November 2nd, 2006 Microsoft Unveils New Portable Gaming Station via Reuters
In the wake of the success of both Sony's PS3 and Nintendo's Revolution and dwindling XBox 360 numbers, Microsoft has stepped up to the plate to challenge both companies in another gaming market: handhelds.
In an MTV2 event held yesterday, Micrsoft revealed their "XBox Z", the tentatively named portable gaming station. "We aim to do it all," a spokesman commented. "The XBox Z, known internally as the ZBox, will be a one-size-fits all handheld device, capable of playing anything, from video to music to games."
The unit, which is a bit smaller than a regular computer keyboard, weighs in at about two pounds. Controls are made up of four analog control sticks and six buttons, as well as three buttons on each shoulder. When asked about how gamers are supposed to use four analog sticks with only two thumbs, the spokesman replied "They'll think of something."
A 5" LCD screen sits in the middle and slightly up, amidst the controls. The unit takes regular sized CDs and will also support the new HD-DVD format, playing anything from XBox games to CDs to DVDs. Mentioned briefly was an attachment to play turntable-style records, to pull in the music enthusiast crowd.
Initial accessories were also announced at the unveiling. A small packpack, used to hold the system and its three required power sources, will be offered in various colors, as well as a clear mesh form. A utility-like belt will be used to hold various media to play in the device.
When asked about battery life and size, the Microsoft spokesman replied "I'll admit, right now it's a bit of a drainer, with a large size. We're working on the battery life, and expect to have it last two hours on 16 AA batteries. As for the large size, we're looking into shrinking it, but complete hard drives are hard to replace. Besides, gamers will be able to show their handheld with pride, belittling the other so called 'gaming handhelds'."
No release date was announced, though Microsoft plans to use "Bringing gaming to a new dimension" as their slogan.
More information is expected by the end of the month, as long as the Korean-Canadian war does not interfere with ongoing plans.
I don't own a DS yet because of two things: size, and game selection. Initially, the library only had one or two games that slightly interested me, and I rarely used my GBA as it is. Plus, the DS was just too large to easily fit in my pants' pocket. My coat pocket would work, but I don't wear my coat in the summer.
Now, Nintendo has corrected both problems. Games such as Wario Ware: Touched, Mario Kart DS, and the upcoming Pokemon games with the ability to chat, trade, and battle via WiFi have made me drool for this system, limited only by size and money.
When the big rumors hit the main gaming sites about a redesigned DS, I couldn't have been happier over a handheld console. Rumors they may be, but often they were predictive in some fashion. My hopes were actually hieghtened, not dashed, by Nintendo's subsequent announcement. I can't find a link now, but the wording was more that they haven't announced any new DS, not that they haven't made a new DS (first rule of gaming press releases concerning rumors: Look at what they don't say).
So, now, both of my reasons for not getting a DS are dashed. I cannot wait for the Revolution.
Well, there is one more reason. But I can eat Ramen for a month.
I agree that paying needless taxes (be it a wrongful war or helping a smoker get surgury) is a bad thing, but the problem with your idea is that, while you may be willing to help pay for things like roads and schools in some more voluntary system, you're in the small minority. Most people would just take their money and not help pay for public services in the least, assuming that everyone else will pick up the bill in their stead. So, to get these people to help pay for things that they, you, and I use, you have to force it out of them, be it through sales tax, income tax, or property tax.
And, since this is the government, you can't pick and choose who gets to pay willingly and who is forced to pay, so everyone gets screwed equally.
Personally, I don't mind a whole lot if a politician is getting paid a bit more than he deserves, if it means that I can get someone to come and hose down my house if it catches on fire. There are, of course, much worse things being done by tax money, but I'd rather stick with the system and try to fix it than to toss away all parts of it (at least, until a better system comes along.)
Regardless, the politician in question is just an idiot. I weap for our country's future.
Reviewing games (or even movies) with the latest and greatest that technology has to offer does allow the reviewer to get the most out of a game, but it eschews the general readership. Comparing to the overall average, Slashdot users and XBox 360 owners probably have a higher percentage of individuals with HDTVs, but it is doubtfully the majority of users/owners.
So, using the "proper hardware", a reviewer can say how stunning graphics were, only for Joe Gamer to to play the game on their old tube screen and disagree. Granted, the reviewer can (and should) list what equipment they use to review games (for comparison purposes,) but there isn't any requirement that they have all of their equipment up to the specs of what the console can do.
Those with the "proper hardware" can take heart in knowing that, when they play the game, the graphics will be better because their equipment is superior.
If there's one thing that Slashdot has taught me in the past year, it's that Slashdot finds DRM is evil.
If there's one other thing that I know about Slashdot, Slashdot generally bows before Google and their products.
So this is going to be interesting. Will Google be berated for embracing a technology that limits the use of content being paid for? Or will Google be praised as being the only company that would find a good way to implement DRM?
Since we don't know a whole lot at this point, perhaps neither. Depending on exactly how Google distributes the content, and how the DRM differs for the different types (one-view vs. personal copy), this could be a make or break situation. If the DRM is too restrictive, the "good vibe" it gives off towards the technologically inclined will dissapate, creating a cascade of harsh backlash against the company and it's "Do no evil" campaign. It will also show that even a beloved giant such as Google cannot get DRM to be accepted by the general public. This probably wouldn't stop the likes of Sony from continuing their trend of "Do lots of evil", but it would put a kink in the DRM-inclined plans of a good deal of smaller companies. (If there was enough backlash, CBS et al. would probably back out, and Google would drop the video distrobution, as well as its DRM.)
