At least 3 years before something shinier comes is a good return for me. I'll keep the thing forever anyway. It'll go nicely with my SNES, N64, Amiga, Dreamcast, PSone, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.
SNES will still be my best value investment long after this gen has finished. Real console gamer. Pfft. Whatever. Like that affects my ability to decide whether something is a reasonable return on my money.;-)
That'll be today's prices then yes? You try the prices in 2 year's time. Can you remember the prices for current gen 2 years ago? So yes, I'm comfortable with "at least".
Got about a 3rd of the way before stopping reading. Complete rubbish. I wonder if the writers have ever played a game, or if they just browsed the adverts in the back of a games magazine.
Graphical realism as the driving force behind the industry. On what basis? Because photography and cinema has been striving for greater realism? Really? Since when have photographs been unrealistic (well, actually kind of increasingly what with airbrushed celebs etc)? And cinema striving for greater realism? That's why films like The Matrix were so successful was it? That's why special effects are now so important for blockbusters? Even relatively artistic films aren't better because the visual representation is more real.
Complete rubbish.
I stopped when I read that console gamers had had to wait for the Xbox for online gaming. But then that's because I'm a Sega Dreamcast fanboy. PSO - Phantasy Star something. I can't remember what that O stood for.
Still, another great troll from next gen. Remind me to only ever read that site via submissions to slashdot. The last few articles linked have been rubbish too.
The PS3 price is probably what I thought it would be. It was never going to be cheap. In some respects, if I can get 3 good years out of the console, then the price is OKish. But the real problem with the next-gen for me is the price of games. I love gaming. I earn a decent amount. But at this rate, I'm not going to be buying many next-gen games. They will be at least 25% more expensive than titles from this generation. That much is clear from the 360 games that are out already. I'm only going to be able to buy a handful of games a year at that price. Or I'm going to have to wait until they come out on budget. Pfft. Great.
I'm more worried about this generation transition than any other before. The cost of games is going to mean fewer games sell. And of course, games will cost loads more to develop. That means that publishers/developers focus on "guaranteed" sales, which means more sequels, more licenses and more cynically marketed crap. And less innovation and risk. Yeh, yeh, I know we've heard it all before, but I'm feeling pretty down about it. Maybe I'll just stick to mariokart on the SNES.
I know that it's traditional fare to bash TFA, but for a company that's "spent a great deal of time researching the online game market", they seem to have a fantastically narrow view of it. TFA only refers to playing games online, which from my view of XBox Live is only part of the deal. TFA also fails to discuss the differing potential markets for next-gen consoles and how these market dynamics affect the online strategies for the companies. Here's my two cents...
Sony vs Microsoft I'm not going to include Nintendo here, because IMO the Nintendo Revolution will not achieve mass-market success (if it does) using the same tactics as either Microsoft or Sony. Nintendo will have to do it through word of mouth and delivering quality (and they may well do it, although my head says that the economics are stacked against them). Microsoft and Sony have the momentum from the current generation to win market share initially through intertia supported by aggressive marketing. So this becomes a straight fight between the two big boys. First question, what are the likely target markets?
Hardcore vs the world The "hardcore gamer" description isn't fantastically helpful, emotive as it is. So I'll try to avoid it, but my simple view is that Microsoft is still in the "it's all about the games" mode. The XBox360 experience feels very much to me like a games-centric experience. The Sony Playstation experience much less so. I may be wrong, but I think that one of the major factors in the PS2's total dominance was the inclusion of a DVD drive that could be used without accessories. The PS2 was/is (I think - facts not checked) the biggest selling DVD player (NB it's probably a statistically anomoly, because other brands have so many models, whereas there was only really one (and maybe a half if you include the slimline version) PS2. My conclusion is that Sony targets a different consumer market to Microsoft by marketing different capabilities of the machine. To blinkered gamers, it may be about the horsepower. However, to the "Average Joe" mentioned in the article is a deciding question really going to be about "free to play" online games or will the fact that the PS3 has a hi-definition DVD player (albeit blu-ray)built in be more important? I know what I would push if I were a salesman! The article almost seems to get this point, but then suddenly casts it aside and ignores it again. But it's fundamental to the relevance of the article! Whoops.
