We'll host the items and make them searchable for free."
Emphasis mine. I might be reading too much into this, but I reckon they work with a company that rhymes with boogle.;)
Sort of like MS-DOS floppies and Amiga floppies - essentially the same thing, but with enough difference to prevent use of one on the other without special hardware.
Agree on all points. I think the shorter version of what I was trying to say would be "We're getting all the downsides of licencing, with none of the potential benefits".
I don't think that licencing in itself is intrinsically bad. Look at the sorts of rights we're entitled to with "Licenced, not sold" videogames from the 1990s: you're licencing the right to use the game, so you're permitted to make a backup to permit you to use that licence in the event the original is destroyed, you can obtain a replacement for a nominal disk-creating charge from the manufacturer, and so on.
Imagine being licenced a song in that sense- actually buying, with the CD, the right to listen to Rob Dougan's Furious Angels, no matter what you do to the original media, no matter what format you change it into, no matter where you acquire a CD or MP3 or WMA or OGG of it. That's what intellectual property should mean in this day and age - not some physical object but the IP in all its abstractness. With the DRM systems that exist, it should be entirely possible to track the usage "Rights" of the customer.
There's real potential there, but the reality we get is that we're licenced the limited right to listen to the music on the specific physical media which we purchased, and nothing more. Want to listen to it on your MP3 player? Pay for it again. CDs stolen? Pay for it again. We don't actually have Digital Rights to Manage, we're just buying a single, intractable commodity item when we buy a CD.
Very true. I recall that there was a scuffle in the late 1990s as Consumer Electronics attempted to design a portable games console and Computer Entertainment was having none of it. This apparently led to some unspoken ill-feeling between the divisions, which makes me wonder about Ken "PlayStation" Kuturagi's "Walkman of the 21st Century" comments regarding the PSP.
This may be a bit "out there", but have you tried talking with her about it, rather than (somewhat disrespectfully, I'd say) attempting to force her into using the browser you want her to use?
I would claim that a dev kit and some tech demos are sufficient to confirm a console's existence. The idea that a console should not be reported upon until the final hardeware is finished seems a trifle ludicrous to me.
Well, it's one thing showing people the console (although Nintendo's TGS trailer did an amazing job of conveying how it'd feel), and quite another letting them play it for a few minutes.
If games consoles shared a standard, it wouldn't matter, but Nintendo's software will only be playable on their consoles. No console sale, no game sales. By making their machine cheaper there's a greater chance someone will buy it over its competitors.
It's a big problem, alright, and the only real way around it is with good thirdparty support (as Nintendo are probably not going to ditch Mario, Link, and Samus any time soon). The problem is that good thirdparty support depends on good sales of the console, and good sales of the console depend on there being good games (usually from thirdparties). Chicken and egg.
That's exactly who they're targeting with the Revolution, based on comments in interviews. And the same approach worked for the DS, so they'll be feeling somewhat confident. I suspect this is their way of ducking out of the increasingly cutthroat specifications war, by carving out a new market niche.
The one thing that worries me is that word-of-mouth won't be as successful with the Revolution as it was with the DS, simply because you can't carry the Revolution with you and show it to people on the train (which from what I've heard has caused more than a few DS purchases). Having good POS and perhaps some sort of roadshow will be essential.
Journalists were playing Revolution games at the TGS; they even had a Metroid Prime demo on show. Dev kits shipped a short while back and are based on the GameCube APIs. Perhaps you should, you know, actually check these things.
Actually, the sales statistics are pretty much a tie overall, although MS and Nintendo can each pull out statistics which show them to be well in the lead. Good point about the 3-console market though, it's been an interesting situation and probably not a sustainable one in the long term.
There are some other markets which aren't so fussed about flashy graphics, for example current non-gamers probably have no idea about the graphical arms race. That's certainly been Nintendo's target market with the DS, and they've been shouting from the rooftops about the Revolution supposedly being less intimidating for outsiders.
I think you underestimate the young demographic's thirst for good visuals: just look at the number of tennage oiks on forums ranting on about how much more powerful Next Gen Console X is than all the others.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that if we can't choose on the basis of suitability, we might as well choose on the basis of experience.
The UK, maybe. Or perhaps France. Canada might be worth looking at. Japan? Who knows. Germany, Switzerland? Who can say?
You're right, I thought it switched from third to first person partway through there, but it's actually first person throughout.
We'll host the items and make them searchable for free." Emphasis mine. I might be reading too much into this, but I reckon they work with a company that rhymes with boogle. ;)
That's what I was thinking of, catweasel. It's been a while, obviously. ;)
True, I forgot it was down to the formatting, so it's not such a good example.
