You are refering to the Gizmondo, which actually was a product that existed beyond vaporware.
Wether or not the company was well fitted to bring it to the market in full force is up for debate, but unlike the Phantom the Gizmondo actually existed and units actually were manufactured and shipped.
It never would have been able to tackle the PSP as a media device, anyway. Not because it wasn't neat, but because they wouldn't have been able to out-market Sony.
As a game machine, Nintendo wouldn't have come off of 1% of their market share for that thing.
If you look at it that way, I would tend to agree. As a single business venture in the short term, the XBox itself is a failure. It generated losses and it didn't even perform as well as Microsoft initially hoped.
As a foot in the door, a name generating entry, and a place holder for later efforts, it's certainly fullfilled it's goals.
I think it's unrealistic to expect the 360 to generate enough revenue to recap the losses of the XBox, though that will really depend more on how much competition the PS3 gives.
However, someone at Microsoft once said (I'd look for the quote, but I don't know the exact wording) that Microsoft was in this game for the long haul and wasn't even too worried about profitability anytime soon.
I never said the 360 was doomed, or that Microsoft was doomed in the game console arena. They do have deep pockets and they're willing to dig far into them. I simply stated that dropping the Xbox and focusing on the 360 is a wise choice. (As someone pointed out, though, they haven't dropped it YET...)
The question is how long will stockholders be willing to play along with that game?
I don't see how you can say Microsoft is bad for ramping down Xbox production after a year of 360.
I never said they were bad. I said it was wise. In fact, I never actually said what Microsoft is doing, I spent more time talking about what traditionally happened in the past.
Anything that Microsoft does to the XBox is this point is probably aimed at focusing on the 360.
It seems to me you ignored far more than the "rest of my comment".
Microsoft and Sony are only complimenting Nintendo because they see Nintendo as zero threat.
Then they're not paying attention.
As a business, Nintendo won the last round. The Wii hasn't even been released yet and the public anticipation for it even from non-Nintendo game fans grows with each passing week.
Microsoft might be playing the nice guy now, but if they don't consider a high profile, unique and fun experience, with a lower price tag, higher set of quality launch titles, a fully compatible back catalog, and connectivity with the most popular game system (the DS), competitor as a threat, then the 360 will be round two of losses for Microsoft.
You are probably right though. Sony and Microsoft probably don't see this coming because they probably think the Wii has to "BE" the primary box in order to "win". Here's the thing, if EVERYONE has chosen two, then the Wii and one of the other two, then the Wii "Wins".
Or look at this another way. If only a small percentage of the people buy Wiis while most people buy either a PS3 or 360 while Nintendo continues to profit and the other two continue to pour rivers of money from their asses then Nintendo still wins.
The Nintendo fans will always buy a Nintendo system. Nintendo knows their market and knows how to profit from it. That's what comes with a 20 year position in the game console industry. Sony is still an angry teen and Microsoft is still just a child.
All the while the Wii is expected to perform exceptionally well compared to the Gamecube and possibly even the N64.
Actually since I worked retail between the NES and SNES phases I can tell you that Nintendo not only moved NES units after the SNES was released, but actually released new titles for the NES for at least a year after the release of the SNES. Between the SNES and the N64 things become a little harder to say for sure, but then I believe the Gameboy Color had taken up a larger space on the shelf than the previous gameboy line had ever had, and the rest of the space was dominated by PS1 and Saturn, so it's possible that the decline of the SNES popularity by that time was determined by factors outside of Nintendo's control. (By this time I was no longer working retail).
From the N64 to the Gamecube, it certainly was possible to still get an N64, but lack of 3rd party titles had long before already become a problem, and the only units I remember being available at retail in my area were those silly green and orange colored units.
Looking at modern times, let's not forget that there are still Gamecube games due out soon even into the release of the Wii. I do believe Twilight Princess is still a Gamecube game with Wii features added. There is also the new 2D Mario Adventure for the cube coming out.
The Gameboy Advance is still alive and kicking even though there is a huge shift from third parties to support the DS. Nintendo has repeatedly said that the DS has not replaced the GBA and that the GBA is still alive and moving in large numbers.