If their DRM is "just right", with regular customers not caring, technically able customers content, and only the most hard-core upset, then we will see a sudden surge and wide-spread use of DRM. Content providing companies will flock to liscense Google's DRM, or at least have their product be distributed through it, and soon everything is locked into one thing or another.
Except "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link", a direct sequel to "The Legend of Zelda". Or "Majora's Mask", a direct sequel to "The Ocarina of Time".
My point still stands, though. It was that these games didn't feed off of each other, except for the rather generic plot devices (Link, evil sorcerer, princess). You don't need to know anything about Ocarina of Time to understand the story in Majora's Mask. Hell, Majora's Mask could be the first game that you ever picked up and you wouldn't be missing anything. I haven't played Zelda II enough to know if it holds the same, but I believe it does.
Even ignoring the story points, the overall gameplay is different in each game. Again, you have basic devices found in every game (bow & arrow, sword, shield, bomb), but to complete the game you have rather different paths, at least in the case of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. As stated, Ocarina has you traveling back and forth in time to move ahead, only a few times affecting the future with what you do in the past. Majora's Mask, on the other hand, had you racing the clock. You only had three in-game days to do what you could, and then everything reset.
So, yes, Majora's Mask does happen chronologically after Ocarina of Time. However, a sequel builds off of a previous game or movie, when the Zelda games don't. Each can be taken as an individual game with no bearing on any of the others.
"Link's Awakening" was pretty much "Link to the Past" with a different story and more of a slant on music, a theme Miyamoto has revisted many times in the series.
While Link's Awakening does indeed use the Ocarina from LttP, I wouldn't say that it had a music slant. The only time the Ocarina was really important was when you finally got into the Wind Egg. Aside from there, it had little use, aside from being able to transport you to one point on the map and one or two other things. Contrast that to Ocarina of Time, or even LttP, where you used the Ocarina much more to go from place to place (the latter) and open doors and complete puzzles (the former). Yes, you collected the musical instruments, but then you'd have to say that LttP was a game with a maiden jewel slant.
So while LA does incorporate music, it isn't an overall theme (it's more "Life is a dream, or is it?", which isn't even close to a gameplay mechanic). You could compare it to the grapple hook in Wind Waker; it was used a lot there, but I doubt you'd find anyone who said that the grapple hook was the main mechanic of the game.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear "sequal" in relation to a game or movie, it means that said game or movie is a continuation of a previous game or movie.
In the case of the Legend of Zelda games, none of the games have really been a continuation of others.
Yes, there is some supposed chronological line where the games fit in timeline and not release date, but you can pick up any one game and safely ignore the others without it hindering your gameplay. Even if you ignore the different stories (though they tend to have the same outcome, "Defeat the bad guy and save the princess"), the game mechanisms are the same.
In LttP, we had to cross from dark world to light world to get places later in the game.
In Ocarina of Time, we had to go back and forth in time multiple times, affecting how the future would turn out in the past.
In Majora's Mask, we again used time, but this time we only had three days to do anything, and we had to continuously repeat that (like Groundhog Day, but with swords and no Bill Murray)
In Wind Waker, we had to control the direction of the wind to get from place to place or complete puzzles.
In the Oracle games, we had to jump back and forth through time and seasons, with cause and effect relationships.
In Minish Cap, we had to continuously shrink and regrow to explore tiny areas or gain access to otherwise unenterable areas.
In Four Swords, we had to use teamwork, either with strategy commands or multiplayer action, to achieve our goals.
In Twilight Princess... well, we turn into a damn wolf, we know that much.
In fact, I believe that Link's Awakening and the two NES Zeldas were the only action RPGs that didn't have any special game mechanism. (CD-i be damned.) Contrast this with Grand Theft Auto, where it's always the same "Shoot people, run from police, steal cars" formula, just with better and better graphics. A better term for Zelda games might be "installments", rather than "sequals".
Perhaps I'm one of the few that prefer riding the middle of the wave of technology, or the fact that I'm relatively non-wealthy prohibits me from buying the latest and greatest, but I'm going to wait a while for this to work itself out.
Balancing between DVD+ and DVD- is a pain enough as it is; having worked at both Best Buy and Wal-mart (in Electronics) for a short amount of time, the most asked question about writable media is "What's the difference between + and -?" followed by "Which one should I get?". It helps that most DVD burners are dual-format, so there isn't much of a worry about which one to buy, so after the initial explanation it isn't that much of a problem. (DVD Recorders, for TVs, tend to stick to one format for the cheaper ones, though I've found that some can record both even if they only list one.)
If HD DVD and Blu-ray are a format war, I'm living in Switzerland. Unless they create at least a reader that can read both formats (I haven't heard of one, yet), one will come out on top. In the mean time, I am not going to spend my money on media and a player that may quickly go defunct, especially if the various Hollywood studios split on which format to use (assuming they don't do both.)
I can see this being a big headache for stores- so many ill-informed (or just ignorant) consumers are going to buy one of the new discs, take it home, and be utterly miffed that it won't play on their player. They'll take it back, throw a tantrum, then pick out a different movie to exchange- and it will be in the same format as the one they just returned.
I figure it will take about two years for one of these formats to come out the winner. Unfortunatly, Sony's Blu-ray will probably take the cake, as it's being incorporated in the PS3, which could sell like the PS2 at its release. Hello, Mr. DRM!
In the mean time, since most companies will probably be wary over the format war, most movies/series will still be released on regular DVD, to the delight of myself and most consumers. It works great. The quality of DVDs are fine, in my opinion, and I don't have to worry about buying a new player (or three).