Sort of like MS-DOS floppies and Amiga floppies - essentially the same thing, but with enough difference to prevent use of one on the other without special hardware.
I feel short changed to the tune of about 57m.
Agree on all points. I think the shorter version of what I was trying to say would be "We're getting all the downsides of licencing, with none of the potential benefits".
Curses, beaten to it. You ommited the golden phrase "gigantic sacks of cash" though.
I don't think that licencing in itself is intrinsically bad. Look at the sorts of rights we're entitled to with "Licenced, not sold" videogames from the 1990s: you're licencing the right to use the game, so you're permitted to make a backup to permit you to use that licence in the event the original is destroyed, you can obtain a replacement for a nominal disk-creating charge from the manufacturer, and so on.
Imagine being licenced a song in that sense- actually buying, with the CD, the right to listen to Rob Dougan's Furious Angels, no matter what you do to the original media, no matter what format you change it into, no matter where you acquire a CD or MP3 or WMA or OGG of it. That's what intellectual property should mean in this day and age - not some physical object but the IP in all its abstractness. With the DRM systems that exist, it should be entirely possible to track the usage "Rights" of the customer.
There's real potential there, but the reality we get is that we're licenced the limited right to listen to the music on the specific physical media which we purchased, and nothing more. Want to listen to it on your MP3 player? Pay for it again. CDs stolen? Pay for it again. We don't actually have Digital Rights to Manage, we're just buying a single, intractable commodity item when we buy a CD.
Very true. I recall that there was a scuffle in the late 1990s as Consumer Electronics attempted to design a portable games console and Computer Entertainment was having none of it. This apparently led to some unspoken ill-feeling between the divisions, which makes me wonder about Ken "PlayStation" Kuturagi's "Walkman of the 21st Century" comments regarding the PSP.
This may be a bit "out there", but have you tried talking with her about it, rather than (somewhat disrespectfully, I'd say) attempting to force her into using the browser you want her to use?
I would claim that a dev kit and some tech demos are sufficient to confirm a console's existence. The idea that a console should not be reported upon until the final hardeware is finished seems a trifle ludicrous to me.
Well, it's one thing showing people the console (although Nintendo's TGS trailer did an amazing job of conveying how it'd feel), and quite another letting them play it for a few minutes.
Well, I long since accepted that Nintendo's games generally aim young, and that many people find that offputting. Doesn't bother me personally, mind.
Certainly, the quality game selection was no doubt the main reason for the sales, I think that the price sealed it for many people though.
If games consoles shared a standard, it wouldn't matter, but Nintendo's software will only be playable on their consoles. No console sale, no game sales. By making their machine cheaper there's a greater chance someone will buy it over its competitors.
I never really looked at it that way. Interesting. Perhaps Nintendo is investing in brand loyalty.
It's a big problem, alright, and the only real way around it is with good thirdparty support (as Nintendo are probably not going to ditch Mario, Link, and Samus any time soon). The problem is that good thirdparty support depends on good sales of the console, and good sales of the console depend on there being good games (usually from thirdparties). Chicken and egg.
That's exactly who they're targeting with the Revolution, based on comments in interviews. And the same approach worked for the DS, so they'll be feeling somewhat confident. I suspect this is their way of ducking out of the increasingly cutthroat specifications war, by carving out a new market niche.
The one thing that worries me is that word-of-mouth won't be as successful with the Revolution as it was with the DS, simply because you can't carry the Revolution with you and show it to people on the train (which from what I've heard has caused more than a few DS purchases). Having good POS and perhaps some sort of roadshow will be essential.
Journalists were playing Revolution games at the TGS; they even had a Metroid Prime demo on show. Dev kits shipped a short while back and are based on the GameCube APIs. Perhaps you should, you know, actually check these things.
Actually, the sales statistics are pretty much a tie overall, although MS and Nintendo can each pull out statistics which show them to be well in the lead. Good point about the 3-console market though, it's been an interesting situation and probably not a sustainable one in the long term.
There are some other markets which aren't so fussed about flashy graphics, for example current non-gamers probably have no idea about the graphical arms race. That's certainly been Nintendo's target market with the DS, and they've been shouting from the rooftops about the Revolution supposedly being less intimidating for outsiders.
I think you underestimate the young demographic's thirst for good visuals: just look at the number of tennage oiks on forums ranting on about how much more powerful Next Gen Console X is than all the others.