After scanning through the comments on today's duplicate post I still don't see any mention anywhere of the problems we experienced with the Nintendo DS, probably because most people who have one don't know anyone else who also has a DS to try the wireless network games and functions with.
I'm wondering if the problems that we encountered on a few Nintendo DS units were anomalies or if the problem was addressed with updated firmware. Please comment below if you are experiencing any of the same issues we saw, or new ones.
The details below are crossposted from the original, in the spirit of dual-screen/dual-posting goodness.
A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.
We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.
AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.
After scanning through the comments on today's duplicate post I still don't see any mention anywhere of the problems we experienced with the Nintendo DS, probably because most people who have one don't know anyone else who also has a DS to try the wireless network games and functions with.
I'm wondering if the problems that we encountered on a few Nintendo DS units were anomalies or if the problem was addressed with updated firmware. Please comment below if you are experiencing any of the same issues we saw, or new ones.
The details below are crossposted from the original, in the spirit of dual-screen/dual-posting goodness.
A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.
We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.
AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.
A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.
We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.
AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.
We spoke with some people in Nintendo's media/analyst relations department as well as a vice president who said that the company is shipping 1 million units for Nov. 21. This shortage doesn't appear to be an illusion.
If demand really is so high that retailers are stopping pre-orders then there may be a problem on the manufacturing side with a possible component shortage, or a simple lack of manufacturing capacity to produce more. There are a limited number of suppliers for some of the components that go into the DS and those suppliers have other customers besides Nintendo.
A few weeks back, we spent a couple of hours in a hands-on preview of the Nintendo DS and previewing/playing Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We also checked out a few more titles yesterday, and will publish first impressions of those games soon.
Thomas, I found this excerpt quite interesting (emphasis added):
I wrote a review on the new MCE 2005 last week called MCE 2005, Underwhelmed.
How was it that you were able to get advance access to the software and avoid violating confidentiality agreements that you must have signed?
We were at a Microsoft media briefing a couple of weeks ago and were required to sign NDAs specific to the Media Center Edition 2005. The information was embargoed until the October 12 official launch of Windows Media Center Edition 2005. The NDAs applied to everyone, including major media with millions of readers/listeners/viewers.
In the case of the New York Times, and a few selected media outlets, I'm sure that they got special access. Either that or the NYT is violating an NDA as well, which I think is improbable.
So how has Thomas Hawk managed to get the software and write about it so far in advance without violating an NDA or otherwise going up against the Microsoft legal department?
Or is your "review" like a lot of game "reviews" where you haven't even seen or used the software, and rely on third-party accounts as the basis of your "review"?
The mod is described as follows: "The game teaches concepts such as mutual fire team support, protection of the automatic rifleman, proper sequencing of an attack, ammunition discipline and succession of command."
I also remember watching an interview with a Marine officer who explained that playing the multiplayer game replicated the confusion and changes in situational awareness that soldiers experience in combat -- known as the fog of war -- as well as friendly fire and other important concepts.
Remember that Full Spectrum Warrior grew out of a combat simulation. Marine DOOM was a modification of a game that also served as a proof-of-concept training tool, which eventually led to the military version of FSW -- and was probably the precursor to it.
Unfortunately the site isn't online any longer, but thanks to Internet Archive, you can see the original Marine DOOM Homepage.
While the naptime comment is funny, there is some validity in asking similar questions.
Breakthroughs in better ways to do things often present themselves during what is often considered "unproductive" uses of time like coffee breaks, a short walk across the company campus or even a brief nap. If those types of activities help you work better it's definitely worth asking about.
You should also ask the candidates to describe their leadership styles and management styles, and to provide concrete examples of how they have applied them in the past.
Ask how they deal with problems with personnel and projects. There is no such thing as a project or company without problems.
While it wasn't the first attempt to graphically represent vast amounts of dynamic data with multiple dimensions, it was probably one of the first -- if not the first -- free online visualization tool that was popularized through the Internet.
Some people have commented that the Google News Map project isn't very useful. The SmartMoney map was a basic tool when it started but now the company has a (subscription-based) detailed data visualization tool (MapStation) based on the free version, as well as risk analysis maps and others.
Give it time and the people behind the Google News Map, or someone else, will come up with a more advanced map that will provide the type of utility you're looking for.
While I'm sure it looks great (Slashdotted already) I would think that applying a wood veneer would negate at least some of the heat dissipation properties of the aluminum case. It's a big reason why case-modders go with aluminum cases in the first place.
If services like Puretracks or iTunes existed years ago we might not be in the mess we are now.
Online music download services did exist before now.
The record industry killed the original music download services that were founded in the late-1990s.
Those services did their best to work with the industry, license music from the industry and offer songs to music fans through subscriptions, downloads and streaming formats with copyright and DRM protection.
The record industry either sued them, refused to cooperate with them outright, or only did so in a way that would ensure the services would fail. The infant online music services were only allowed access to a limited portion of back catalogs -- namely songs for which there was little to no demand.
By refusing to license and denying the fledgling services licenses to the popular songs of the day (or even the hits of yesteryear), the music industry effectively and deliberately doomed those services to failure in what is largely hit-driven business.
The greed of the music industry and its unwillingness to share its music through licenses was the catalyst for free music-sharing services. The linchpin of the music industry was its ability to control the means of distribution. Distribution was historically among the biggest barriers to entry for music artists. Because of the Internet and broadband access, distribution isn't a barrier to entry for the musician like it once was. The music industry now has an unsustainable business model.
In the process of denying its customers music in the way they wanted to access it, the industry has slit its own throat.
