One less piece of handheld shovelware in the world? Oh no! I, personally, am glad that Nintendo learned from Mario 64 DS. On the N64 it's a classic, on the DS it's an excercise in frustration. I loved OoT too, but this game looks fantastic and is actually designed to take advantage of the system's unique capabilities rather than try to emulate another's.
Don't be disingenuous. My point that the value of the art is not inherent to the medium itself. Said media can add or subtract from the overall effect, but the value is in the piece itself. If you can create a game that's truly beautiful, the fact that it's not on something as "eternal" as paper or marble or canvas doesn't matter. It's still beautiful.
Your view is absurdly simplistic. By extension of your logic, the Mona Lisa is only art because it's on canvas. Would it be any less beautiful if it was created on a tablet PC? Would Michelangelo's eye for the human anatomy be any less impressive if David was a model of polygons? For that matter, would Hamlet be any less art if it were an ebook? No. Art is about capturing the essence of humanity, not about wether or not it's in a gallery to gawk at or taught in English class in a few centuries.
Which risks souring all of their Blu-Ray liscencees on hardware manufacturing. If you sell the PS3 at too far below cost, you're not only taking a risk of not making back your investment, but of undercutting the rest of the hardware on the market to death. They've got to keep the price at lest moderately high, or they're going to tank Blu-Ray as an open format. Furthermore, Ken Kutaragi has been pretty firm that the PS3 will be expensive- something to the extent of needing to work overtime to afford it. That doesn't sound like $500 to me, much less $450. It's possible that he's trying to depress expectations so that the final price is more palatable, but that doesn't seem likely to me- you just don't say something like that unless you're in damage control mode. I've no doubt that Sony will sell it for less than the report claims- they said that was their estimated manufacturing price, after all, not retail. But as to how much lower? Now as low as you predict.
True enough. But I doubt "The Godfather" keeps track of any score based on how you kill someone. The point is, the author either doesn't have a clue about games, or is willing to grossly simplify things for the lowest common denominator. Either way, it's not good journalism.
From the article: After logging long hours trying various tactics, Mr. Hodgson said he asked the company whether he had explored them all, and which ones would help players rack up the highest scores.
Why is it that whenever journalists or legislators talk about video games, the phrase "high score" (or some permutation there of) is always on the tip of their tongue? I haven't played any games where score is the sole point in ages. The assumption that games are all about score not only betrays the author's ignorance, but it demeans modern video games in general. Games have become much subtler- story and the challenge of survival have become their own ends. But the media can't seem to envision them ever moving past the "survive as long as you can to get the high score" quarter munchers they descended from.
Power consumption and durability were definitely large factors with the DS storage format as well. Actually that can probably be said for Nintendo's decision with the N64 as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a 1st-gen PSX that still works (at least, without having to be set upside down, or any of those crazy tricks people worked out). The drives have all konked out by now. I'll bet you'd have a much easier time finding a working 1st gen N64. The first PSXes could barely take the abuse of being regularly used, let alone the kind of abuse Nintendo designs its hardware to survive.
By selling their consoles at half the price of production. We'll see how much of that "mindshare" they keep once shareholders demand that the console price accurately reflect real-world production prices.
Oh, I'm not saying that the Xbox was a total success. As a profit making venture, it faired miserably. But it definitely got Microsoft's foot in the door. Additionally, Microsoft's learned a lot from their mistakes. It may be big, but the 360 is a nice looking system- way better than the ugly black brick the original Xbox was; the Xbox 360 is built from the ground up to be a game system, which should keep prices down; Microsoft has acquired fab rights to the CPU/GPU, so they'll be able to take advantage of decreases in chip prices (Nvidia and Intel were famously reticent to negotiate on hardware prices for the original Xbox); and finally, they've ditched the godawful original Xbox controller, and refined the S design. All-in-all, their second attempt looks much more likely to make money,
Because the HD formats are going to render a large portion of displays obsolete. Between killing component output, and requiring HDCP-compliant displays for full resolution, they're going to break about 90% of the HD sets on the market today.
