportunity. But it's about time for the people who have a Wii to make a decision whether they like theis functionality or not. If they think this is cool, maybe they could take just a moment to consider that full web browsing functionality out of the box really is an added value to the PS3.
TW
That's all good and fine, and right in line with Nintendo's stated philosophy about this console. I'm quite happy to hear that girlfriends, mothers and siblings that have never really gamed are now getting into the groove.
However, I've been playing video games for quite some time and I don't find the Dual-Shock controller intimidating in the least. And I'm quite happy to see improvements in the PS3 controller. The new triggers, especially, will make a real difference in the kinds of games I like to play.
Even if I did feel a need to play video games with my girlfriend (it might be fun), that's not going to take away my desire to play the more complicated games. I could see having two boxes, but I wouldn't really be satisfied with just a Wii. Yes, the Wii controller is very nice for certain things, but it's not superior to the controllers of the other consoles, just different.
BTW, my next-door neighbor has a Wii. He's trying to get four controllers for it. I bought him one for Christmas at the local Target, which wasn't easy because they're kind of in short supply. I was a little surprised to see it costs $40, but it was still better than a $50 PS3 controller. Then he told me that he'd need the "nunchuck" attachment for another $20 because most of his games required it. I mention this primarily because you and others have commented on how inexpensive the Wii can be. If you want to have a great time with four people, like they show in much of the advertising, count on adding another $120 (base controllers only) to $200 (everyone gets a "numchuck") to the price of your Box. Sure, you'd spend close to that to have four people play a PS3, but the types of games on the PS3 are much more often suited toward one or two people. I guess the price of having a great party is, well, paying for the party.
TW
If people inadvertently get information wrong, I might have corrected them in a response. Marking it as a Troll isn't t really fair to an otherwise earnest post.
Even so, as far as the wrongness is concerned, I'm not so sure it's incorrect to say Nintendo is less focused on online play. Sony and Microsoft have both said this is a major thing for their new consoles, while Nintendo has advertised the Wii as more of a family and party console.
I don't think one necessarily precludes the other, but like a lot of things with console gaming, image counts for a lot as far as the direction of the box is concerned. If people don't see the Wii as a big online gaming machine, then those features are less likely to be emphasized in future games.
TW
A couple of things....
First: You're right about motion sensing controllers. I actually have an MS Freestyle Pro. It's good for a few games, like Motocross Madness, where it's a natural leaning motion much like you'd want your character to do on his bike. But other than that, it's usually worse than using the analog stick. I mostly just use it as a game pad. I also have an Air Mouse from Gyration. The motion stuff comes in handy every now and then, but for the most part I just use it as a desk mouse because as a desk mouse it's easier to move and more accurate.
Because of these experiences, I was one of the people who had a healthy dose of skepticism over the Wiimote and Sixaxis. They'll be fun for some games, but, as people playing Excite Truck are realizing, there are plenty of things where it's quite a bit worse than using a last-gen controller. Don't get me wrong, it's fun stuff, and a lot of games are super fun this way, but the players are gonna find that most things originally built for a game pad are probably going to work best on a game pad.
Second: You replied to one of my posts with something negative about the PS3. It wasn't a big deal, but then I noticed your sig. After seeing that, I looked at a few of your other posts and found a pattern. You seem to be pretty down on the PS3. I could see why a guy would prefer the 360 or Wii. Heck, I can even see why someone wouldn't want any of them. But I have a hard time seeing why anyone would go to so much effort to actually tear one of them apart.
Yesterday I lucked out and got an opportunity to get a PS3. I haven't opened it yet because it's becoming a household Christmas gift. I'm pretty excited about it. From everything I can see, it's going to be a lot of fun. We'll get to play games, watch movies surf the web and play music. It just happened to not break the bank for me.
Do you actually feel sorry for me or think the console will be so bad that I would not have fun with it? I might eventually come to find that I enjoy playing my next door neighbor's Wii better, or that a friend gets a 360 and I have more fun playing at his house, but do you think I'm going to come back home and dislike my PS3?
I like my PS2, my PSP and I'm sure I'll enjoy my PS3. My daughter has a GBA and her prefered PC game is the original Unreal Tournament. Her best friend, who lives next door, is the proud owner of a Wii. I've played all of these and have had a great time. What I don't understand is why anyone would would seem to be against something that is making other people happy.
TW
Since console makers take in so much revenue from game sales, novelty alone is not a really good idea. You want people buying new games for years. They're not going to do that if it's in their closet somewhere.
I know Nintendo has said they make a profit on every Wii, so it's not like they're gonna go out of business if they don't sell enough games. But presumably, they'd like to have the best of both worlds and sell a lot of consoles and a lot of games. Unless playing games with the Wiimote continues to hold peoples' attention, they're not going to achieve this goal.
I know you can also get a classic controller and that you can use the Wiimote in ways other than wildly gesticulating, but if players end up using a more standard setup most of the time, it kind of begs the question of whether or not they would have been better off with one of the competitors.
TW
The game lineup is tremendously dependent on the controller. If you didn't have the controller, you wouldn't have the great games. Notably, the sports title that ships with the box is one of the most popular of all as far as playing time is concerned. I wouldn't spend five minutes with the bowling game if not for the Wiimote.
Yeah, I know Zelda and others could have been done without it. But it's the games that use the Wiimote to best effect that's gotten people talking.