On the Sony side of things, the PS1 still had fresh titles for at least a year after the release of the PS2, and you can expect at least that kind of support for the PS2 after the release of the PS3. I say this because there are still several titles due out for the PS2 over the next year.
So, in reality, Microsoft dropping the XBox so soon after the 360 is a move that ISN'T the norm in the gaming industry. Some might say Sega did this, but Sega seems to have had a history of dropping support for a system the moment it's popularity declines beyond a certain level. Some people think they should have stuck it out with the Dreamcast even though we all know they had to think of their investors first.
Overall though, don't kid yourself. The XBox didn't do that well. Most of it's titles were available on either the PS2 or the Gamecube, if not both. The rest were available on the PC if not at the same time then shortly after. It only marginally had 2nd place over Nintendo and Nintendo's top selling titles at any time period were moving in far greater numbers than all but a very few of the highest rated Xbox games, and the rest of the titles that were available were losing sales to the PS2 version (and in some cases even the Gamecube version!)
Xbox Live! was the only thing that kept the XBox popular and that's the only thing pushing the 360.
Microsoft dropping the XBox might seem like it's coming pretty quickly by the gaming industry standards, but considering the losses the XBox has generously given the company it is wise on their part to ditch it now and focus their resources on the 360 which actually has some chance of success.
The XBox was not a success. It was a dismal failure. It's just a failure with a lot of fans. Kind of like the Dreamcast, though I sometimes think the Dreamcast has more fans now than it did while it was still alive.
I just feel like RTS/FPS is really (pardon the marketroid term) thinking inside the box.
I agree, but just because a game is classified as either an RTS or FPS doesn't mean it has to fit every traditional mold.
There are plenty of ways to bring new ideas to old gameplay styles.
And of course who said that old ideas can't be reimplimented with new gameplay styles?
As a wannabe game designer, I always invision new ideas. For instance, why can't there be a Real Time Strategy Game where you play as a neutral third party whose sole goal is to keep two factions at war with each other from annihilating one another for as long as you can? Or what about a first person shooter game where you [and maybe some friends] control hordes of drones and henchmen in defense of your huge criminal mastermine underground lair while repeated intrusion attempts are made by generic "Duke" and "Sarge" type heroes.
Tried and true gameplay elements can always be merged with new ideas. Unfortunately those new ideas seem to be better special effects and more awesome weapons. I'm also not at all a fan of this recent push towards more realistic war-based First Person Shooters. I don't WANT to play the role of some soldier taking part in some generic land based war that mimicks real world situations.
And I'm mildly amused I was modded to oblivion for a "spore might suck" sort of comment.
Well, Spore MIGHT suck. But it might also be the breath of fresh air that the gaming industry needs. It might also spark the pathway for a whole slew of Real Time Strategy Games on the Wii when people realize exactly how well suited the controller is for those sorts of games.
I'm going to buy Spore for sure. I do this knowing good and well that it's a "Sandbox" sort of game in the same way Sim City is. This helps make my expectations more realistic.
Remember though that Spore, be it good or bad, will most likely come to the Wii. Will Wright seems to really like the Wii and has mentioned he wants to take Spore to just about any platform he can shoehorn it onto. (I believe he even mentioned Cell phones... ack!)
DS and Wii versions of spore seem to make more sense to me than PS3 and 360 versions anyway, since the controller can act more like just like a pointing device.
Keeping that mindset, Will Wright could be one of EA's most valuable assets when it comes to the Wii. A pointing device that works more like a mouse than Gamepads have been able to will make games like Sim City and The Sims seem a bit more natural.
Though shovelware such as that isn't exactly what I call revolutionary.
because there is no prayer of anything on the Wii looking as realistic as the most realistic games on the PS3.
That may be true, but just remember the law of deminishing returns.
I'll take a PS2 game as my example. God of War. How much better would it have to look before you thought God of War totally sucked visually?
Since the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2 (reasonably), and the Wii is somewhat more powerful than the Gamecube, I don't expect to see a shortage of excellent looking games on the Gamecube.