I had no idea that you were the voice for all professional technology journalists everywhere. I'll have to remind the technology journalists I know (and contact those that I don't, just so they know) that they should stop visiting and writing because a lone voice howling in the Internet wilderness has an axe to grind and went on a rabid rant that we lacked credibility with him. Sure thing. Gotcha.
Thanks for completely ignoring the half-dozen paragraphs of entirely relevant context preceding the line that you took as the kernel for your completely off-base and misguided (at best) rant. But context apparently doesn't mean a thing to a "pro tech journalist" -- I'll try not to laugh out loud at that -- like you claim to be.
As for your argument about being put "out of business" by vendors unhappy with critical reviews, it's not going to happen. The fact is that none of us need to rely on the site for personal income or revenue. With personal financial imperatives removed, we're entirely free to publish whatever content we see fit, free of editorial interference from manufacturers. Critical coverage has led to us being frozen out in the past. That's a decision that is entirely within vendors' rights to make, but it doesn't leave a good impression with the readership. It comes off as sour grapes or taking their toys and going home.
But being the ever-so-clever and infallible uber-technology-reviewer that you are, you would know that, wouldn't you? Unless you're not who or what you claim to be. Now there's a thought.
Good products get good reviews, bad products get bad reviews.
My naive friend, if only it were so, there wouldn't have been a need to start Geartest.com (or any of the other sites that people have mentioned here). The fact is that there are many so-called "pro tech journalists" and "professional reviewers" -- presumably you are the self-annointed leader -- who don't actually do reviews but are entirely motivated by other financial considerations. For example, say, people who want others to hire them as a "professional Web surfer" at $25 per search for using Google. Or, say, people who want companies to hire them as home appliance Internet security product development consultants of dubious credentials -- or none for that matter.
For someone that claims to be such a security expert, it's amazing to me that you would ask people to fill out a Web form and transmit detailed personal information (more than enough for identity theft) to you via the Internet in plaintext ("unencrypted" for those who aren't entirely familiar with the terminology).
How many not-so-good products get excellent reviews at Geartest.com? NONE. In fact not very many products at all get excellent reviews, or even good ones. That's because most products out there are just mediocre.
Commercial technology product releases are often shipped with flaws. The fact that Belkin released updated software for its UPS had nothing to do with your phantom review. Belkin was probably aware of any problems when it shipped and made a business decision to proceed based on the slim probablility that any individual user would be affected by the flaw. Anyone who has ever worked on modern technology products knows that this is a common occurrence, something that you seem to be completely unaware of.
I was going to write a gently-worded response that refuted every one of your personal issues, but you've earned a reply that matches the tone of your comment.
Curse and swear all you like (really professional conduct by the way). If you are a fraction of the accomplished and esteemed reviewer and technologist that you make yourself out to be, your efforts would be better put to being part of the solution instead of throwing around your petty denouncements, name
Bishop, some of your comments ring true and are worth further discussion.
There are many sites that will post reviews made by people who recently purchased a product. These reviews are rarely objective. For one thing the author will rarely have anything to compare the new product to. For a second thing, far too often the review is merely an editorial in which the author tries to justify to themselves the purchase of some new, and expensive kit.
This is exactly the reason why we at Geartest.com don't buy any products for review purposes.
In the linked write-up, VL/ViperLair/Hubert Wong says of running his site (emphasis added):
"... there are plenty of costs involved. Everything from the hardware purchases (not everything is free..."
There is a psychological phenomenon called "buyer's remorse" that product marketers and salesmen try to take advantage of. It's a subconscious type of anxiety-based self-hypnosis. The principle hinges on an individual's desire 1. not to be wrong when making a purchase, 2. to have made a sound buying decision and 3. to get the best deal. Buyer's remorse tends to manifest itself most strongly on high-ticket items.
By making a personal (financial or emotional) investment in a product, you are much more likely to have a favorable opinion of it. Remember that the next time a salesman tries to get you to agree with him about the positive aspects of a product (car salesmen are notorious for this). It lowers healthy consumer skepticism and inclines you toward a positive opinion of a product. That's exactly why anyone who does reviews should never purchase products for reviews and expect to maintain any credibility.
Read several sources.
That should go without saying. What I would add is that you should read critically and keep in mind the biases that each of those sites have. There is no such thing as a completely objective review. Reviews are subjective by their very nature. The best you can do is try to determine which reviews are fair and honest, then filter out any inherent biases.
Trust the numbers more then the comentary. It is harder to be biased with numbers.
Numbers are not the be-all and end-all. For example, we have seen how numbers can be manipulated with recent benchmarking scandals. How many times have you read comments here on Slashdot where people are sick and tired of the same sites running the same benchmark tools, then posting the results here, presumably just to drive up their traffic numbers? They don't add anything useful. Everyone here can download those same benchmarks and run them.
With the exception of the hardcore technical reader, the majority of consumers out there -- who look to reviews to help them make decisions -- do not have the knowledge or background to properly or usefully interpret or understand those results, even when explained in plain language.
It's fair to say trust the numbers, but only to a point. If you have made buying decisions based on a review, and you find that a site has a good track record, stick with it, but don't stop reading critically. The people who write reviews are just as human and fallible as you are. The commentary and interpretation that come with a review are at least as valuable (if not moreso) than raw statistics. Numbers do not tell the whole story -- they are only part of it.
The rest of Bishop's tips are good to keep in mind.
One thing I would add. Stop supporting/giving patronage to sites that pander or otherwise offer skewed reviews and little value.
Support those that offer fair, high-quality reviews and information. It's the only way to guarantee that the best sites stay online and the manufacturers provide access to those who offer you the high-quality content that you want.