The best ending would be that both formats fail, and I don't think this is out of the question. While the "hipsters" out there may want bigger and better, middle America is a-ok with DVDs, and will probably still be by 2008. With both formats failed, either the various companies will realize that they need one standard and work together on that, or we'll just replay the whole thing over again.
The DS's numbers are impressive, but we aren't anywhere close to the peak of the system.
Great games like Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, and Nintendogs, and some interesting titles like Pheonix Wright: Ace Attorney and XX-XY, have shown consumers that the touch screen is not a gimmick. If I recall correctly, NiFi already has half a million users, and that's after a month of NiFi. By comparison, doesn't XBox Live have a little over a million after at least a year?
There are still hot games coming to the DS to spur sales, too. The Pokemon series has consecutively been a hot seller, oftening bumping hardware unit sales with its release. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, the first regular RPG entries to the series on the DS, is due out sometime this year. It has been confirmed that these games will use NiFi to trade Pokemon, chat, and, most importantly, battle. The trade-and-battle theme of Pokemon has screamed for MMO features, and the DS is the first machine equipped and ready to take the charge. (This will be the game that gets me to buy a DS.)
If Pokemon is not your thing, you're not out of luck. Metroid Prime: Hunters, the much delayed multiplayer FPS, might be right up your alley. The Metroid Prime series has had strong sales, and when this game finally releases, it's going to boost sales (sorry for the pun) once again. (I'm uncertain, but I believe part of the delay was to add NiFi to MP:H).
And remember, we're still waiting for a Zelda game. While one has been confirmed in process, no details have been released. Did someone say Twilight Princess followup?
It's successes like this that allow Nintendo to go to the edge with new ideas like the Revolution.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am a fanboy, and my rantings may be taken as such.
Big companies should be the ones leading innovation in industries they already exist.
The problem with monopolies is that they have the ability, resources, and money to continuously improve, make things cheaper for themselves and the customer, but they don't. They use their clout to raise prices, protect themselves, and screw the consumer. It's all about greed.
This is why we have the problems with EA overworking their employees.
This is why we have the MPAA/RIAA crawling up our asses.
Google is a good show of what can happen when a good monopoly comes around. While they aren't really a monopoly yet, they are slowly working there way there, but even after starting stock trades, they still seem to keep to their "do no evil" stance.
Nintendo is another example. While it certainly isn't a monopoly by any stance (at least, now), they have lots of money, lots of resources, and lots of clout, and they continue to reinvent gaming, first with games like Animal Crossing and Pikmin, then the Revolution itself.
While I agree with the rest of/. that DRM is bad, to me it seems you may be going a bit far. First off, like or not, isn't removing the DRM on songs illegal? (Thanks, DMCA!)
Second, why point them to Limewire for their music? I can understand trying to fight the Evil DRM Imperialists, but downloading music that isn't released for free is wrong, even if the government punishment for such is overly severe. Why not point them to one of the smaller companies that carry more independent labels and offer un-inhibited MP3 downloads? Why not point them to iTunes and mention (or, since you seem so gung-ho about it, install) jHymn?
The RIAA is wrong, but fighting them like this isn't the right way to go about it. It's akin to anit-abortion groups covering the walls of an abortion clinic with hateful propoganda. Yes, it may get some of the ideals across, but it's illegal (and bad taste), and most people won't respond too nicely to it on either side.
I'm not sure how the patent office works now, but here's how I would envision a good patent office:
First, to receive a patent, you have to have a working model that can be shown on demand. Otherwise, we'll keep going on this new path of people patenting something without actually producing anything.
Second, all patents submitted will be checked over by a "Tier 1" employee. The "Tier 1" employees wouldn't have to have vast educational backgrounds; in fact, most would probably be college students working part time. These people would check over the forms and accounts, making sure that all paperwork is properly submitted, legible, and the required amount of money has been paid. If not, they send it back out to be redone.
After Tier 1 has approved a patent for review, it moves on to one of what would be many sections of "Tier 2". The sections would be divided according to industry (automotive, computer (hardware), computer (software), household, argiculture, etc.) and would be headed by those deeply educated in the field, and staffed by those not as educated, but who still have a firm understanding of the subject. An employee in this section would be given just the patent itself and a Potential Patent ID (PPID), and nothing else, to remove both any relationship they may have with the submitter and so they have less bullshit to worry about.
After examining the patent, they will do some quick searches to see if anything similar has been submitted. They won't check entire patent sheets, just the synopsi. If they appear to be the same, the patent would be marked as a potential copy, with the patent already on file that seems to match, and passed along to another section (Tier 2.5), who's only job is to compare the patents and find duplicates. That section would employ those with general educations (jack of all trades, king of none) who would inquire to the original section if they have any questions.
If the patent has no apparent relation to anything else, the regular Tier 2 staff can either accept or require a demonstration, if they thought it was total bubkiss. The patent seeker would have to come in with (or alternatively help arrange to have one of the employees come out to) the device and show that it works, after which it would be accepted.
If it's decided that patent isn't a reproduction, or Tier 2 accepted the patent, the patent would go through final processing (Tier 3), which would double check that everything has been filed and verified, and then grant the patent.
Tier 3 would also handle disputes. They would read over claims, do some basic research, and pass the claims on to Tier 2 for extended review. Tier 3 could also have the option to "contract" educated individuals in the related field to review the patent (used mainly when the section for that industry has a large influx of patents to review.)
Actually, hold off on that first part so I can do a vague patent for anti-gravity or warp drive or something.
Considering the backlash Nintendo's had on the ROM scene, I doubt you could call them supportors of anything illegal, even if they don't lose profit from it.
However, I wish they would make something that inadvertently allowed music piracy. Like allowing voice clips to be sent over NiFi to other users to be saved for other times.
