If you go here you'll see that the console is marked as being currently out of stock. Now I am sure that Amazon/Toys r Us has a few Gamecubes lying around (and if you go to Amazon.com and search for the Gamecube, you can find them for the regular 149.99 price) so they must have accidently let that price go live. Nintendo hasn't announced the price yet, so the retailers aren't supposed to start selling it. So it's going to be a few more days.
Anyway, I'm planning on buying one. I already own a PS2 and would really enjoy some of the exclusive games that the Gamecube offers. It seems like it's nearing the end of its life cycle, which is actually a decent time to pick up a system. Now I can get all the great games for it at a less than new price.
I'd previously heard that Trent Reznor was lined up to do the music for Doom 3 and believe in the article there was a picture of Reznor in the studio. Of course, it was just a photo and he could have been working on anything but...well, you know.
But just being "for PS2" is different than being exclusively available on the PS2. I would say that most games released by third parties these days are for the XBox and PS2. The fact that the game is a PS2 exclusive is noteworthy and I certainly wouldn't assume exclusivity unless it was noted.
You bring up a misconception about what it means to be "open source" when you say "with open source the users can migrate without a penny to something more secure". This is not inclusively correct. A commercial product may be open source and still cost a great deal of money - the only neccescary condition is that the source code is freely available to the end user.
If you buy a used video game, (at least at the EB I frequent) they will accept a return on that. I'm not sure of the time frame on it. I do quite a bit of research before I make a purchase and haven't had the need to return a game.
Obviously you don't play the games in the Madden franchise based on statements like, "for games that change relatively little between versions." When was the last time you played a Madden title?
And you still sidestepped my statement. You should EA was forcing the upgrade cycle upon people - there are other football games out there, no one is being forced to do anything. Of course, if you want to see force, take a look at how Microsoft has handled it's Office suite, then you can see users being forced to upgrade. EA is not doing that - there are alternatives out there.
And is it not a good reason to focus all online resources on a single instance of the Madden franchise? I play Madden 2004, why should I have fewer servers available to me because EA has to keep the Madden 2003 servers active? Especially since most people who actually play the Madden series (again, which you are obviously not a part of) want to upgrade every year!
How are they forcing people to buy games? The games clearly state when the servers will go down. People are alerted before they buy the game when the servers will go down.
Have you actually looked at the Madden boxes? Oh, I guess not - I guess you just decided to post without any actual information. Nice work.
That's fine - there are alternatives out there to Madden. I like EA's plan because it focuses all the resources they've devoted to online play, on a single crop of games. Currently all the online department's money is being used on maintaining the quality of play on the 2004 servers, not 2004.
Gee, let me do a little research. I do not own an XBox (for many reasons which I will not go into) BUT with XBox live, I pay a monthly subscription fee. If I don't use XBox live for a month or two, my money is still gone. On the other hand, I can play Madden 2004 online whenever I want and, because I'm not paying anything to have an account, not play it and not worry about losing money. I can also enter tournaments for a fee, in order to give back to EA, who will then improve the servers.
And why shouldn't EA be allowed to terminate online services for a game? They are in the business of selling games. You may ALSO want to note that most people who buy EA games, want the sequels so it's not that much of an issue for us. I was fine when the Madden 2003 servers went down because I had just bought 2004.
And I believe that EA's stance is that when you charge a user of XBox Live a monthly fee, the users who wish to play EA sports games are not the typical users who will pay an extra fee on top of that to play Madden; that's a more hardcore crowd (PSO, Everquest, people who are really into playing a lot of hours)
I would think that anyone who was serious about playing a MMO on a console would already have invested in a keyboard, they're even available at EB so the gamers don't even have to go to another store.
The PC is king because the PC is a much more mature platform for these types of games. The online capability of consoles is still in its infancy.
" think the best mix will come in the generation of consoles after the Phantom"
Ah yes, I can't wait for the next generation of vaporware consoles. The specs on those imaginary machines will be so impressive that the imaginary games created for it will be just like the Matrix. Man, those are going to be good times. You know what, maybe I'll get a jump on the Phantom and announce a new console from Acidic_Diarrhea labs. Let's see, it'll be a console with four parallel processors all running at 5 ghz, three gigs of RAM, a terrabyte hard drive, and a video card so revolutionary I can't even begin to describe it. It's cool though - trust me. And the best part, it'll only cost $50.