When you say "honest review sites" the only way to truly judge if a site is honest or not is to follow its coverage over an extended period of time and see if the reviews match reality when you go out and buy a particular product.
At the risk of being repetitive, I've made some comments before about so-called "reviews" and so-called "review sites" that are really run by fanboys who spend most of their time trading/posting links to other fanboy sites. I'll leave it to the intelligence of the Slashdot reader to figure out the obvious example(s) that are right under your nose.
On the subject of honest/fair reviews, I invite you to check out Geartest.com Technology News & Reviews. We try to summarize our philosophy in our motto: Real Gear. Real World. Real Reviews. They are long-term reviews, in a real production environment, with retail versions of products (something we specify and insist upon since we do not review prototypes or pre-production models), all without any pandering.
This type of review and testing can be exceedingly difficult to do for a number of reasons:
Most manufacturers do not simply send hardware products for reviewers to keep. Those units tend to go to the largest sites with millions of page-views in the case of online publications.
Manufacturers tend to provide review units on loan for a specified period, usually two weeks or less. Geartest.com insists on a minimum of 30 days of continuous use with any given product for an initial review. Most manufacturers are not willing to provide units for that period of time. We often find problems during the extended period that we do not find in the first two weeks.
Manufacturers often manage their review unit programs through PR agencies whose job it is to get positive press for their clients. This can be problematic especially when you give a client's product a critical review.
Because the pool of review units is often limited, it can be difficult to re-acquire a given product for the longer-term tests. Those reviews are point-in-time and not based on continuous use. It is far preferable to continuously use the same product for a year, so you know what wear and tear it has suffered.
PR agencies and product manufacturers have come to expect a large degree of pandering from so-called "reviewers", who are really just fanboys. The result is that you may find yourself cut off from future product releases when you don't pander (we have experienced this).
Often the review units are shared between media, retailers and channel partners, and the supply of units is too low. Last year I spoke with the review program manager for a Japanese global consumer electronics company. She told me that she often gets no more than three units of any given product to share between all media, retailers and channel partners. That obviously explains why review unit loans are so short.
The frustrations with the lack of high-quality reviews is very much one of the reasons why we started Geartest.com. I don't like to spend my hard-earned money on a new piece of equipment only to find it falls far short of expectations and "reviews" by so-called "reviewers."
Many manufacturers were taken aback by our comparatively rigorous review policy and outright refused to participate. Others ignored us after learning of our review policy, even after initially agreeing to provide review units.
We must be doing something right because we have seen our traffic grow steadily with plenty of positive feedback from readership. Traffic has grown to the point where manufacturers have become much more responsive. They see the value proposition of having an unbiased, long-term review, even if they view it as a low-cost form of product research and testing for next-generation improvements. It seems some of those manufacturers who were initial doubters are starting to see things our way.
Before you start, you might want to read an article we published earlier this month about game careers in which Scot Brew (LucasArts), Josh Druckman (Brainbox / Digital Extremes) and Nathan Sorenson (independent / university student with two games published by Take-Two) all give advice about how to get into the games industry and how it is changing.
Another relevant feature we did last year is about games industry trends with insights and advice from the technology director for Electronic Arts, a vice president at CGI company CORE Digital and a high level specialist at 3D tools maker Side Effects.
Everyone seems to want to get into games and it's a more and more competitive field with better-qualified people than just a few years ago. The job growth opportunities are also shifting so you may find that your skills are suited to a different part of the industry that you may not have considered.
I'm unclear as to why they chose GPS. Surely the same result could be achieved used a terrestrial or local area wireless sensor system set up around the track.
The article mentions the problem of speeds differing depending on the start gate, and improved accuracy of GPS is within "a few metres" which is accurate enough. "Good enough" is a long-standing principle in technology deployments but it's not very clear from the article what specific advantage GPS has over other systems beyond the obvious.
the google cache isn't intended to bypass site registration policies.
To paraphrase from Johnny Mnemonic, the street finds its own use for Google (apologies to William Gibson).
It doesn't matter that the Google link isn't intended to bypass site registration policies. Policies are not law. People tend to take the path of least resistance.
If letting people read their articles through a Google referral wasn't in the interest of the New York Times, it would be no problem for the NYT to disallow referrals.
FYI, if you look closely, it's not a cache. It's a business relationship. partner=GOOGLE should be the first clue. The number of readers that the Google referral gives the NYT means that it can charge more for advertising. So it's a win-win-win proposition.
Google gains loyalty and repeat traffic from its users, the reader gets to read the article without registration and login hassles, and the New York Times gets more readers and can charge more for advertising.
Why can't people see that there's no harm done, so there's really no need to get holier-than-thou?
Judg3, welcome to your life as an exclusive reader of Geartest.com!:)
We do exactly what you have described above as a "Car and Driver" review which we try to summarize in our motto: Real Gear. Real World. Real Reviews. They are long-term reviews, in a real production environment, with retail versions of products (something we specify and insist upon since we do not review prototypes or pre-production models), all without any pandering.
This type of review and testing can be exceedingly difficult to do for a number of reasons:
Most manufacturers do not simply send hardware products for reviewers to keep. Those units tend to go to the largest sites with millions of page-views in the case of online publications.
Manufacturers tend to provide review units on loan for a specified period, usually two weeks or less. Geartest.com insists on a minimum of 30 days of continuous use with any given product for an initial review. We often find problems during the extended period that we do not find in the first two weeks.
Manufacturers often manage their review unit programs through PR agencies whose job it is to get positive press for their clients. This can be problematic especially when you give a client's product a critical review.