Suppose they made some music game. You could play the piano using the touchpad on the DS. Someone decides to do a bit of the latest Nickelback/Britney Spears/$RIAA_GLAMOR_WHORE song (say, a minute or so,) and sends it to a friend to show off his or her skills. Said friend likes it so much that it is then sent to even more friends. Because the snippet shows the original author, the RIAA is able to track down the person who originally made the snippet.
Not only do they sue the person who made the snippet, but they go after Nintendo for a 'piracy distribution service'. Despite Nintendo's tied-for-second-but-somewhat-third place in the console race in America (and second place in Japan,) they have a rather large pile of cash to lean back on, thanks in part to the success that is Gameboy.
If this happened, I think it would be a turning point. Nintendo has the money and clout to defend themselves against the Princes of the Sixth Circle of Hell, and would do so, even if only to keep from having a black mark on any of their games or systems. Plus, looking at Slashdot as a whole, Nintendo is the "company to love" for video games (where the XBox is made by "M$", and Sony hates our ownership rights,) so the/. crowd, seeing their good steed battle the bad one, would rise up behind Nintendo, causing some sort of internet backwave that would eventually lead to either the downfall of the RIAA or a drastic change in their business model.
Of course, I've been taking some pain medication, and now I may just be fantasizing.
I'll get into HD when the following requirements are met:
1) They become much cheaper 2) 60% of TV is HD-ready WITHOUT having to buy an "HD Channel Package" 3) Most of the movies/shows I want come out in an HD format (preferrably not Blu-Ray) 4) They announce the successor to HD
I think you mean A Link is going to die. The games loosely exist along the same time line (though I have yet to see a LoZ with hover boards, foo), and each game is a different Link and different Zelda.
I think Zelda II on the NES even went through some thing about all the princesses being named Zelda because one was in a deep neverending sleep, or some such stuff.
In Wind Waker, we're told that the main character isn't even of the Link lineage. He has to search for pieces of his part of the Triforce, remember. The game even says that the hero had left the realm, (referring to Majora's Mask), forcing the Triforce Piece of Courage to split apart.
Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask supposedly have the same Link (Majora's Mask taking place a few years after Link defeats Ganon in OoT and is returned to kid form.)
The Oracle games are supposed to match up with another Zelda game as well, though I can't recall which one right now. The same may be true for Link's Awakening.
So, even if Link does die in the game (which would certainly be a change; whether it's appreciated or not has yet to be seen), it won't be the end of the Zelda franchise.
If he does die, I think we'd see it as more of a "selfless sacrifice" type of thing. Link struggles with the main enemy to subdue him while the supporting hero(ine) blasts him into the Dark World or whatever, but in the process Link is pulled in as well. This would actually be a nice set up to the next game (which is most likely on the Revolution,) where you once again have a non-lineage Link and you wind up having to release the real Link to defeat the evil.
Step 1: Hand over control of the internet to the UN, allowing the EU to dip their hand in it. Step 2: European publishers complain about the big bad men running search engines, even when there are simple ways to stop your site from being indexed. Step 3: European publishers get the EU to get the UN to shut down the internet Step 4: Profit!!!
Between the re-emerging of Ma Bell, the RIAA, MPAA, SCO, and other various unscrupulous companies and wealthy individuals, it's getting hard for the consumer, the person who should be able to make a lot of these things go into effect (or not), to actually do anything.
Oh, yes, informed citizens can make a difference. Those of us who read/. regularly are indeed informed of things, and usually boycott or act on the information we find here.
However, for better or for worse, most of the American nation (seeing as how/. leans more towards America than other countries) doesn't visit Slashdot, or most of the other sites that would alert us towards the devil working in a company. Hell, even when such news hits the main media, most of the populace shrug and continue buying their Sony music CDs, then suddenly wonder why their computer is running so slow.
What we need is a counter-company. Some business (or even someone) with enough clout, money, and lawyers that they can fight for the interests of the consumer, while probably also working things to benefit them as well. (Since they'll be benefiting us, it's not bad if they profit from the play, as long as they don't do anything evil.)
Not many companies exist that aren't seen as "evil" that would be able to achieve this kind of thing. A few companies spring in to mind, but the hard part would be making them see the value of fighting for the consumers, even when a bill that some bought-and-paid-for senator is proposing would help their business in some manner. I think a main thing to push would be the customer loyalty they would obtain in return for their help. Word of mouth is the best advertising anyone can ask for and no one can really pay for.
I'm sure one company popped up in most minds as they read this.
"Thank you for calling Google, you've reached the Defender of the People Department. How may I direct your concern?"
Assuming that "Internet Addiction" is a valid addiction, I most likely have it. When not at my commoner jobs, I'm on the internet most of my waking hours; that's about 5 hours a day or more.
Slashdot, Fark, ANN, LiveJournal, IMs, StumbleUpon... Even if I recognize that I do have a problem, I don't think I'd want to change; I believe that many others wouldn't, either. Like many who venture onto the internet, I am introverted. I have problems meeting people face to face, and for this fact, have few friends in the real world. (Living in a bumfuck small town in the middle of Iowa doesn't help.) Almost all of the people I consider friends are online, including many that I do know in meatspace.
It doesn't detract from my regular "life" things. I still feed my pets, eat meals, shower, do house chores. It hasn't completely drowned out everything else, but I still doubt anyone would consider me a "normal" user.
In short, if I did "fix" my internet addiction, I would have little-to-no social life to speak of. My human contact would be limited to those I work with, my family, and customers, and a very small handful of friends every once in a while.