It's not just about playing games against people I have a little experience of playing on a 360. One of the greatest features of the experience is the community angle. Online leaderboards are great for gamers. It's just like old-skool gaming again. For games that don't lend themselves well to leaderboards, ahievements and gamer points go some way to fitting the bill. A friend and I spent a whole evening playing a level on Marble Blast just to try to top the charts for that level. Genius. Not a second of trash-talking Halo2 in sight. Friends lists, friend invites, seeing who's on-line and what they're playing etc etc are all brilliant games-centric community ideas. I feel that for gamers who experience this, they will find that pull just as strong as the ability to shoot their pals in Halo2.
What about me? Well, personally, I'll buy all three consoles anyway, so it's irrelevant. But I'm more excited about the community angle of XBox Live than anything else. However, I favour Nintendo because if they get it right, the games could be awesome. As for the PS3, well if they introduce online leaderboards and videos of Singstar performances, then count me in!
Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.
on
Once Upon A Game
·
· Score: 1
This is a major problem with video games as art -- the viewed product is never exactly as the developer intended. Whereas a great artwork is typically a 'finished' product by the artist
Are you sure about that distinction? Just because a great artwork is 'finished', it doesn't mean that it is viewed exactly as the artist intended. Books don't have to be read cover to cover. Paintings can be glanced at in poorly illuminated rooms. Films can be interrupted by unplanned comfort breaks.
The subjectivity of the experience of great artwork is generally what makes it great. In fact, without that, most "critics" would be out of a job!
I don't see anything that requires complete control of the user experience in order to deliver a strongly emotionally resonant experience on a par with film/theatre/literature.
There are plenty of games that last longer!
on
Once Upon A Game
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Disgaea for starters. Isn't War and Peace more memorable for its length than its quality (sounds like a porn star in that respect)?
I do get fed up with the "games as storytellers" topic. I don't quite understand where it comes from. Just because games are played on TV, doesn't mean they *have* to be compared with movies. Football (soccer) is played on grass, but has nothing to do with tending one's lawn. In fact, quite the opposite! Some games have stories, great. Not all games do. Games generate their own stories. Consider the storyline of the last game of chess you played or the last basketball match you watched. *If* a game sets out to tell a story (eg RPG), then fine, compare it with stories. If it doesn't, then stop bothering.
From the article: "Creating powerful narratives is the next step... We need real emotional and intellectual experiences." Really? Maybe if the game is trying to tell a story. But not all games try. Not all games need to. Should families stop playing charades at Christmas until Grandad comes up with a better plot as justification for playing? What a load of rubbish. We should enjoy games for what they are. I still want a game that is fun for 30 minutes. If I want to read a book, then guess what... I'll actually read one.
And, most of all, STOP LUMPING ALL GAMES INTO THE SAME POT.
I don't think it's particularly relevant for Nintendo to have considered it anyway. Consider the 360, the context was totally different: a) There were no direct competitors at launch. Other "competitors" were previous generation and the likely early adopters targeted at launch would most likely own at least one console from that generation. b) If it had worked, it would have been a hailed as a brilliant consumer friendly idea. Consumers in territories that receive the consoles last in the roll-out always feel left out. Microsoft wants everyone to feel "wanted". Remember, it is currently in second place. c) Microsoft could afford / were prepared to throw money at the logistics problem to (try to) solve it. d) The concept behind Live is of a global community, which does work better if everyone has access to consoles at the same time.
Notice now, that Microsoft have upped the stakes too. They had a moderately low risk launch (so what if we're a few consoles short, there's nothing else to buy) in which they could try this out. Sony, on the other hand, now has to match that and better it. It's far from easy to manage. Although it would be a poke in the eye if they do.
Nintendo, on the other hand, aren't even pitching at the same market as Microsoft / Sony. The (initial) audience for the Revolution will inevitably be smaller, just due to momentum from this generation of consoles. So why even introduce the pain? Far better to have a smoothly managed and *efficient* roll-out, than a painful and expensive one. If the Revolution is successful, it will achieve it through word of mouth, not big marketing budgets.
Worldwide launches are not bad for consumers. Badly managed worldwide launches are bad for consumers.