Because the pool of review units is often limited, it can be difficult to re-acquire a given product for the longer-term tests. Those reviews are point-in-time and not based on continuous use. It is far preferable to continuously use the same product for a year, so you know what wear and tear it has suffered.
PR agencies and product manufacturers have come to expect a large degree of pandering from so-called reviewers, who are really just fanboys. The result is that you may find yourself cut off from future product releases when you don't pander (we have experienced this).
Often the review units are shared between media, retailers and channel partners, and the supply of units is too low. Yesterday I spoke with the review program manager for a Japanese global consumer electronics company. She told me that she often gets no more than three units of any given product to share between all media, retailers and channel partners. That obviously explains why review unit loans are so short.
The extended tests you describe are often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming considering the previously described constraints. The costs of setting up and maintaining that type of technical test lab also tend to be prohibitive given the same considerations.
Most people are not willing to pay for (i.e. fund) extended tests because they are used to getting information for free. You are one of the few people who are willing to take that extra step, but there don't seem to be enough people like you out there.
If we see enough demand for the extended tests you describe we may implement them on a limited trial basis, but our pre-launch program showed that few were willing to pay for such a service.
The frustrations with the lack of high-quality reviews you describe is very much one of the reasons why we started Geartest.com. I don't like to spend my hard-earned money on a new piece of equipment only to find it falls far short of expectations and "reviews" by so-called "reviewers."
Many manufacturers were taken aback by our comparatively rigorous review policy and outright refused to participate. Others ignored us after learning of our review policy, even after initially agreeing to provide review units.
We must be doing something right because we have seen our traffic grow steadily with plenty of positive feedback from readership. Traffic has grown to the point where manufacturers have become much more responsive. They see the value proposition of having an unbiased, long-term review, even if they view it as a low-cost form of product research and testing for next-generation improvements. It seems some of those manufacturers who were initial doubters are starting to see things our way.
After I just got through complimenting TX in my previous post for their colorization skills on the original black and white screenshots, I thoroughly read the TX post. I was stunned that they made this claim:
On a recent trip to a top-secret facility, we discovered an upcoming (and an unannounced) wireless networking product from Microsoft.
Unfortunately that is a lie. If it's supposed to be a joke, it's not a very funny one. The photos and drawings that TX has on their site were based exclusively on the FCC submissions. The technical information came straight from the same filings. <SARCASM> I guess Geartest.com's staff were at the same top-secret facility </SARCASM>. At the time we published the photos on August 28, we were the first ones to do so and it was a scoop. TX uploaded its wireless adapter post on August 31.
This is exactly the problem with so-called "game press." Team Xbox has intentionally misled its readers about the source of the material for its wireless adapter post.
When Team Xbox and its ilk lie to their readers, it is not only unethical but it makes it much more difficult for readers to trust anyone who writes about games.
on August 28, a full 3 days BEFORE the good fans at TX. The drawings in the TX post are straight out of the product manual, which we didn't think were important to publish, but I will say that the TX crew did a nice job of coloring in the screenshots. The originals were black and white. Sorry guys, but you were scooped!
In fact, Microsoft's lawyers visited our feature and thoroughly examined it, after which we got a message from our friendly Microsoft PR agency expressing some concerns (as noted on the home page).
I know that it must be a little troublesome for Microsoft that they weren't able to introduce the product to the world as they would have liked but that's always a risk, especially when regulatory approval requires that the product becomes part of the public record.
The panelists agreed that blogging and other forms of particpatory journalism don't automatically qualify as journalism, but they did say that it CAN be journalism if journalistic standards and principles are applied.
One of the more interesting comments was from technology journalist David Akin, who said that experiments that enlist blogging citizens with camera phones to send their photos to news sites may be cool and fun and interesting, but it's not news by longshot, mainly because they lack the professional journalistic skills to identify what qualifies as news.
They have NOT 'developed' this device
on
Powered by Blood
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The submitter got it wrong. This device is in development and they can only generate extremely low power levels. They are developing the process. Here was my (rejected) post:
Scientists at Matsushita's Nanotechnology Research Laboratory in Japan are developing a power generator that uses blood to produce electricity. It emulates the process the body uses to convert food into energy. The scientists say the "bio-nano" generator could be used to run devices embedded in the body, or sugar-fed robots. Dr. Kazuo Eda, who heads the research, says bio-nano fuel cells are the next step for researchers after generators powered by hydrogen, natural gas and methanol. Hmmm... robots that use humans as batteries -- can The Matrix be far behind?;)
Forbes looks at the iQue x2
on
Garmin iQue 3600
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I read the Forbes Garmin iQue 3600 overview last week, but it didn't seem quite so exceptional. The Garmin iQue debuted at CES this year. It looks pretty bulky due to the integrated GPS hardware but I can see its usefulness as someone who travels. At $589 for a Palm plus GPS though, the price seems truly exceptional.
Wiley Technology Publishing -- which often works with Microsoft to publish guides for Microsoft products, like the Xbox -- agreed to publish Huang's book then backed out, citing DMCA concerns, but says they would not ask Huang to return the advance they paid him.
Unable to find another publisher, Huang self-published and began selling copies out of his garage. The Electronic Frontier Foundation then stepped in and helped Huang find a new publisher.
There's more in the article, including some discussion about the chilling effect recent legislation has on intellectual freedom.
Anonymous Coward: I see that this is perspective of EA, and the underlying issues have validity, But I'll also note this "Brand is king" was the exact philosophy of General Motors which has allowed them to lose half of their US market share in the past 25 years, and generally be regarded as inferior in mainstream product to many of the world automakers.
You misunderstood and misattributed the comments.