As realistic as the PS3/Xbox? Probably not. So far below them that it will matter? I don't expect that either.
Not everything is going to look like a cell shaded cartoon or a bubbly game full of plastic toys. Not that I mind that particular style or anything, but...
Multi-platform releases for the GC would often be the same price as they were for the other systems (around $50 at release), but generally everything else (exclusive third party and first party) was on average about $40 or less.
On top of that, the GC was easier to develop for than the Xbox and PS2, but not by that large of a margin. The gap has widen this generation though. The Wii is substantially easier to cope with than either the PS3 or the 360 if for no other reason than it is essentially a beefed up Gamecube.
The PS3 at least has the PS2 compatibility advantage over the 360, because Sony doesn't want to kill the PS2 just yet. The Microsoft hasn't officially killed the Xbox (as far as I know), but they aren't exactly making great efforts to keep it alive either.
Sure, I *could* save up for an HDTV and PS3 in a few months, but right now that money is going into savings for travel, a house, pet care, a new laptop, among other things that are higher on my priority list than these.
In other words, a new Mac and a Nintendo Wii are more important than a new HDTV and a PS3?
Yeah, I think a lot of us feel the same way. *snicker*
Seriously. Let us know how much money you get. I'd be interested in seeing how many people are willing to just give you money because the idea just seemed good at the moment.
If you get even $10 I'll be impressed. It only takes one sucker.
(btw the GameCube appealed to me because it can be played by 4 players, I hope Wii keeps that up)
Since the Wii is supposed to be fully backwards compatible with the Gamecube, you can pretty much count on at least 4 player support from traditional GC games. I don't see any reason why Nintendo would stop with that though. For that matter, since the controllers are wireless, why stop at 4?
Seems to me that virus writers would want to target Macs because of all the talk about how Macs are less succeptable to viruses. It would be more prestigious to create a virus that spreads like wildfire through the "impenetrable" Mac community than to create one for the "wide open" Windows community.
Don't worry, McAfee and Norton are working on it as we speak. As soon as they can put together something more fearful than the cute little proofs of concept that have been floating around expect them to announce a full "epidemic".
It's not legal? It's not ethical? It's not honest? It doesn't matter. Their business model REQUIRES them act in this way. Though not officially, of course.
Buying a different mouse is a work-around for the problem, sure, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Wrong. It's only a problem if you bought a Mighty Mouse, and if you configure your Mac online at Apple's web-store there is nothing saying you can't just leave the Mighty Mouse out of your cart and choose a more appropriate mouse, such as the Logitech MX 1000 Laser Mouse. I'm sure it has plenty of mouse buttons for most people. And yes, they work with OSX.
In total, they ended up about on par with nintendo
Actually, they lost their ass to Nintendo. "On Par" has absolutely nothing to do with Market Share. It has everything to do with Profit Margin, and in that area Nintendo took a nice healthy shit all over Microsoft then wiped their ass with Sony.
This year, many of the teachers were switched from Win98 to WinXP. This was hard for them. Icons were not in the same place.
I do mostly agree with you, but it's worth pointing out that with just a few clicks Windows XP can be made to look and function almost exactly like Windows ME/2000. In fact, nearly everyone I know disables the new start menu and reverts to classic mode.
Some people I know go as far as to change everything they can to make it look as much like 95/98 as possible. Not just because they're used to it, but because with all of the extra crap disabled Windows responds a little quicker.
Though many users will just use the system however it was configured when they aquired it.
The correct answer to this question is "You are not a part of our target market."
The problem with this line of thinking (in regards to the music industry) is that they are quickly isolating their entire target market.
They are producing a lot of music and shifting the trends artificially in a direction that is shaking loose anyone who was once keen on purchasing their products.
The end result is music shops that are shrinking in size (in terms of both space and staff) and more and more customers are going to purchasing individual songs from iTunes (or pirating).
While the music industry might consider digital sales a partial win, they certainly consider pirating a sign of failure, and rather than blame themselves they would rather just place the blame on their "target market".