Sega had a lot more going against them. They had just come off of the Sega CD and 32x which were dismal failures, and the Saturn which performed poorly in every market except Japan. Furthermore, they'd spread their resources seriously thin- they had the Game Gear, Genesis, Sega CD, 32x, Saturn and Pico all out at the same time. All of this hurt them both financially and in reputation. I was an avid Dreamcast fan from the start (I got mine at launch, and it still sits on my desk next to my PS2 and Gamecube), but I remember a lot of people saying that they didn't "trust" Sega after their spate of flops. Their financial situation was worsened by the fact that they were a medium-sized corporation going after three giants. In his book, The Ultimate History of Video Games (which I can't recommend highly enough), Steven L. Kent entitled his chapter on the current generation "Three Horses and a Pony" for exactly this reason- we're all familiar with just how enormous both Sony and Microsoft are, and Nintendo's got a warchest which rivals most countries' GNP. There was virtually no chance for them to succeed.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is coming off of the underdog success story of the Xbox. Say what you will about it in financial terms, Microsoft's console has gained an incredible amount of mindshare. In the course of the generation, the Xbox went from a console that almost no hardcore gamers took seriously, to a serious alternative to the Playstation 2. Furthermore, Microsoft's got the money to go toe-to-toe with Sony, especially considering Sony's recent financial shortfalls. Microsoft's position is far stronger than the Dreamcast's could ever possibly have been.
USB thumb drives are too expensive to be used as mass storage, and aren't really well suited to backups like Zip Disks were or tape drives are. Physical size becomes less of an issue, and longevity (which, actually most writeable optical formats are terrible for)and capacity are key.
At the end of that same year, Microsoft released the most expensive console yet, and one that sold out but is plagued by continuing supply shortages.
This is just plain wrong. The Xbox 360 is far from the most expensive console yet. That honor goes to the NeoGeo, and that's before even accounting for inflation (or the games for that matter).
Slashdot Mirror
Laugh, it's funny.
It is? Could've fooled me.
Please Stop Porting.
I'm still waiting for Warcraft Adventures!
One less piece of handheld shovelware in the world? Oh no! I, personally, am glad that Nintendo learned from Mario 64 DS. On the N64 it's a classic, on the DS it's an excercise in frustration. I loved OoT too, but this game looks fantastic and is actually designed to take advantage of the system's unique capabilities rather than try to emulate another's.
Oh, and Orneta Reader for plain ASCII ebooks.
Agile Messenger (all your IM needs rolled into one)
Opera for Smartphones
RJShortcut
NewsBreak (RSS Reader)
SmartIRC
RepliGo
Smartione (not a typo)
Millions of European gamers are breaking open the champagne...
There are that many?
Don't be disingenuous. My point that the value of the art is not inherent to the medium itself. Said media can add or subtract from the overall effect, but the value is in the piece itself. If you can create a game that's truly beautiful, the fact that it's not on something as "eternal" as paper or marble or canvas doesn't matter. It's still beautiful.
It's shame to see all that spin go to waste- we should attach magnets to these analysts and generate some electricity.
Your view is absurdly simplistic. By extension of your logic, the Mona Lisa is only art because it's on canvas. Would it be any less beautiful if it was created on a tablet PC? Would Michelangelo's eye for the human anatomy be any less impressive if David was a model of polygons? For that matter, would Hamlet be any less art if it were an ebook? No. Art is about capturing the essence of humanity, not about wether or not it's in a gallery to gawk at or taught in English class in a few centuries.
Oh good, now I don't have to plug my own article. Thanks!
You're WAY off on your facts about the PS1. The PSX was released in 1994 for the intial price of 37,000 yen (about $387).
Oh, and Sony hasn't manufactured their own RAM for any other systems, so why would they start now?
Which risks souring all of their Blu-Ray liscencees on hardware manufacturing. If you sell the PS3 at too far below cost, you're not only taking a risk of not making back your investment, but of undercutting the rest of the hardware on the market to death. They've got to keep the price at lest moderately high, or they're going to tank Blu-Ray as an open format. Furthermore, Ken Kutaragi has been pretty firm that the PS3 will be expensive- something to the extent of needing to work overtime to afford it. That doesn't sound like $500 to me, much less $450. It's possible that he's trying to depress expectations so that the final price is more palatable, but that doesn't seem likely to me- you just don't say something like that unless you're in damage control mode. I've no doubt that Sony will sell it for less than the report claims- they said that was their estimated manufacturing price, after all, not retail. But as to how much lower? Now as low as you predict.
True enough. But I doubt "The Godfather" keeps track of any score based on how you kill someone. The point is, the author either doesn't have a clue about games, or is willing to grossly simplify things for the lowest common denominator. Either way, it's not good journalism.