EA director of advanced technology John Buchanan was saying you can no longer sell a game on technology ALONE. His point was that the emergence of gaming middleware -- off-the-shelf engines anyone can buy -- makes it possible for anyone to build get a game whose look, physics, stability, etc. is so polished, that virtually the only way in which you can make your game stand out is to have good gameplay and storylines.
In other words, the overwhelmingly distinguishing characteristics of games of recent history -- that they look great -- doesn't cut it anymore, and you need a lot more than good programmers to make a good game.
CORE Digital Pictures' VP Doug Masters is the one who talked about branding. His point was that the games industry has evolved from being the domain of a bunch of geeks toiling in their parents' basements, and is now a serious international multi-billion dollar industry whose sales outstrip Hollywood. He says it's unavoidable that when there's that much money at stake ($5 to $10 million to develop a major game title), along with it comes all the trappings of major business, including problems like companies cranking out the same stuff in different packages every year.
If you read the paragraph above the article's conclusion, you'll see he warned about the dangers of following that path, and said it's already happening.
He points out that in order to avoid a collapse of the industry and financial disaster, the brand and marketing guys are going to have to be creative in their approach to their products -- they won't be able to lean on their laurels just because they have a strong brand and past successes. Instead, he argues they'll have to be creative right through the product development cycle from start to end, and make sure people know their product is unique among the thousands of new offerings every year.
Slashdot Mirror
After scanning through the comments on today's duplicate post I still don't see any mention anywhere of the problems we experienced with the Nintendo DS, probably because most people who have one don't know anyone else who also has a DS to try the wireless network games and functions with.
I'm wondering if the problems that we encountered on a few Nintendo DS units were anomalies or if the problem was addressed with updated firmware. Please comment below if you are experiencing any of the same issues we saw, or new ones.
The details below are crossposted from the original, in the spirit of dual-screen/dual-posting goodness.
A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.
We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.
AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.
After scanning through the comments on today's duplicate post I still don't see any mention anywhere of the problems we experienced with the Nintendo DS, probably because most people who have one don't know anyone else who also has a DS to try the wireless network games and functions with.
I'm wondering if the problems that we encountered on a few Nintendo DS units were anomalies or if the problem was addressed with updated firmware. Please comment below if you are experiencing any of the same issues we saw, or new ones.
The details below are crossposted from the original, in the spirit of dual-screen/dual-posting goodness.
A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.
We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.
AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.
A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.
We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.
AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.
We spoke with some people in Nintendo's media/analyst relations department as well as a vice president who said that the company is shipping 1 million units for Nov. 21. This shortage doesn't appear to be an illusion.
If demand really is so high that retailers are stopping pre-orders then there may be a problem on the manufacturing side with a possible component shortage, or a simple lack of manufacturing capacity to produce more. There are a limited number of suppliers for some of the components that go into the DS and those suppliers have other customers besides Nintendo.
A few weeks back, we spent a couple of hours in a hands-on preview of the Nintendo DS and previewing/playing Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.
We also checked out a few more titles yesterday, and will publish first impressions of those games soon.
Thomas, I found this excerpt quite interesting (emphasis added):
I wrote a review on the new MCE 2005 last week called MCE 2005, Underwhelmed.
How was it that you were able to get advance access to the software and avoid violating confidentiality agreements that you must have signed?
We were at a Microsoft media briefing a couple of weeks ago and were required to sign NDAs specific to the Media Center Edition 2005. The information was embargoed until the October 12 official launch of Windows Media Center Edition 2005. The NDAs applied to everyone, including major media with millions of readers/listeners/viewers.
In the case of the New York Times, and a few selected media outlets, I'm sure that they got special access. Either that or the NYT is violating an NDA as well, which I think is improbable.
So how has Thomas Hawk managed to get the software and write about it so far in advance without violating an NDA or otherwise going up against the Microsoft legal department?
Or is your "review" like a lot of game "reviews" where you haven't even seen or used the software, and rely on third-party accounts as the basis of your "review"?
This sounds very much like Marine DOOM which was a WAD (mod) for DOOM II that the US Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Management Office developed as a tactical training tool for four-man fire teams.
The mod is described as follows: "The game teaches concepts such as mutual fire team support, protection of the automatic rifleman, proper sequencing of an attack, ammunition discipline and succession of command."
I also remember watching an interview with a Marine officer who explained that playing the multiplayer game replicated the confusion and changes in situational awareness that soldiers experience in combat -- known as the fog of war -- as well as friendly fire and other important concepts.
Remember that Full Spectrum Warrior grew out of a combat simulation. Marine DOOM was a modification of a game that also served as a proof-of-concept training tool, which eventually led to the military version of FSW -- and was probably the precursor to it.
Unfortunately the site isn't online any longer, but thanks to Internet Archive, you can see the original Marine DOOM Homepage.
For more background you can also read "Doom Goes to War" by Rob Riddell which was the cover story in the Wired April 1997 issue.
While the naptime comment is funny, there is some validity in asking similar questions.
Breakthroughs in better ways to do things often present themselves during what is often considered "unproductive" uses of time like coffee breaks, a short walk across the company campus or even a brief nap. If those types of activities help you work better it's definitely worth asking about.
You should also ask the candidates to describe their leadership styles and management styles, and to provide concrete examples of how they have applied them in the past.
Ask how they deal with problems with personnel and projects. There is no such thing as a project or company without problems.
Back in 1998 SmartMoney came out with its Map of the Market which was a Java-based visualization of activity in the stock market. SmartMoney now has a whole set of maps that track technology, health care, Internet and telecommunications stocks, as well as several others.