"You are not a part of our target market."
That line of reasoning makes sense in regards to many goods and services, but when it comes to the intangible world of music and movies it can only serve to hurt them in the end.
"I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me."
I realize this is your SIG, but it would have been really funny had it been one of his quotes. The idea of this happening to the president is just kind of funny in an "America's Funniest White House Videos" kind of way.
Keita Takahashi, as a game designer, is not slave to the limitations of the hardware.
Unless I'm thinking of someone else, I'm pretty sure Keita Takahashi isn't a game designer at all. He doesn't even play games, and never even liked them much. He has said so himself before. He considers himself an artist and he wasn't really even thrilled at the idea of working on video game design, but it was a job that came along and he took it.
I tried to find the interview where he admits this, but I failed. If I'm thinking of someone else, someone feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Keita Takahashi. Katamari Damacy. Yeah, same dude, I'm sure of it.
He had a great idea with Katamari Damacy. This doesn't make him a game design genius by any means. He's still too new to the game for anyone to know if he can continually innovate. I'm not saying he won't prove himself, but if I had place value in opinions, Shigeru Miyamoto would win out over Keita Takahashi in my eyes.
I'll further your comments by saying that there are a lot of shit books being published, just like there are a lot of shit games.
While the whole world might think "reading a book" is a better way to spend your time than playing a video game, that statement only holds true when the quality of the book is very high and the quality of the game is very low.
The biggest difference is that there are a whole lot more really great books than there are half way decent games these days.
I blame the popularity of sports, FPS, and "Button Sequence" games on the overall decline in mass appeal of video games. Lack of innovation and increased amount of rehashed titles means really high crap factor.
Revolution could change that. But that remains to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
You are refering to the Gizmondo, which actually was a product that existed beyond vaporware.
Wether or not the company was well fitted to bring it to the market in full force is up for debate, but unlike the Phantom the Gizmondo actually existed and units actually were manufactured and shipped.
It never would have been able to tackle the PSP as a media device, anyway. Not because it wasn't neat, but because they wouldn't have been able to out-market Sony.
As a game machine, Nintendo wouldn't have come off of 1% of their market share for that thing.
It still did better than the Phantom ever will.
If you look at it that way, I would tend to agree. As a single business venture in the short term, the XBox itself is a failure. It generated losses and it didn't even perform as well as Microsoft initially hoped.
As a foot in the door, a name generating entry, and a place holder for later efforts, it's certainly fullfilled it's goals.
I think it's unrealistic to expect the 360 to generate enough revenue to recap the losses of the XBox, though that will really depend more on how much competition the PS3 gives.
However, someone at Microsoft once said (I'd look for the quote, but I don't know the exact wording) that Microsoft was in this game for the long haul and wasn't even too worried about profitability anytime soon.
I never said the 360 was doomed, or that Microsoft was doomed in the game console arena. They do have deep pockets and they're willing to dig far into them. I simply stated that dropping the Xbox and focusing on the 360 is a wise choice. (As someone pointed out, though, they haven't dropped it YET...)
The question is how long will stockholders be willing to play along with that game?
I don't see how you can say Microsoft is bad for ramping down Xbox production after a year of 360.
I never said they were bad. I said it was wise. In fact, I never actually said what Microsoft is doing, I spent more time talking about what traditionally happened in the past.
Anything that Microsoft does to the XBox is this point is probably aimed at focusing on the 360.
It seems to me you ignored far more than the "rest of my comment".
What if that homeless guy on the street turned out to be FROM THE FUTURE! Then you'd care! Ohh yess... He just might know a thing or two!
I do admit we don't see that very often...
Microsoft and Sony are only complimenting Nintendo because they see Nintendo as zero threat.
Then they're not paying attention.
As a business, Nintendo won the last round. The Wii hasn't even been released yet and the public anticipation for it even from non-Nintendo game fans grows with each passing week.
Microsoft might be playing the nice guy now, but if they don't consider a high profile, unique and fun experience, with a lower price tag, higher set of quality launch titles, a fully compatible back catalog, and connectivity with the most popular game system (the DS), competitor as a threat, then the 360 will be round two of losses for Microsoft.