And so I present this question: If you use the internet many hours a day, conversing with people all over the planet, is it really an addiction, or just a new way to socialize?
Slashdot Mirror
November 2nd, 2006
Microsoft Unveils New Portable Gaming Station
via Reuters
In the wake of the success of both Sony's PS3 and Nintendo's Revolution and dwindling XBox 360 numbers, Microsoft has stepped up to the plate to challenge both companies in another gaming market: handhelds.
In an MTV2 event held yesterday, Micrsoft revealed their "XBox Z", the tentatively named portable gaming station. "We aim to do it all," a spokesman commented. "The XBox Z, known internally as the ZBox, will be a one-size-fits all handheld device, capable of playing anything, from video to music to games."
The unit, which is a bit smaller than a regular computer keyboard, weighs in at about two pounds. Controls are made up of four analog control sticks and six buttons, as well as three buttons on each shoulder. When asked about how gamers are supposed to use four analog sticks with only two thumbs, the spokesman replied "They'll think of something."
A 5" LCD screen sits in the middle and slightly up, amidst the controls. The unit takes regular sized CDs and will also support the new HD-DVD format, playing anything from XBox games to CDs to DVDs. Mentioned briefly was an attachment to play turntable-style records, to pull in the music enthusiast crowd.
Initial accessories were also announced at the unveiling. A small packpack, used to hold the system and its three required power sources, will be offered in various colors, as well as a clear mesh form. A utility-like belt will be used to hold various media to play in the device.
When asked about battery life and size, the Microsoft spokesman replied "I'll admit, right now it's a bit of a drainer, with a large size. We're working on the battery life, and expect to have it last two hours on 16 AA batteries. As for the large size, we're looking into shrinking it, but complete hard drives are hard to replace. Besides, gamers will be able to show their handheld with pride, belittling the other so called 'gaming handhelds'."
No release date was announced, though Microsoft plans to use "Bringing gaming to a new dimension" as their slogan.
More information is expected by the end of the month, as long as the Korean-Canadian war does not interfere with ongoing plans.
I don't own a DS yet because of two things: size, and game selection. Initially, the library only had one or two games that slightly interested me, and I rarely used my GBA as it is. Plus, the DS was just too large to easily fit in my pants' pocket. My coat pocket would work, but I don't wear my coat in the summer.
Now, Nintendo has corrected both problems. Games such as Wario Ware: Touched, Mario Kart DS, and the upcoming Pokemon games with the ability to chat, trade, and battle via WiFi have made me drool for this system, limited only by size and money.
When the big rumors hit the main gaming sites about a redesigned DS, I couldn't have been happier over a handheld console. Rumors they may be, but often they were predictive in some fashion. My hopes were actually hieghtened, not dashed, by Nintendo's subsequent announcement. I can't find a link now, but the wording was more that they haven't announced any new DS, not that they haven't made a new DS (first rule of gaming press releases concerning rumors: Look at what they don't say).
So, now, both of my reasons for not getting a DS are dashed. I cannot wait for the Revolution.
Well, there is one more reason. But I can eat Ramen for a month.
So when are we getting a DS Micro?
I agree that paying needless taxes (be it a wrongful war or helping a smoker get surgury) is a bad thing, but the problem with your idea is that, while you may be willing to help pay for things like roads and schools in some more voluntary system, you're in the small minority. Most people would just take their money and not help pay for public services in the least, assuming that everyone else will pick up the bill in their stead. So, to get these people to help pay for things that they, you, and I use, you have to force it out of them, be it through sales tax, income tax, or property tax.
And, since this is the government, you can't pick and choose who gets to pay willingly and who is forced to pay, so everyone gets screwed equally.
Personally, I don't mind a whole lot if a politician is getting paid a bit more than he deserves, if it means that I can get someone to come and hose down my house if it catches on fire. There are, of course, much worse things being done by tax money, but I'd rather stick with the system and try to fix it than to toss away all parts of it (at least, until a better system comes along.)
Regardless, the politician in question is just an idiot. I weap for our country's future.
Reviewing games (or even movies) with the latest and greatest that technology has to offer does allow the reviewer to get the most out of a game, but it eschews the general readership. Comparing to the overall average, Slashdot users and XBox 360 owners probably have a higher percentage of individuals with HDTVs, but it is doubtfully the majority of users/owners.
So, using the "proper hardware", a reviewer can say how stunning graphics were, only for Joe Gamer to to play the game on their old tube screen and disagree. Granted, the reviewer can (and should) list what equipment they use to review games (for comparison purposes,) but there isn't any requirement that they have all of their equipment up to the specs of what the console can do.
Those with the "proper hardware" can take heart in knowing that, when they play the game, the graphics will be better because their equipment is superior.
If there's one thing that Slashdot has taught me in the past year, it's that Slashdot finds DRM is evil.
If there's one other thing that I know about Slashdot, Slashdot generally bows before Google and their products.
So this is going to be interesting. Will Google be berated for embracing a technology that limits the use of content being paid for? Or will Google be praised as being the only company that would find a good way to implement DRM?
Since we don't know a whole lot at this point, perhaps neither. Depending on exactly how Google distributes the content, and how the DRM differs for the different types (one-view vs. personal copy), this could be a make or break situation. If the DRM is too restrictive, the "good vibe" it gives off towards the technologically inclined will dissapate, creating a cascade of harsh backlash against the company and it's "Do no evil" campaign. It will also show that even a beloved giant such as Google cannot get DRM to be accepted by the general public. This probably wouldn't stop the likes of Sony from continuing their trend of "Do lots of evil", but it would put a kink in the DRM-inclined plans of a good deal of smaller companies. (If there was enough backlash, CBS et al. would probably back out, and Google would drop the video distrobution, as well as its DRM.)