While it wasn't the first attempt to graphically represent vast amounts of dynamic data with multiple dimensions, it was probably one of the first -- if not the first -- free online visualization tool that was popularized through the Internet.
Some people have commented that the Google News Map project isn't very useful. The SmartMoney map was a basic tool when it started but now the company has a (subscription-based) detailed data visualization tool (MapStation) based on the free version, as well as risk analysis maps and others.
Give it time and the people behind the Google News Map, or someone else, will come up with a more advanced map that will provide the type of utility you're looking for.
While I'm sure it looks great (Slashdotted already) I would think that applying a wood veneer would negate at least some of the heat dissipation properties of the aluminum case. It's a big reason why case-modders go with aluminum cases in the first place.
If services like Puretracks or iTunes existed years ago we might not be in the mess we are now.
Online music download services did exist before now.
The record industry killed the original music download services that were founded in the late-1990s.
Those services did their best to work with the industry, license music from the industry and offer songs to music fans through subscriptions, downloads and streaming formats with copyright and DRM protection.
The record industry either sued them, refused to cooperate with them outright, or only did so in a way that would ensure the services would fail. The infant online music services were only allowed access to a limited portion of back catalogs -- namely songs for which there was little to no demand.
By refusing to license and denying the fledgling services licenses to the popular songs of the day (or even the hits of yesteryear), the music industry effectively and deliberately doomed those services to failure in what is largely hit-driven business.
The greed of the music industry and its unwillingness to share its music through licenses was the catalyst for free music-sharing services. The linchpin of the music industry was its ability to control the means of distribution. Distribution was historically among the biggest barriers to entry for music artists. Because of the Internet and broadband access, distribution isn't a barrier to entry for the musician like it once was. The music industry now has an unsustainable business model.
In the process of denying its customers music in the way they wanted to access it, the industry has slit its own throat.
Fascinating.
I had no idea that you were the voice for all professional technology journalists everywhere. I'll have to remind the technology journalists I know (and contact those that I don't, just so they know) that they should stop visiting and writing because a lone voice howling in the Internet wilderness has an axe to grind and went on a rabid rant that we lacked credibility with him. Sure thing. Gotcha.
Thanks for completely ignoring the half-dozen paragraphs of entirely relevant context preceding the line that you took as the kernel for your completely off-base and misguided (at best) rant. But context apparently doesn't mean a thing to a "pro tech journalist" -- I'll try not to laugh out loud at that -- like you claim to be.
As for your argument about being put "out of business" by vendors unhappy with critical reviews, it's not going to happen. The fact is that none of us need to rely on the site for personal income or revenue. With personal financial imperatives removed, we're entirely free to publish whatever content we see fit, free of editorial interference from manufacturers. Critical coverage has led to us being frozen out in the past. That's a decision that is entirely within vendors' rights to make, but it doesn't leave a good impression with the readership. It comes off as sour grapes or taking their toys and going home.
But being the ever-so-clever and infallible uber-technology-reviewer that you are, you would know that, wouldn't you? Unless you're not who or what you claim to be. Now there's a thought.
Good products get good reviews, bad products get bad reviews.
My naive friend, if only it were so, there wouldn't have been a need to start Geartest.com (or any of the other sites that people have mentioned here). The fact is that there are many so-called "pro tech journalists" and "professional reviewers" -- presumably you are the self-annointed leader -- who don't actually do reviews but are entirely motivated by other financial considerations. For example, say, people who want others to hire them as a "professional Web surfer" at $25 per search for using Google. Or, say, people who want companies to hire them as home appliance Internet security product development consultants of dubious credentials -- or none for that matter.
For someone that claims to be such a security expert, it's amazing to me that you would ask people to fill out a Web form and transmit detailed personal information (more than enough for identity theft) to you via the Internet in plaintext ("unencrypted" for those who aren't entirely familiar with the terminology).
How many not-so-good products get excellent reviews at Geartest.com? NONE. In fact not very many products at all get excellent reviews, or even good ones. That's because most products out there are just mediocre.
Commercial technology product releases are often shipped with flaws. The fact that Belkin released updated software for its UPS had nothing to do with your phantom review. Belkin was probably aware of any problems when it shipped and made a business decision to proceed based on the slim probablility that any individual user would be affected by the flaw. Anyone who has ever worked on modern technology products knows that this is a common occurrence, something that you seem to be completely unaware of.
I was going to write a gently-worded response that refuted every one of your personal issues, but you've earned a reply that matches the tone of your comment.
Curse and swear all you like (really professional conduct by the way). If you are a fraction of the accomplished and esteemed reviewer and technologist that you make yourself out to be, your efforts would be better put to being part of the solution instead of throwing around your petty denouncements, name
Bishop, some of your comments ring true and are worth further discussion.
This is exactly the reason why we at Geartest.com don't buy any products for review purposes.
In the linked write-up, VL/ViperLair/Hubert Wong says of running his site (emphasis added):
There is a psychological phenomenon called "buyer's remorse" that product marketers and salesmen try to take advantage of. It's a subconscious type of anxiety-based self-hypnosis. The principle hinges on an individual's desire 1. not to be wrong when making a purchase, 2. to have made a sound buying decision and 3. to get the best deal. Buyer's remorse tends to manifest itself most strongly on high-ticket items.
By making a personal (financial or emotional) investment in a product, you are much more likely to have a favorable opinion of it. Remember that the next time a salesman tries to get you to agree with him about the positive aspects of a product (car salesmen are notorious for this). It lowers healthy consumer skepticism and inclines you toward a positive opinion of a product. That's exactly why anyone who does reviews should never purchase products for reviews and expect to maintain any credibility.