You are probably right though. Sony and Microsoft probably don't see this coming because they probably think the Wii has to "BE" the primary box in order to "win". Here's the thing, if EVERYONE has chosen two, then the Wii and one of the other two, then the Wii "Wins".
Or look at this another way. If only a small percentage of the people buy Wiis while most people buy either a PS3 or 360 while Nintendo continues to profit and the other two continue to pour rivers of money from their asses then Nintendo still wins.
The Nintendo fans will always buy a Nintendo system. Nintendo knows their market and knows how to profit from it. That's what comes with a 20 year position in the game console industry. Sony is still an angry teen and Microsoft is still just a child.
All the while the Wii is expected to perform exceptionally well compared to the Gamecube and possibly even the N64.
Actually since I worked retail between the NES and SNES phases I can tell you that Nintendo not only moved NES units after the SNES was released, but actually released new titles for the NES for at least a year after the release of the SNES. Between the SNES and the N64 things become a little harder to say for sure, but then I believe the Gameboy Color had taken up a larger space on the shelf than the previous gameboy line had ever had, and the rest of the space was dominated by PS1 and Saturn, so it's possible that the decline of the SNES popularity by that time was determined by factors outside of Nintendo's control. (By this time I was no longer working retail).
From the N64 to the Gamecube, it certainly was possible to still get an N64, but lack of 3rd party titles had long before already become a problem, and the only units I remember being available at retail in my area were those silly green and orange colored units.
Looking at modern times, let's not forget that there are still Gamecube games due out soon even into the release of the Wii. I do believe Twilight Princess is still a Gamecube game with Wii features added. There is also the new 2D Mario Adventure for the cube coming out.
The Gameboy Advance is still alive and kicking even though there is a huge shift from third parties to support the DS. Nintendo has repeatedly said that the DS has not replaced the GBA and that the GBA is still alive and moving in large numbers.
On the Sony side of things, the PS1 still had fresh titles for at least a year after the release of the PS2, and you can expect at least that kind of support for the PS2 after the release of the PS3. I say this because there are still several titles due out for the PS2 over the next year.
So, in reality, Microsoft dropping the XBox so soon after the 360 is a move that ISN'T the norm in the gaming industry. Some might say Sega did this, but Sega seems to have had a history of dropping support for a system the moment it's popularity declines beyond a certain level. Some people think they should have stuck it out with the Dreamcast even though we all know they had to think of their investors first.
Overall though, don't kid yourself. The XBox didn't do that well. Most of it's titles were available on either the PS2 or the Gamecube, if not both. The rest were available on the PC if not at the same time then shortly after. It only marginally had 2nd place over Nintendo and Nintendo's top selling titles at any time period were moving in far greater numbers than all but a very few of the highest rated Xbox games, and the rest of the titles that were available were losing sales to the PS2 version (and in some cases even the Gamecube version!)
Xbox Live! was the only thing that kept the XBox popular and that's the only thing pushing the 360.
Microsoft dropping the XBox might seem like it's coming pretty quickly by the gaming industry standards, but considering the losses the XBox has generously given the company it is wise on their part to ditch it now and focus their resources on the 360 which actually has some chance of success.
The XBox was not a success. It was a dismal failure. It's just a failure with a lot of fans. Kind of like the Dreamcast, though I sometimes think the Dreamcast has more fans now than it did while it was still alive.
I'll second that. I recommend AVG to most people I know and haven't had any complaints about it.
I even know of several instances where it stepped in and prevented potential infections so I would say it has been doing it's job.
The same could be said of the Game Boy Color compared to the original green screen Game Boy.
Yeah, because, you know -- the Gameboy just kind of died off after that. Oh... wait...
I just feel like RTS/FPS is really (pardon the marketroid term) thinking inside the box.
I agree, but just because a game is classified as either an RTS or FPS doesn't mean it has to fit every traditional mold.
There are plenty of ways to bring new ideas to old gameplay styles.