Want to sign up to be a beta-tester? Oh, and if you get penis-enlargement e-mails, they're not because I sold your e-mail address - I swear. You should still by my imaginary console.
Forbes likes it? Well well well, that's great! I mean, the people at Forbes always know good hardware and good software when they see it. After all, they are one of the most respected names in the video game magazine publishers...
"A console game does not have to break new ground"
But look at what you originally posted. You said you'd have to see a truly groundbreaking game in order to take online gaming on the console seriously.
As for your request: Madden 2004, Tony Hawk 4, NBA 2K3. Just because there are no games that you want to play online doesn't mean that there are not games out there. All 3 of these games have very comprehensive online play and are not crude in any respect.
For the first time people own multiple consoles? Pardon me but I have owned multiple consoles since the NES generation. If you look at sales of the Madden series in the Genesis/SNES days, you'll see similar figures where the Genesis version outsold the SNES version by a lot - the Genesis one was just better. Multiple consoles in a household is not new.
That magazine that they sell in EB has monthly sales figures. You can get a subscription for it if you get an EB Edge Card which is like 10 bucks and gets you 5% off games you buy there - a good deal if you buy a few games per year.
Why does a console game have to break new ground in the online arena in order for you to consider that consoles have proven themselves capable? Wouldn't console games that provide reasonable online play supply this conclusion that consoles are capable?
And Madden 2004 has a great online experience that I enjoy quite frequently. My friends and I play tournaments and generally have a very enjoyable time.
The fact that you spent time reproducing that graph in a Slashdot-friendly format concerns me. Perhaps I should take you out to a bar sometime and show you that there are things greater than the pleasure of a First Post - for instance; WOMEN. E-mail me and we'll make arrangements.
Why? I am sure that there are less volatile markets you can get involved in. If you've got 40 billion dollars, don't risk that money in the video game industry! That's madness! It's a fickle industry where companies rise and fall overnight.
Ignoring your crude language; I can see the rather useful features of a hard drive including downloadable content which will appear for games that I want. I am sure that FFXI will not be the sole game forever.
Can I get the hard drive without FFXI? I have no interest in that game as it doesn't appeal to my particular game playing sensibilities but I would still like the hard drive.
In a perfect world, this idea would work. You could forget about advertising dollars entirely and focus on making the best game. Releasing the game to market would lead to great profit margins because of the overall quality of the game. Unfortunately, advertising affects how many units are shipped to your local game store. Without the money spent on advertising, you may not be able to get a copy of that great game. Another point I would bring up is that if the game isn't sent to reviewers in the advertising blitz, even the Internet word-of-mouth campaigns that we've come to expect end. When no one has got a copy of the game, no one can tell you how great it is. The video game market is similar in ways to both the movie and music market. You've got to put big money in to get big money out.
Your argument is that because the design of the PS controller is not original, the controller is not "great." I believe that the person who submitted this article was referring to the feeling of the PS controller and how it worked for him/her, not the originality of the design. Because you cite no other problems with the controller, I'll have to reject your argument - I am sorry. The statement stands that the PS controller is, in fact, great. Would anyone else like to try to refute this?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, I'm planning on buying one. I already own a PS2 and would really enjoy some of the exclusive games that the Gamecube offers. It seems like it's nearing the end of its life cycle, which is actually a decent time to pick up a system. Now I can get all the great games for it at a less than new price.
Ah, here we go, looks like he pulled out.
But just being "for PS2" is different than being exclusively available on the PS2. I would say that most games released by third parties these days are for the XBox and PS2. The fact that the game is a PS2 exclusive is noteworthy and I certainly wouldn't assume exclusivity unless it was noted.
Do you have a link to that "open treasure" sound that I could download from?
You bring up a misconception about what it means to be "open source" when you say "with open source the users can migrate without a penny to something more secure". This is not inclusively correct. A commercial product may be open source and still cost a great deal of money - the only neccescary condition is that the source code is freely available to the end user.