If their DRM is "just right", with regular customers not caring, technically able customers content, and only the most hard-core upset, then we will see a sudden surge and wide-spread use of DRM. Content providing companies will flock to liscense Google's DRM, or at least have their product be distributed through it, and soon everything is locked into one thing or another.
An interesting situation.
Except "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link", a direct sequel to "The Legend of Zelda".
Or "Majora's Mask", a direct sequel to "The Ocarina of Time".
My point still stands, though. It was that these games didn't feed off of each other, except for the rather generic plot devices (Link, evil sorcerer, princess). You don't need to know anything about Ocarina of Time to understand the story in Majora's Mask. Hell, Majora's Mask could be the first game that you ever picked up and you wouldn't be missing anything. I haven't played Zelda II enough to know if it holds the same, but I believe it does.
Even ignoring the story points, the overall gameplay is different in each game. Again, you have basic devices found in every game (bow & arrow, sword, shield, bomb), but to complete the game you have rather different paths, at least in the case of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. As stated, Ocarina has you traveling back and forth in time to move ahead, only a few times affecting the future with what you do in the past. Majora's Mask, on the other hand, had you racing the clock. You only had three in-game days to do what you could, and then everything reset.
So, yes, Majora's Mask does happen chronologically after Ocarina of Time. However, a sequel builds off of a previous game or movie, when the Zelda games don't. Each can be taken as an individual game with no bearing on any of the others.
"Link's Awakening" was pretty much "Link to the Past" with a different story and more of a slant on music, a theme Miyamoto has revisted many times in the series.
While Link's Awakening does indeed use the Ocarina from LttP, I wouldn't say that it had a music slant. The only time the Ocarina was really important was when you finally got into the Wind Egg. Aside from there, it had little use, aside from being able to transport you to one point on the map and one or two other things. Contrast that to Ocarina of Time, or even LttP, where you used the Ocarina much more to go from place to place (the latter) and open doors and complete puzzles (the former). Yes, you collected the musical instruments, but then you'd have to say that LttP was a game with a maiden jewel slant.
So while LA does incorporate music, it isn't an overall theme (it's more "Life is a dream, or is it?", which isn't even close to a gameplay mechanic). You could compare it to the grapple hook in Wind Waker; it was used a lot there, but I doubt you'd find anyone who said that the grapple hook was the main mechanic of the game.
Whoops. :) Thanks.
In the case of the Legend of Zelda games, none of the games have really been a continuation of others.
Yes, there is some supposed chronological line where the games fit in timeline and not release date, but you can pick up any one game and safely ignore the others without it hindering your gameplay. Even if you ignore the different stories (though they tend to have the same outcome, "Defeat the bad guy and save the princess"), the game mechanisms are the same.
In fact, I believe that Link's Awakening and the two NES Zeldas were the only action RPGs that didn't have any special game mechanism. (CD-i be damned.) Contrast this with Grand Theft Auto, where it's always the same "Shoot people, run from police, steal cars" formula, just with better and better graphics. A better term for Zelda games might be "installments", rather than "sequals".
Now it will be so much easier to make a cold fusion reactor.
Perhaps I'm one of the few that prefer riding the middle of the wave of technology, or the fact that I'm relatively non-wealthy prohibits me from buying the latest and greatest, but I'm going to wait a while for this to work itself out.
Balancing between DVD+ and DVD- is a pain enough as it is; having worked at both Best Buy and Wal-mart (in Electronics) for a short amount of time, the most asked question about writable media is "What's the difference between + and -?" followed by "Which one should I get?". It helps that most DVD burners are dual-format, so there isn't much of a worry about which one to buy, so after the initial explanation it isn't that much of a problem. (DVD Recorders, for TVs, tend to stick to one format for the cheaper ones, though I've found that some can record both even if they only list one.)
If HD DVD and Blu-ray are a format war, I'm living in Switzerland. Unless they create at least a reader that can read both formats (I haven't heard of one, yet), one will come out on top. In the mean time, I am not going to spend my money on media and a player that may quickly go defunct, especially if the various Hollywood studios split on which format to use (assuming they don't do both.)
I can see this being a big headache for stores- so many ill-informed (or just ignorant) consumers are going to buy one of the new discs, take it home, and be utterly miffed that it won't play on their player. They'll take it back, throw a tantrum, then pick out a different movie to exchange- and it will be in the same format as the one they just returned.
I figure it will take about two years for one of these formats to come out the winner. Unfortunatly, Sony's Blu-ray will probably take the cake, as it's being incorporated in the PS3, which could sell like the PS2 at its release. Hello, Mr. DRM!
In the mean time, since most companies will probably be wary over the format war, most movies/series will still be released on regular DVD, to the delight of myself and most consumers. It works great. The quality of DVDs are fine, in my opinion, and I don't have to worry about buying a new player (or three).
The best ending would be that both formats fail, and I don't think this is out of the question. While the "hipsters" out there may want bigger and better, middle America is a-ok with DVDs, and will probably still be by 2008. With both formats failed, either the various companies will realize that they need one standard and work together on that, or we'll just replay the whole thing over again.
The DS's numbers are impressive, but we aren't anywhere close to the peak of the system.
Great games like Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, and Nintendogs, and some interesting titles like Pheonix Wright: Ace Attorney and XX-XY, have shown consumers that the touch screen is not a gimmick. If I recall correctly, NiFi already has half a million users, and that's after a month of NiFi. By comparison, doesn't XBox Live have a little over a million after at least a year?