That should go without saying. What I would add is that you should read critically and keep in mind the biases that each of those sites have. There is no such thing as a completely objective review. Reviews are subjective by their very nature. The best you can do is try to determine which reviews are fair and honest, then filter out any inherent biases.
Numbers are not the be-all and end-all. For example, we have seen how numbers can be manipulated with recent benchmarking scandals. How many times have you read comments here on Slashdot where people are sick and tired of the same sites running the same benchmark tools, then posting the results here, presumably just to drive up their traffic numbers? They don't add anything useful. Everyone here can download those same benchmarks and run them.
With the exception of the hardcore technical reader, the majority of consumers out there -- who look to reviews to help them make decisions -- do not have the knowledge or background to properly or usefully interpret or understand those results, even when explained in plain language.
It's fair to say trust the numbers, but only to a point. If you have made buying decisions based on a review, and you find that a site has a good track record, stick with it, but don't stop reading critically. The people who write reviews are just as human and fallible as you are. The commentary and interpretation that come with a review are at least as valuable (if not moreso) than raw statistics. Numbers do not tell the whole story -- they are only part of it.
The rest of Bishop's tips are good to keep in mind.
One thing I would add. Stop supporting/giving patronage to sites that pander or otherwise offer skewed reviews and little value.
Support those that offer fair, high-quality reviews and information. It's the only way to guarantee that the best sites stay online and the manufacturers provide access to those who offer you the high-quality content that you want.
When you say "honest review sites" the only way to truly judge if a site is honest or not is to follow its coverage over an extended period of time and see if the reviews match reality when you go out and buy a particular product.
At the risk of being repetitive, I've made some comments before about so-called "reviews" and so-called "review sites" that are really run by fanboys who spend most of their time trading/posting links to other fanboy sites. I'll leave it to the intelligence of the Slashdot reader to figure out the obvious example(s) that are right under your nose.
On the subject of honest/fair reviews, I invite you to check out Geartest.com Technology News & Reviews. We try to summarize our philosophy in our motto: Real Gear. Real World. Real Reviews. They are long-term reviews, in a real production environment, with retail versions of products (something we specify and insist upon since we do not review prototypes or pre-production models), all without any pandering.
This type of review and testing can be exceedingly difficult to do for a number of reasons:
The frustrations with the lack of high-quality reviews is very much one of the reasons why we started Geartest.com. I don't like to spend my hard-earned money on a new piece of equipment only to find it falls far short of expectations and "reviews" by so-called "reviewers."
Many manufacturers were taken aback by our comparatively rigorous review policy and outright refused to participate. Others ignored us after learning of our review policy, even after initially agreeing to provide review units.
We must be doing something right because we have seen our traffic grow steadily with plenty of positive feedback from readership. Traffic has grown to the point where manufacturers have become much more responsive. They see the value proposition of having an unbiased, long-term review, even if they view it as a low-cost form of product research and testing for next-generation improvements. It seems some of those manufacturers who were initial doubters are starting to see things our way.
Before you start, you might want to read an article we published earlier this month about game careers in which Scot Brew (LucasArts), Josh Druckman (Brainbox / Digital Extremes) and Nathan Sorenson (independent / university student with two games published by Take-Two) all give advice about how to get into the games industry and how it is changing.
Another relevant feature we did last year is about games industry trends with insights and advice from the technology director for Electronic Arts, a vice president at CGI company CORE Digital and a high level specialist at 3D tools maker Side Effects.
Everyone seems to want to get into games and it's a more and more competitive field with better-qualified people than just a few years ago. The job growth opportunities are also shifting so you may find that your skills are suited to a different part of the industry that you may not have considered.
I'm unclear as to why they chose GPS. Surely the same result could be achieved used a terrestrial or local area wireless sensor system set up around the track.
The article mentions the problem of speeds differing depending on the start gate, and improved accuracy of GPS is within "a few metres" which is accurate enough. "Good enough" is a long-standing principle in technology deployments but it's not very clear from the article what specific advantage GPS has over other systems beyond the obvious.
This link to the Equine Research New Zealand project at Massey University is slim on details but they may post more info once they get a good Slashdotting.
The system sounds similar to this 2002 Kentucky GPS horse tracking system.
the google cache isn't intended to bypass site registration policies.
To paraphrase from Johnny Mnemonic, the street finds its own use for Google (apologies to William Gibson).
It doesn't matter that the Google link isn't intended to bypass site registration policies. Policies are not law. People tend to take the path of least resistance.
If letting people read their articles through a Google referral wasn't in the interest of the New York Times, it would be no problem for the NYT to disallow referrals.
FYI, if you look closely, it's not a cache. It's a business relationship. partner=GOOGLE should be the first clue. The number of readers that the Google referral gives the NYT means that it can charge more for advertising. So it's a win-win-win proposition.
Google gains loyalty and repeat traffic from its users, the reader gets to read the article without registration and login hassles, and the New York Times gets more readers and can charge more for advertising.
Why can't people see that there's no harm done, so there's really no need to get holier-than-thou?
Judg3, welcome to your life as an exclusive reader of Geartest.com!
We do exactly what you have described above as a "Car and Driver" review which we try to summarize in our motto: Real Gear. Real World. Real Reviews. They are long-term reviews, in a real production environment, with retail versions of products (something we specify and insist upon since we do not review prototypes or pre-production models), all without any pandering.
This type of review and testing can be exceedingly difficult to do for a number of reasons:
If we see enough demand for the extended tests you describe we may implement them on a limited trial basis, but our pre-launch program showed that few were willing to pay for such a service.