Microsoft clearly did their research and knew how badly the staggered roll-outs are perceived within the markets towards the end of the roll-out. In addition, staggered roll-out was never really going to support the "global community" concept behind Live.
I think it was the right thing for Microsoft to try. It's a pity they didn't get it right. Nintendo, on the other hand, don't need to try this tactic for quite a few reasons.
I believe that the irony of this article is ...
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
that in attempting to:
a) demonstrate that the author has a better grasp of the meaning of irony than most people and thus establish her credibility as an authority on the matter;
and b) clarify the meaning of irony so as to avoid misusage in the future.
The author has, in fact:
a) contradicted herself on a number of occasions and chosen some poor examples of irony (normally "situational irony", which the author clearly hasn't quite got her head around);
and b) spawned a Slashdot article full of some terrible mis-uses of the word (but then perhaps that is not ironic, as we know that few Slashdotters actually read the articles anyway and one should expect the outcome).
My particular issue is with the statement:
"Naturally, irony was back within a few days, not least because of the myriad ironies contained within the attack itself (America having funded al-Qaida is ironic; America raining bombs and peanut butter on Afghanistan is ironic)." Why is America's funding of al-Qaida ironic? It's not. America weren't funding them with any expectation that it would protect them from terrorist attacks. They weren't funding them with a view to reducing terrorism anywhere in the world. The outcome here isn't linked with any expectations. It's just a very black coincidence. Equally, why is the bombing of bombs and peant butter ironic? It's certainly contradictory, but ironic? I don't see the discrepancy between meaning and action there.
Personally, I think that the author might have benefitted from reading this article on the meaning of irony (and with useful links to a range of literary terms).
There were a few other areas that I didn't particularly agree with the article on, but a dissection of those does not make for a readable Slashdot comment. Still, I enjoyed it and it was definitely worthy of the label "News for Nerds". My brain has been pleasantly engaged (a thought, does Nerd necessarily == pedant?).
Oh, and btw, is the best use of irony in the article the statement in footnote 1?
"I would strongly urge you not to read any more footnotes, they are only here to make sure I don't get in trouble for plagiarising." I am sure that successful irony shouldn't have to be flagged (as with the author's more fallible attempts in the main body of the article).
Slashdot Mirror
At least 3 years before something shinier comes is a good return for me. I'll keep the thing forever anyway. It'll go nicely with my SNES, N64, Amiga, Dreamcast, PSone, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.
;-)
SNES will still be my best value investment long after this gen has finished.
Real console gamer. Pfft. Whatever. Like that affects my ability to decide whether something is a reasonable return on my money.
That'll be today's prices then yes? You try the prices in 2 year's time.
Can you remember the prices for current gen 2 years ago?
So yes, I'm comfortable with "at least".
Got about a 3rd of the way before stopping reading. Complete rubbish. I wonder if the writers have ever played a game, or if they just browsed the adverts in the back of a games magazine.
Graphical realism as the driving force behind the industry. On what basis? Because photography and cinema has been striving for greater realism? Really? Since when have photographs been unrealistic (well, actually kind of increasingly what with airbrushed celebs etc)? And cinema striving for greater realism? That's why films like The Matrix were so successful was it? That's why special effects are now so important for blockbusters? Even relatively artistic films aren't better because the visual representation is more real.
Complete rubbish.
I stopped when I read that console gamers had had to wait for the Xbox for online gaming. But then that's because I'm a Sega Dreamcast fanboy. PSO - Phantasy Star something. I can't remember what that O stood for.
Still, another great troll from next gen. Remind me to only ever read that site via submissions to slashdot. The last few articles linked have been rubbish too.
The PS3 price is probably what I thought it would be. It was never going to be cheap. In some respects, if I can get 3 good years out of the console, then the price is OKish. But the real problem with the next-gen for me is the price of games. I love gaming. I earn a decent amount. But at this rate, I'm not going to be buying many next-gen games. They will be at least 25% more expensive than titles from this generation. That much is clear from the 360 games that are out already. I'm only going to be able to buy a handful of games a year at that price. Or I'm going to have to wait until they come out on budget. Pfft. Great.