And of course who said that old ideas can't be reimplimented with new gameplay styles?
As a wannabe game designer, I always invision new ideas. For instance, why can't there be a Real Time Strategy Game where you play as a neutral third party whose sole goal is to keep two factions at war with each other from annihilating one another for as long as you can? Or what about a first person shooter game where you [and maybe some friends] control hordes of drones and henchmen in defense of your huge criminal mastermine underground lair while repeated intrusion attempts are made by generic "Duke" and "Sarge" type heroes.
Tried and true gameplay elements can always be merged with new ideas. Unfortunately those new ideas seem to be better special effects and more awesome weapons. I'm also not at all a fan of this recent push towards more realistic war-based First Person Shooters. I don't WANT to play the role of some soldier taking part in some generic land based war that mimicks real world situations.
And I'm mildly amused I was modded to oblivion for a "spore might suck" sort of comment.
Well, Spore MIGHT suck. But it might also be the breath of fresh air that the gaming industry needs. It might also spark the pathway for a whole slew of Real Time Strategy Games on the Wii when people realize exactly how well suited the controller is for those sorts of games.
I'm going to buy Spore for sure. I do this knowing good and well that it's a "Sandbox" sort of game in the same way Sim City is. This helps make my expectations more realistic.
Remember though that Spore, be it good or bad, will most likely come to the Wii. Will Wright seems to really like the Wii and has mentioned he wants to take Spore to just about any platform he can shoehorn it onto. (I believe he even mentioned Cell phones... ack!)
DS and Wii versions of spore seem to make more sense to me than PS3 and 360 versions anyway, since the controller can act more like just like a pointing device.
Keeping that mindset, Will Wright could be one of EA's most valuable assets when it comes to the Wii. A pointing device that works more like a mouse than Gamepads have been able to will make games like Sim City and The Sims seem a bit more natural.
Though shovelware such as that isn't exactly what I call revolutionary.
because there is no prayer of anything on the Wii looking as realistic as the most realistic games on the PS3.
...
That may be true, but just remember the law of deminishing returns.
I'll take a PS2 game as my example. God of War. How much better would it have to look before you thought God of War totally sucked visually?
Since the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2 (reasonably), and the Wii is somewhat more powerful than the Gamecube, I don't expect to see a shortage of excellent looking games on the Gamecube.
As realistic as the PS3/Xbox? Probably not. So far below them that it will matter? I don't expect that either.
Not everything is going to look like a cell shaded cartoon or a bubbly game full of plastic toys. Not that I mind that particular style or anything, but
Untrue in many cases.
Multi-platform releases for the GC would often be the same price as they were for the other systems (around $50 at release), but generally everything else (exclusive third party and first party) was on average about $40 or less.
On top of that, the GC was easier to develop for than the Xbox and PS2, but not by that large of a margin. The gap has widen this generation though. The Wii is substantially easier to cope with than either the PS3 or the 360 if for no other reason than it is essentially a beefed up Gamecube.
The PS3 at least has the PS2 compatibility advantage over the 360, because Sony doesn't want to kill the PS2 just yet. The Microsoft hasn't officially killed the Xbox (as far as I know), but they aren't exactly making great efforts to keep it alive either.
Sure, I *could* save up for an HDTV and PS3 in a few months, but right now that money is going into savings for travel, a house, pet care, a new laptop, among other things that are higher on my priority list than these.
In other words, a new Mac and a Nintendo Wii are more important than a new HDTV and a PS3?
Yeah, I think a lot of us feel the same way. *snicker*
Seriously. Let us know how much money you get. I'd be interested in seeing how many people are willing to just give you money because the idea just seemed good at the moment.
If you get even $10 I'll be impressed. It only takes one sucker.
(btw the GameCube appealed to me because it can be played by 4 players, I hope Wii keeps that up)
Since the Wii is supposed to be fully backwards compatible with the Gamecube, you can pretty much count on at least 4 player support from traditional GC games. I don't see any reason why Nintendo would stop with that though. For that matter, since the controllers are wireless, why stop at 4?