The frustrations with the lack of high-quality reviews you describe is very much one of the reasons why we started Geartest.com. I don't like to spend my hard-earned money on a new piece of equipment only to find it falls far short of expectations and "reviews" by so-called "reviewers."
Many manufacturers were taken aback by our comparatively rigorous review policy and outright refused to participate. Others ignored us after learning of our review policy, even after initially agreeing to provide review units.
We must be doing something right because we have seen our traffic grow steadily with plenty of positive feedback from readership. Traffic has grown to the point where manufacturers have become much more responsive. They see the value proposition of having an unbiased, long-term review, even if they view it as a low-cost form of product research and testing for next-generation improvements. It seems some of those manufacturers who were initial doubters are starting to see things our way.
After I just got through complimenting TX in my previous post for their colorization skills on the original black and white screenshots, I thoroughly read the TX post. I was stunned that they made this claim:
Unfortunately that is a lie. If it's supposed to be a joke, it's not a very funny one. The photos and drawings that TX has on their site were based exclusively on the FCC submissions. The technical information came straight from the same filings. <SARCASM> I guess Geartest.com's staff were at the same top-secret facility </SARCASM>. At the time we published the photos on August 28, we were the first ones to do so and it was a scoop. TX uploaded its wireless adapter post on August 31.
This is exactly the problem with so-called "game press." Team Xbox has intentionally misled its readers about the source of the material for its wireless adapter post.
When Team Xbox and its ilk lie to their readers, it is not only unethical but it makes it much more difficult for readers to trust anyone who writes about games.
That's interesting that simoniker mentions TeamXbox as having the first look since (bragging rights alert) we had our
- first look at the Xbox Wireless Adapter including a
- preview article with the MN-740's details
- Xbox Wireless Adapter external photos and even the
- Xbox Wireless Adapter internal photos which all true geeks love
on August 28, a full 3 days BEFORE the good fans at TX. The drawings in the TX post are straight out of the product manual, which we didn't think were important to publish, but I will say that the TX crew did a nice job of coloring in the screenshots. The originals were black and white. Sorry guys, but you were scooped!In fact, Microsoft's lawyers visited our feature and thoroughly examined it, after which we got a message from our friendly Microsoft PR agency expressing some concerns (as noted on the home page).
I know that it must be a little troublesome for Microsoft that they weren't able to introduce the product to the world as they would have liked but that's always a risk, especially when regulatory approval requires that the product becomes part of the public record.
We ran an article about blogs, participatory journalism and emerging technology from a panel discussion at this year's annual Canadian Association of Journalists (inter)national conference.
The panelists agreed that blogging and other forms of particpatory journalism don't automatically qualify as journalism, but they did say that it CAN be journalism if journalistic standards and principles are applied.
One of the more interesting comments was from technology journalist David Akin, who said that experiments that enlist blogging citizens with camera phones to send their photos to news sites may be cool and fun and interesting, but it's not news by longshot, mainly because they lack the professional journalistic skills to identify what qualifies as news.
Scientists at Matsushita's Nanotechnology Research Laboratory in Japan are developing a power generator that uses blood to produce electricity. It emulates the process the body uses to convert food into energy. The scientists say the "bio-nano" generator could be used to run devices embedded in the body, or sugar-fed robots. Dr. Kazuo Eda, who heads the research, says bio-nano fuel cells are the next step for researchers after generators powered by hydrogen, natural gas and methanol. Hmmm... robots that use humans as batteries -- can The Matrix be far behind? ;)
I read the Forbes Garmin iQue 3600 overview last week, but it didn't seem quite so exceptional. The Garmin iQue debuted at CES this year. It looks pretty bulky due to the integrated GPS hardware but I can see its usefulness as someone who travels. At $589 for a Palm plus GPS though, the price seems truly exceptional.
Here's the Google link to the article.
Wiley Technology Publishing -- which often works with Microsoft to publish guides for Microsoft products, like the Xbox -- agreed to publish Huang's book then backed out, citing DMCA concerns, but says they would not ask Huang to return the advance they paid him.
Unable to find another publisher, Huang self-published and began selling copies out of his garage. The Electronic Frontier Foundation then stepped in and helped Huang find a new publisher.
There's more in the article, including some discussion about the chilling effect recent legislation has on intellectual freedom.
You misunderstood and misattributed the comments.
EA director of advanced technology John Buchanan was saying you can no longer sell a game on technology ALONE. His point was that the emergence of gaming middleware -- off-the-shelf engines anyone can buy -- makes it possible for anyone to build get a game whose look, physics, stability, etc. is so polished, that virtually the only way in which you can make your game stand out is to have good gameplay and storylines.
In other words, the overwhelmingly distinguishing characteristics of games of recent history -- that they look great -- doesn't cut it anymore, and you need a lot more than good programmers to make a good game.
CORE Digital Pictures' VP Doug Masters is the one who talked about branding. His point was that the games industry has evolved from being the domain of a bunch of geeks toiling in their parents' basements, and is now a serious international multi-billion dollar industry whose sales outstrip Hollywood. He says it's unavoidable that when there's that much money at stake ($5 to $10 million to develop a major game title), along with it comes all the trappings of major business, including problems like companies cranking out the same stuff in different packages every year.
If you read the paragraph above the article's conclusion, you'll see he warned about the dangers of following that path, and said it's already happening.
He points out that in order to avoid a collapse of the industry and financial disaster, the brand and marketing guys are going to have to be creative in their approach to their products -- they won't be able to lean on their laurels just because they have a strong brand and past successes. Instead, he argues they'll have to be creative right through the product development cycle from start to end, and make sure people know their product is unique among the thousands of new offerings every year.