I'm more worried about this generation transition than any other before. The cost of games is going to mean fewer games sell. And of course, games will cost loads more to develop. That means that publishers/developers focus on "guaranteed" sales, which means more sequels, more licenses and more cynically marketed crap. And less innovation and risk. Yeh, yeh, I know we've heard it all before, but I'm feeling pretty down about it. Maybe I'll just stick to mariokart on the SNES.
I know that it's traditional fare to bash TFA, but for a company that's "spent a great deal of time researching the online game market", they seem to have a fantastically narrow view of it. ...
TFA only refers to playing games online, which from my view of XBox Live is only part of the deal. TFA also fails to discuss the differing potential markets for next-gen consoles and how these market dynamics affect the online strategies for the companies. Here's my two cents
Sony vs Microsoft
I'm not going to include Nintendo here, because IMO the Nintendo Revolution will not achieve mass-market success (if it does) using the same tactics as either Microsoft or Sony. Nintendo will have to do it through word of mouth and delivering quality (and they may well do it, although my head says that the economics are stacked against them). Microsoft and Sony have the momentum from the current generation to win market share initially through intertia supported by aggressive marketing.
So this becomes a straight fight between the two big boys. First question, what are the likely target markets?
Hardcore vs the world
The "hardcore gamer" description isn't fantastically helpful, emotive as it is. So I'll try to avoid it, but my simple view is that Microsoft is still in the "it's all about the games" mode. The XBox360 experience feels very much to me like a games-centric experience. The Sony Playstation experience much less so. I may be wrong, but I think that one of the major factors in the PS2's total dominance was the inclusion of a DVD drive that could be used without accessories. The PS2 was/is (I think - facts not checked) the biggest selling DVD player (NB it's probably a statistically anomoly, because other brands have so many models, whereas there was only really one (and maybe a half if you include the slimline version) PS2.
My conclusion is that Sony targets a different consumer market to Microsoft by marketing different capabilities of the machine. To blinkered gamers, it may be about the horsepower. However, to the "Average Joe" mentioned in the article is a deciding question really going to be about "free to play" online games or will the fact that the PS3 has a hi-definition DVD player (albeit blu-ray)built in be more important? I know what I would push if I were a salesman! The article almost seems to get this point, but then suddenly casts it aside and ignores it again. But it's fundamental to the relevance of the article! Whoops.
It's not just about playing games against people
I have a little experience of playing on a 360. One of the greatest features of the experience is the community angle. Online leaderboards are great for gamers. It's just like old-skool gaming again. For games that don't lend themselves well to leaderboards, ahievements and gamer points go some way to fitting the bill. A friend and I spent a whole evening playing a level on Marble Blast just to try to top the charts for that level. Genius. Not a second of trash-talking Halo2 in sight.
Friends lists, friend invites, seeing who's on-line and what they're playing etc etc are all brilliant games-centric community ideas. I feel that for gamers who experience this, they will find that pull just as strong as the ability to shoot their pals in Halo2.
What about me?
Well, personally, I'll buy all three consoles anyway, so it's irrelevant. But I'm more excited about the community angle of XBox Live than anything else. However, I favour Nintendo because if they get it right, the games could be awesome. As for the PS3, well if they introduce online leaderboards and videos of Singstar performances, then count me in!
Are you sure about that distinction? Just because a great artwork is 'finished', it doesn't mean that it is viewed exactly as the artist intended. Books don't have to be read cover to cover. Paintings can be glanced at in poorly illuminated rooms. Films can be interrupted by unplanned comfort breaks.
The subjectivity of the experience of great artwork is generally what makes it great. In fact, without that, most "critics" would be out of a job!
I don't see anything that requires complete control of the user experience in order to deliver a strongly emotionally resonant experience on a par with film/theatre/literature.
Disgaea for starters. Isn't War and Peace more memorable for its length than its quality (sounds like a porn star in that respect)?
... We need real emotional and intellectual experiences." Really? Maybe if the game is trying to tell a story. But not all games try. Not all games need to. Should families stop playing charades at Christmas until Grandad comes up with a better plot as justification for playing? What a load of rubbish. We should enjoy games for what they are. I still want a game that is fun for 30 minutes. If I want to read a book, then guess what ... I'll actually read one.