From the article: After logging long hours trying various tactics, Mr. Hodgson said he asked the company whether he had explored them all, and which ones would help players rack up the highest scores.
Why is it that whenever journalists or legislators talk about video games, the phrase "high score" (or some permutation there of) is always on the tip of their tongue? I haven't played any games where score is the sole point in ages. The assumption that games are all about score not only betrays the author's ignorance, but it demeans modern video games in general. Games have become much subtler- story and the challenge of survival have become their own ends. But the media can't seem to envision them ever moving past the "survive as long as you can to get the high score" quarter munchers they descended from.
If they so choose, they can also view DVDs with their meals.
And people say that the family dinner is a dying tradition. Oh wait...
...and Uwe Boll is promising that Dungeon Siege will "be better than Lord of the Rings". I'll wait until I see it.
Power consumption and durability were definitely large factors with the DS storage format as well. Actually that can probably be said for Nintendo's decision with the N64 as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a 1st-gen PSX that still works (at least, without having to be set upside down, or any of those crazy tricks people worked out). The drives have all konked out by now. I'll bet you'd have a much easier time finding a working 1st gen N64. The first PSXes could barely take the abuse of being regularly used, let alone the kind of abuse Nintendo designs its hardware to survive.
By selling their consoles at half the price of production. We'll see how much of that "mindshare" they keep once shareholders demand that the console price accurately reflect real-world production prices.
Oh, I'm not saying that the Xbox was a total success. As a profit making venture, it faired miserably. But it definitely got Microsoft's foot in the door. Additionally, Microsoft's learned a lot from their mistakes. It may be big, but the 360 is a nice looking system- way better than the ugly black brick the original Xbox was; the Xbox 360 is built from the ground up to be a game system, which should keep prices down; Microsoft has acquired fab rights to the CPU/GPU, so they'll be able to take advantage of decreases in chip prices (Nvidia and Intel were famously reticent to negotiate on hardware prices for the original Xbox); and finally, they've ditched the godawful original Xbox controller, and refined the S design. All-in-all, their second attempt looks much more likely to make money,
Because the HD formats are going to render a large portion of displays obsolete. Between killing component output, and requiring HDCP-compliant displays for full resolution, they're going to break about 90% of the HD sets on the market today.
Sega had a lot more going against them. They had just come off of the Sega CD and 32x which were dismal failures, and the Saturn which performed poorly in every market except Japan. Furthermore, they'd spread their resources seriously thin- they had the Game Gear, Genesis, Sega CD, 32x, Saturn and Pico all out at the same time. All of this hurt them both financially and in reputation. I was an avid Dreamcast fan from the start (I got mine at launch, and it still sits on my desk next to my PS2 and Gamecube), but I remember a lot of people saying that they didn't "trust" Sega after their spate of flops. Their financial situation was worsened by the fact that they were a medium-sized corporation going after three giants. In his book, The Ultimate History of Video Games (which I can't recommend highly enough), Steven L. Kent entitled his chapter on the current generation "Three Horses and a Pony" for exactly this reason- we're all familiar with just how enormous both Sony and Microsoft are, and Nintendo's got a warchest which rivals most countries' GNP. There was virtually no chance for them to succeed.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is coming off of the underdog success story of the Xbox. Say what you will about it in financial terms, Microsoft's console has gained an incredible amount of mindshare. In the course of the generation, the Xbox went from a console that almost no hardcore gamers took seriously, to a serious alternative to the Playstation 2. Furthermore, Microsoft's got the money to go toe-to-toe with Sony, especially considering Sony's recent financial shortfalls. Microsoft's position is far stronger than the Dreamcast's could ever possibly have been.
USB thumb drives are too expensive to be used as mass storage, and aren't really well suited to backups like Zip Disks were or tape drives are. Physical size becomes less of an issue, and longevity (which, actually most writeable optical formats are terrible for)and capacity are key.
Correction: The NeoGeo was indeed more expensive than the 360 at $599, but the 3DO was $699 at launch.
At the end of that same year, Microsoft released the most expensive console yet, and one that sold out but is plagued by continuing supply shortages.
This is just plain wrong. The Xbox 360 is far from the most expensive console yet. That honor goes to the NeoGeo, and that's before even accounting for inflation (or the games for that matter).