There are still hot games coming to the DS to spur sales, too. The Pokemon series has consecutively been a hot seller, oftening bumping hardware unit sales with its release. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, the first regular RPG entries to the series on the DS, is due out sometime this year. It has been confirmed that these games will use NiFi to trade Pokemon, chat, and, most importantly, battle. The trade-and-battle theme of Pokemon has screamed for MMO features, and the DS is the first machine equipped and ready to take the charge. (This will be the game that gets me to buy a DS.)
If Pokemon is not your thing, you're not out of luck. Metroid Prime: Hunters, the much delayed multiplayer FPS, might be right up your alley. The Metroid Prime series has had strong sales, and when this game finally releases, it's going to boost sales (sorry for the pun) once again. (I'm uncertain, but I believe part of the delay was to add NiFi to MP:H).
And remember, we're still waiting for a Zelda game. While one has been confirmed in process, no details have been released. Did someone say Twilight Princess followup?
It's successes like this that allow Nintendo to go to the edge with new ideas like the Revolution.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am a fanboy, and my rantings may be taken as such.
As I recall, the same thing was said about the PSP when Sony released their "week of release" sales numbers. :)
Well done, five instances of playing to the crowd and toeing the line in one post, surely the greatest example of karma-whoring in Slashdot history?
:)
Nah, I've done better.
(My sig is what it is for a reason.)
Big companies should be the ones leading innovation in industries they already exist.
The problem with monopolies is that they have the ability, resources, and money to continuously improve, make things cheaper for themselves and the customer, but they don't. They use their clout to raise prices, protect themselves, and screw the consumer. It's all about greed.
This is why we have the problems with EA overworking their employees.
This is why we have the MPAA/RIAA crawling up our asses.
Google is a good show of what can happen when a good monopoly comes around. While they aren't really a monopoly yet, they are slowly working there way there, but even after starting stock trades, they still seem to keep to their "do no evil" stance.
Nintendo is another example. While it certainly isn't a monopoly by any stance (at least, now), they have lots of money, lots of resources, and lots of clout, and they continue to reinvent gaming, first with games like Animal Crossing and Pikmin, then the Revolution itself.
While I agree with the rest of /. that DRM is bad, to me it seems you may be going a bit far. First off, like or not, isn't removing the DRM on songs illegal? (Thanks, DMCA!)
Second, why point them to Limewire for their music? I can understand trying to fight the Evil DRM Imperialists, but downloading music that isn't released for free is wrong, even if the government punishment for such is overly severe. Why not point them to one of the smaller companies that carry more independent labels and offer un-inhibited MP3 downloads? Why not point them to iTunes and mention (or, since you seem so gung-ho about it, install) jHymn?
The RIAA is wrong, but fighting them like this isn't the right way to go about it. It's akin to anit-abortion groups covering the walls of an abortion clinic with hateful propoganda. Yes, it may get some of the ideals across, but it's illegal (and bad taste), and most people won't respond too nicely to it on either side.
Will this make Google worse, or AOL better?
I'm not sure how the patent office works now, but here's how I would envision a good patent office:
First, to receive a patent, you have to have a working model that can be shown on demand. Otherwise, we'll keep going on this new path of people patenting something without actually producing anything.
Second, all patents submitted will be checked over by a "Tier 1" employee. The "Tier 1" employees wouldn't have to have vast educational backgrounds; in fact, most would probably be college students working part time. These people would check over the forms and accounts, making sure that all paperwork is properly submitted, legible, and the required amount of money has been paid. If not, they send it back out to be redone.
After Tier 1 has approved a patent for review, it moves on to one of what would be many sections of "Tier 2". The sections would be divided according to industry (automotive, computer (hardware), computer (software), household, argiculture, etc.) and would be headed by those deeply educated in the field, and staffed by those not as educated, but who still have a firm understanding of the subject. An employee in this section would be given just the patent itself and a Potential Patent ID (PPID), and nothing else, to remove both any relationship they may have with the submitter and so they have less bullshit to worry about.
After examining the patent, they will do some quick searches to see if anything similar has been submitted. They won't check entire patent sheets, just the synopsi. If they appear to be the same, the patent would be marked as a potential copy, with the patent already on file that seems to match, and passed along to another section (Tier 2.5), who's only job is to compare the patents and find duplicates. That section would employ those with general educations (jack of all trades, king of none) who would inquire to the original section if they have any questions.
If the patent has no apparent relation to anything else, the regular Tier 2 staff can either accept or require a demonstration, if they thought it was total bubkiss. The patent seeker would have to come in with (or alternatively help arrange to have one of the employees come out to) the device and show that it works, after which it would be accepted.
If it's decided that patent isn't a reproduction, or Tier 2 accepted the patent, the patent would go through final processing (Tier 3), which would double check that everything has been filed and verified, and then grant the patent.
Tier 3 would also handle disputes. They would read over claims, do some basic research, and pass the claims on to Tier 2 for extended review. Tier 3 could also have the option to "contract" educated individuals in the related field to review the patent (used mainly when the section for that industry has a large influx of patents to review.)
Actually, hold off on that first part so I can do a vague patent for anti-gravity or warp drive or something.
Considering the backlash Nintendo's had on the ROM scene, I doubt you could call them supportors of anything illegal, even if they don't lose profit from it.
/. crowd, seeing their good steed battle the bad one, would rise up behind Nintendo, causing some sort of internet backwave that would eventually lead to either the downfall of the RIAA or a drastic change in their business model.
However, I wish they would make something that inadvertently allowed music piracy. Like allowing voice clips to be sent over NiFi to other users to be saved for other times.