If you buy a used video game, (at least at the EB I frequent) they will accept a return on that. I'm not sure of the time frame on it. I do quite a bit of research before I make a purchase and haven't had the need to return a game.
And you still sidestepped my statement. You should EA was forcing the upgrade cycle upon people - there are other football games out there, no one is being forced to do anything. Of course, if you want to see force, take a look at how Microsoft has handled it's Office suite, then you can see users being forced to upgrade. EA is not doing that - there are alternatives out there.
And is it not a good reason to focus all online resources on a single instance of the Madden franchise? I play Madden 2004, why should I have fewer servers available to me because EA has to keep the Madden 2003 servers active? Especially since most people who actually play the Madden series (again, which you are obviously not a part of) want to upgrade every year!
Have you actually looked at the Madden boxes? Oh, I guess not - I guess you just decided to post without any actual information. Nice work.
That's fine - there are alternatives out there to Madden. I like EA's plan because it focuses all the resources they've devoted to online play, on a single crop of games. Currently all the online department's money is being used on maintaining the quality of play on the 2004 servers, not 2004.
And why shouldn't EA be allowed to terminate online services for a game? They are in the business of selling games. You may ALSO want to note that most people who buy EA games, want the sequels so it's not that much of an issue for us. I was fine when the Madden 2003 servers went down because I had just bought 2004.
And I believe that EA's stance is that when you charge a user of XBox Live a monthly fee, the users who wish to play EA sports games are not the typical users who will pay an extra fee on top of that to play Madden; that's a more hardcore crowd (PSO, Everquest, people who are really into playing a lot of hours)
Your post is nothing but pro-Microsoft FUD.
The PC is king because the PC is a much more mature platform for these types of games. The online capability of consoles is still in its infancy.
Want to sign up to be a beta-tester? Oh, and if you get penis-enlargement e-mails, they're not because I sold your e-mail address - I swear. You should still by my imaginary console.
HEY! Wait a minute...
As for your request: Madden 2004, Tony Hawk 4, NBA 2K3. Just because there are no games that you want to play online doesn't mean that there are not games out there. All 3 of these games have very comprehensive online play and are not crude in any respect.
For the first time people own multiple consoles? Pardon me but I have owned multiple consoles since the NES generation. If you look at sales of the Madden series in the Genesis/SNES days, you'll see similar figures where the Genesis version outsold the SNES version by a lot - the Genesis one was just better. Multiple consoles in a household is not new.
That magazine that they sell in EB has monthly sales figures. You can get a subscription for it if you get an EB Edge Card which is like 10 bucks and gets you 5% off games you buy there - a good deal if you buy a few games per year.
And Madden 2004 has a great online experience that I enjoy quite frequently. My friends and I play tournaments and generally have a very enjoyable time.
My friend,
The fact that you spent time reproducing that graph in a Slashdot-friendly format concerns me. Perhaps I should take you out to a bar sometime and show you that there are things greater than the pleasure of a First Post - for instance; WOMEN. E-mail me and we'll make arrangements.
yours in friendship,
A. Diarrhea
Why? I am sure that there are less volatile markets you can get involved in. If you've got 40 billion dollars, don't risk that money in the video game industry! That's madness! It's a fickle industry where companies rise and fall overnight.
Please be less snide in the future. Thank you.
In a perfect world, this idea would work. You could forget about advertising dollars entirely and focus on making the best game. Releasing the game to market would lead to great profit margins because of the overall quality of the game. Unfortunately, advertising affects how many units are shipped to your local game store. Without the money spent on advertising, you may not be able to get a copy of that great game. Another point I would bring up is that if the game isn't sent to reviewers in the advertising blitz, even the Internet word-of-mouth campaigns that we've come to expect end. When no one has got a copy of the game, no one can tell you how great it is. The video game market is similar in ways to both the movie and music market. You've got to put big money in to get big money out.
You think the Chicago soundtrack was released on a CDR?
Your argument is that because the design of the PS controller is not original, the controller is not "great." I believe that the person who submitted this article was referring to the feeling of the PS controller and how it worked for him/her, not the originality of the design. Because you cite no other problems with the controller, I'll have to reject your argument - I am sorry. The statement stands that the PS controller is, in fact, great. Would anyone else like to try to refute this?