TW
Dude, I was about to call bullshit on the "couldn't manage to turn a profit on eBay thing. I went to ebay to prove you wrong and shove it in your face. Instead, I found this.
Basically eBayers aren't getting much above retail right now. After you count what they're paying for the auction, shipping (many are offering this for free) and whatever tax they payed when purchasing it, I think many of them could be losing money. It's good news and bad news really. If you're a scalper, well, we didn't like your kind anyway. But if you want to be a buyer and you don't mind paying a little bit extra to not have to wait till March, I'd go to ebay right now.
TW
I think the point is that you have more possibilities for great games with a more powerful system. Look at the Wii. It has a more "powerful" controller by many people's standards. That controller allows games that the others can't match. Similarly, the PS3 is more powerful in the traditional sense of the word. Theoretically, this could allow it to have more interesting games. Finally, both the Wii and PS3 have a tremendous amount of power over game publishers (including, of course, its parent company in the case of the Wii). This will also allow for the possibility of great games.
Judging any of the consoles by their launch titles is somewhat foolish. It's making the huge assumption that all the titles will be like that. In many cases, nothing could be further from the truth. Where's Mario, Halo and Final Fantasy? Those core games are yet to come.
If you want to wait a year to see which games show up then more power to you. It's not a bad idea. But those of us interested in starting to play now are going to pick the one that looks more "powerful" as it stands now, because the more powerful console has more possibilities.
TW
" I mean, do people really want a realistic environment when they play sports games? "
Your hot dog and bathroom examples notwithstanding, people do appear to be asking for a more realistic environment. I was kinda surprised to see real players' faces in next-gen football, basketball and boxing games, but people seem to be snapping them up.
"If people don't want to have other negatives of the stadium experience, why would anyone expect us to have the advertising of the real stadium?"
I really don't agree with your apparent assertion that advertising is fundamentally negative. In some cases it's actually funny or otherwise interesting. In others, it's simply innocuous. I tend to put stadium advertising in the second category. If I were playing a sports game, I think I'd enjoy the immersion of being in an environment as indistinguishable from the real place as possible. You're right, I wouldn't want that much realism in the restroom or at the snack bar, but I've never actually played a game that offered those experiences so I suspect they won't be a problem.
TW
You make an excellent point. I've seen TV shows where all the people, good, bad and otherwise, drive cars from the same manufacturer. To make matters worse, everyone drives this year's model. It's a little more subtle than advertising, but not much.
TW
Well, at least we know something we didn't know before. This kinda rules out a cherry, upbeat end to the series, eh?
TW
Movies are sometimes dinged for product placement. Sometimes this is justified, but other times the product placements are necessary. Do you really want to see characters drinking a generic soda or beer? how about driving through San Francisco and seeing fake billboards on the freeway? In some cases it can be funny, but if it's a realistic police drama, it would just pull you out of your suspension of disbelief.
As some games get more realistic and they try ever harder to portray a true-to-life atmosphere, they need to include more elements of the real world. If fake ads or no ads work better for your game, like in Duke Nukem, then terrific. But if you're trying to portray a realistic view of many major cities, like many driving games do, or you're trying to portray the realistic environment of a pro sports stadium, real advertising on real billboards is going to be crucial to the atmosphere. I personally never played the GTA games, but my guess is the same goes there.
Gratuitous advertising where the game creator just wants to rake in a few bucks is another story. Unless the game is ad-supported, like the US Army game which is completely free, but is essentially an infomercial for the Army, I see it as double-dipping the consumer. It would be like HBO all of a sudden putting ads in The Sopranos. It angers me that the game manufacturer would charge $60 for entertainment, but then put content in the game that is not only not entertaining, but actually annoying. It's like a friend inviting you to dinner and then pushing Amway. It's disrespectful.
I hated it when BF2 made me click through ads for expansion packs to get to the game. Yeah, I get the "informative" argument, but does that justify the ad showing up every time I play, adding one more step to an already tedious start-up procedure? It doesn't add atmosphere, it doesn't increase my enjoyment of the game, and BF2 costs the same as any other popular game so I'm not getting a break on the price. Furthermore, I had no clue when I purchased the game that this would be the case. When I watch broadcast TV or pick up a paper, at least I know ahead of time what the rules of the road are going to be. Here it was just a grab on my time.
As I mentioned before, it's all about respect. If the game manufacturers respect us, then they'll put ads where it's important for atmosphere and they'll avoid them where it's not. If they continue to try to annoy us and then continue to try to justify lining they're pockets by whining, "but games are so expensive to make!" I say fucke 'em.
TW
In general, this also precludes the clustering Microsoft is talking about that they claim will eliminate tape. In short, tape creates a daily trail. The user or admin could wipe out every single message on the Exchange database, and you'd still have historical data sitting safely at your off-site location.
Tapes are also important for the "oops!" factor. Sure, Exchanges has ways of dealing with this, such as deleted item retention, but those run out after 30 days by default(adjustable), long before your CEO realizes he needs that email he deleted in order to defend the company in court.
Clustered or synced data merely replicates the deletions or modifications. They also have a nasty tendency to replicate corruption (rare, but it does happen). Having real-time "backups" is great, but unless they're made to store data in an historical fashion, they can't replace tape.
TW