Suppose they made some music game. You could play the piano using the touchpad on the DS. Someone decides to do a bit of the latest Nickelback/Britney Spears/$RIAA_GLAMOR_WHORE song (say, a minute or so,) and sends it to a friend to show off his or her skills. Said friend likes it so much that it is then sent to even more friends. Because the snippet shows the original author, the RIAA is able to track down the person who originally made the snippet.
Not only do they sue the person who made the snippet, but they go after Nintendo for a 'piracy distribution service'. Despite Nintendo's tied-for-second-but-somewhat-third place in the console race in America (and second place in Japan,) they have a rather large pile of cash to lean back on, thanks in part to the success that is Gameboy.
If this happened, I think it would be a turning point. Nintendo has the money and clout to defend themselves against the Princes of the Sixth Circle of Hell, and would do so, even if only to keep from having a black mark on any of their games or systems. Plus, looking at Slashdot as a whole, Nintendo is the "company to love" for video games (where the XBox is made by "M$", and Sony hates our ownership rights,) so the
Of course, I've been taking some pain medication, and now I may just be fantasizing.
I'll get into HD when the following requirements are met:
1) They become much cheaper
2) 60% of TV is HD-ready WITHOUT having to buy an "HD Channel Package"
3) Most of the movies/shows I want come out in an HD format (preferrably not Blu-Ray)
4) They announce the successor to HD
I think you mean A Link is going to die. The games loosely exist along the same time line (though I have yet to see a LoZ with hover boards, foo), and each game is a different Link and different Zelda.
I think Zelda II on the NES even went through some thing about all the princesses being named Zelda because one was in a deep neverending sleep, or some such stuff.
In Wind Waker, we're told that the main character isn't even of the Link lineage. He has to search for pieces of his part of the Triforce, remember. The game even says that the hero had left the realm, (referring to Majora's Mask), forcing the Triforce Piece of Courage to split apart.
Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask supposedly have the same Link (Majora's Mask taking place a few years after Link defeats Ganon in OoT and is returned to kid form.)
The Oracle games are supposed to match up with another Zelda game as well, though I can't recall which one right now. The same may be true for Link's Awakening.
So, even if Link does die in the game (which would certainly be a change; whether it's appreciated or not has yet to be seen), it won't be the end of the Zelda franchise.
If he does die, I think we'd see it as more of a "selfless sacrifice" type of thing. Link struggles with the main enemy to subdue him while the supporting hero(ine) blasts him into the Dark World or whatever, but in the process Link is pulled in as well. This would actually be a nice set up to the next game (which is most likely on the Revolution,) where you once again have a non-lineage Link and you wind up having to release the real Link to defeat the evil.
Step 1: Hand over control of the internet to the UN, allowing the EU to dip their hand in it.
Step 2: European publishers complain about the big bad men running search engines, even when there are simple ways to stop your site from being indexed.
Step 3: European publishers get the EU to get the UN to shut down the internet
Step 4: Profit!!!
Between the re-emerging of Ma Bell, the RIAA, MPAA, SCO, and other various unscrupulous companies and wealthy individuals, it's getting hard for the consumer, the person who should be able to make a lot of these things go into effect (or not), to actually do anything.
/. regularly are indeed informed of things, and usually boycott or act on the information we find here.
/. leans more towards America than other countries) doesn't visit Slashdot, or most of the other sites that would alert us towards the devil working in a company. Hell, even when such news hits the main media, most of the populace shrug and continue buying their Sony music CDs, then suddenly wonder why their computer is running so slow.
Oh, yes, informed citizens can make a difference. Those of us who read
However, for better or for worse, most of the American nation (seeing as how
What we need is a counter-company. Some business (or even someone) with enough clout, money, and lawyers that they can fight for the interests of the consumer, while probably also working things to benefit them as well. (Since they'll be benefiting us, it's not bad if they profit from the play, as long as they don't do anything evil.)
Not many companies exist that aren't seen as "evil" that would be able to achieve this kind of thing. A few companies spring in to mind, but the hard part would be making them see the value of fighting for the consumers, even when a bill that some bought-and-paid-for senator is proposing would help their business in some manner. I think a main thing to push would be the customer loyalty they would obtain in return for their help. Word of mouth is the best advertising anyone can ask for and no one can really pay for.
I'm sure one company popped up in most minds as they read this.
"Thank you for calling Google, you've reached the Defender of the People Department. How may I direct your concern?"
...but can you make it drink?
Assuming that "Internet Addiction" is a valid addiction, I most likely have it. When not at my commoner jobs, I'm on the internet most of my waking hours; that's about 5 hours a day or more.
Slashdot, Fark, ANN, LiveJournal, IMs, StumbleUpon... Even if I recognize that I do have a problem, I don't think I'd want to change; I believe that many others wouldn't, either. Like many who venture onto the internet, I am introverted. I have problems meeting people face to face, and for this fact, have few friends in the real world. (Living in a bumfuck small town in the middle of Iowa doesn't help.) Almost all of the people I consider friends are online, including many that I do know in meatspace.
It doesn't detract from my regular "life" things. I still feed my pets, eat meals, shower, do house chores. It hasn't completely drowned out everything else, but I still doubt anyone would consider me a "normal" user.
In short, if I did "fix" my internet addiction, I would have little-to-no social life to speak of. My human contact would be limited to those I work with, my family, and customers, and a very small handful of friends every once in a while.
And so I present this question: If you use the internet many hours a day, conversing with people all over the planet, is it really an addiction, or just a new way to socialize?
Because the teenagers will just respond by turning up their System of a Down or Linkin' Park to drive away the old people.
Or, heaven forbid, something hip hop.
That explains why news channel reporters never seem to know anything.
They're paid to never stop talking.
QED?