I do get fed up with the "games as storytellers" topic. I don't quite understand where it comes from. Just because games are played on TV, doesn't mean they *have* to be compared with movies. Football (soccer) is played on grass, but has nothing to do with tending one's lawn. In fact, quite the opposite!
Some games have stories, great. Not all games do. Games generate their own stories. Consider the storyline of the last game of chess you played or the last basketball match you watched. *If* a game sets out to tell a story (eg RPG), then fine, compare it with stories. If it doesn't, then stop bothering.
From the article: "Creating powerful narratives is the next step
And, most of all, STOP LUMPING ALL GAMES INTO THE SAME POT.
I don't think it's particularly relevant for Nintendo to have considered it anyway. Consider the 360, the context was totally different:
a) There were no direct competitors at launch. Other "competitors" were previous generation and the likely early adopters targeted at launch would most likely own at least one console from that generation.
b) If it had worked, it would have been a hailed as a brilliant consumer friendly idea. Consumers in territories that receive the consoles last in the roll-out always feel left out. Microsoft wants everyone to feel "wanted". Remember, it is currently in second place.
c) Microsoft could afford / were prepared to throw money at the logistics problem to (try to) solve it.
d) The concept behind Live is of a global community, which does work better if everyone has access to consoles at the same time.
Notice now, that Microsoft have upped the stakes too. They had a moderately low risk launch (so what if we're a few consoles short, there's nothing else to buy) in which they could try this out. Sony, on the other hand, now has to match that and better it. It's far from easy to manage. Although it would be a poke in the eye if they do.
Nintendo, on the other hand, aren't even pitching at the same market as Microsoft / Sony. The (initial) audience for the Revolution will inevitably be smaller, just due to momentum from this generation of consoles. So why even introduce the pain? Far better to have a smoothly managed and *efficient* roll-out, than a painful and expensive one. If the Revolution is successful, it will achieve it through word of mouth, not big marketing budgets.
BB
Worldwide launches are not bad for consumers. Badly managed worldwide launches are bad for consumers.
Microsoft clearly did their research and knew how badly the staggered roll-outs are perceived within the markets towards the end of the roll-out. In addition, staggered roll-out was never really going to support the "global community" concept behind Live.
I think it was the right thing for Microsoft to try. It's a pity they didn't get it right. Nintendo, on the other hand, don't need to try this tactic for quite a few reasons.
a) demonstrate that the author has a better grasp of the meaning of irony than most people and thus establish her credibility as an authority on the matter;
and b) clarify the meaning of irony so as to avoid misusage in the future.
The author has, in fact:
a) contradicted herself on a number of occasions and chosen some poor examples of irony (normally "situational irony", which the author clearly hasn't quite got her head around);
and b) spawned a Slashdot article full of some terrible mis-uses of the word (but then perhaps that is not ironic, as we know that few Slashdotters actually read the articles anyway and one should expect the outcome).
My particular issue is with the statement:
"Naturally, irony was back within a few days, not least because of the myriad ironies contained within the attack itself (America having funded al-Qaida is ironic; America raining bombs and peanut butter on Afghanistan is ironic)."
Why is America's funding of al-Qaida ironic? It's not. America weren't funding them with any expectation that it would protect them from terrorist attacks. They weren't funding them with a view to reducing terrorism anywhere in the world. The outcome here isn't linked with any expectations. It's just a very black coincidence. Equally, why is the bombing of bombs and peant butter ironic? It's certainly contradictory, but ironic? I don't see the discrepancy between meaning and action there.
Personally, I think that the author might have benefitted from reading this article on the meaning of irony (and with useful links to a range of literary terms).
There were a few other areas that I didn't particularly agree with the article on, but a dissection of those does not make for a readable Slashdot comment. Still, I enjoyed it and it was definitely worthy of the label "News for Nerds". My brain has been pleasantly engaged (a thought, does Nerd necessarily == pedant?).
Oh, and btw, is the best use of irony in the article the statement in footnote 1?
"I would strongly urge you not to read any more footnotes, they are only here to make sure I don't get in trouble for plagiarising."
I am sure that successful irony shouldn't have to be flagged (as with the author's more fallible attempts in the main body of the article).
Cheerio,
BB