Seems to me that virus writers would want to target Macs because of all the talk about how Macs are less succeptable to viruses. It would be more prestigious to create a virus that spreads like wildfire through the "impenetrable" Mac community than to create one for the "wide open" Windows community.
Don't worry, McAfee and Norton are working on it as we speak. As soon as they can put together something more fearful than the cute little proofs of concept that have been floating around expect them to announce a full "epidemic".
It's not legal? It's not ethical? It's not honest? It doesn't matter. Their business model REQUIRES them act in this way. Though not officially, of course.
Buying a different mouse is a work-around for the problem, sure, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Wrong. It's only a problem if you bought a Mighty Mouse, and if you configure your Mac online at Apple's web-store there is nothing saying you can't just leave the Mighty Mouse out of your cart and choose a more appropriate mouse, such as the Logitech MX 1000 Laser Mouse. I'm sure it has plenty of mouse buttons for most people. And yes, they work with OSX.
In total, they ended up about on par with nintendo
Actually, they lost their ass to Nintendo. "On Par" has absolutely nothing to do with Market Share. It has everything to do with Profit Margin, and in that area Nintendo took a nice healthy shit all over Microsoft then wiped their ass with Sony.
This year, many of the teachers were switched from Win98 to WinXP. This was hard for them. Icons were not in the same place.
I do mostly agree with you, but it's worth pointing out that with just a few clicks Windows XP can be made to look and function almost exactly like Windows ME/2000. In fact, nearly everyone I know disables the new start menu and reverts to classic mode.
Some people I know go as far as to change everything they can to make it look as much like 95/98 as possible. Not just because they're used to it, but because with all of the extra crap disabled Windows responds a little quicker.
Though many users will just use the system however it was configured when they aquired it.
The correct answer to this question is "You are not a part of our target market."
The problem with this line of thinking (in regards to the music industry) is that they are quickly isolating their entire target market.
They are producing a lot of music and shifting the trends artificially in a direction that is shaking loose anyone who was once keen on purchasing their products.
The end result is music shops that are shrinking in size (in terms of both space and staff) and more and more customers are going to purchasing individual songs from iTunes (or pirating).
While the music industry might consider digital sales a partial win, they certainly consider pirating a sign of failure, and rather than blame themselves they would rather just place the blame on their "target market".
"You are not a part of our target market."
That line of reasoning makes sense in regards to many goods and services, but when it comes to the intangible world of music and movies it can only serve to hurt them in the end.
I think it goes without saying that Wii liked "Revolution" better.
"I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me."
I realize this is your SIG, but it would have been really funny had it been one of his quotes. The idea of this happening to the president is just kind of funny in an "America's Funniest White House Videos" kind of way.
Keita Takahashi, as a game designer, is not slave to the limitations of the hardware.
Unless I'm thinking of someone else, I'm pretty sure Keita Takahashi isn't a game designer at all. He doesn't even play games, and never even liked them much. He has said so himself before. He considers himself an artist and he wasn't really even thrilled at the idea of working on video game design, but it was a job that came along and he took it.
I tried to find the interview where he admits this, but I failed. If I'm thinking of someone else, someone feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Keita Takahashi. Katamari Damacy. Yeah, same dude, I'm sure of it.
He had a great idea with Katamari Damacy. This doesn't make him a game design genius by any means. He's still too new to the game for anyone to know if he can continually innovate. I'm not saying he won't prove himself, but if I had place value in opinions, Shigeru Miyamoto would win out over Keita Takahashi in my eyes.
And for the record, I love Katamari.
I'll further your comments by saying that there are a lot of shit books being published, just like there are a lot of shit games.
While the whole world might think "reading a book" is a better way to spend your time than playing a video game, that statement only holds true when the quality of the book is very high and the quality of the game is very low.
The biggest difference is that there are a whole lot more really great books than there are half way decent games these days.
I blame the popularity of sports, FPS, and "Button Sequence" games on the overall decline in mass appeal of video games. Lack of innovation and increased amount of rehashed titles means really high crap factor.
Revolution could change that. But that remains to be seen.