There's a difference in this case. Nintendo has learned from alot of its failings.
In this case Nintendo has the edge in that, in addition to name recognition, all of the old games are compatible. Additionally, they've been working on making the DS into a system that has developer friendly features (like the touch screen) while Sony has actually at times warned developers not to use certain features due to battery drain.
Finally, Sony is missing the 4th quarter in the US (aka, Christmas) so Nintendo has a captive audience.
Lastly, Nintendo has a bunch of cool features like voice chat and wireless.
Sony is not going to win this one.
I keep writing and calling my Senators about this stuff and get really very little response. This crap is going to kill our innovation edge and we'll all be stuck paying for it. It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of crap combined with everything else to trigger a revolt within a generation.
The DS is going to beat them out of the gate with a massive library of games while the PSP misses the US 4th Quarter completely. In addition, the stylus and 2 screens are going to give the developers more flexibility to make better, more interesting games.
I played the DS at E3, it's fun. The PSP is just going to be more of the same and it's going to get stomped.
Wow. I've never been so glad that I still have my old TV from 1997. 25" tube with stereo sound may not be much, but it works well enough.
Should be interesting to see these drop in price but I have to admit that it'd also be nice to have some stability in television technology for a little while.
Great to hear! I was at a conference this week and ended up talking up Firefox/Thunderbird quite a bit. I can't imagine that MS ever thought that open source could be the threat that it has become.
Seriously, part of the problem here is that people bought into personal attacks that had nothing to do away with issues... Many of which were lies.
We need to ban campaign commercials on TV and Radio and just have a series of debates throughout the campaign that are non-negotiated and open to any national party's candidate.
Make them debate in public. Make them answer the tough questions. Put in Moderators who will hold every candidate's feet to the fire.
Then we'll start to see an educated public make decisions.
[quote] Just because something is virtual, doesn't mean it it is without value[/quote]
No, but the player needs to actually own it and not just subscribe to it in order to have a legal right to that value.
If you join a gym, you don't have the right to sell the equipment there. If a particular cycle that you like to ride is out of service one day, you don't have a right to any cash value that you might associate with your usage that day, and if someone steals the equipment in the gym you don't have a right to sue the gym for the value of that equipment. You subscribe to a service, the provider isn't selling you anything other than that service and possibly a client to play it with. Beyond that, they own everything.
I hope to God that this doesn't cross over to any other countries because this sets a very bad precedent for online gaming services.
Suddenly, the items in a game aren't an aspect of a [i]service[/i]. This is the court in China saying that the items are, for all intents and purposes, real and that players actually own them. God help the developers if they have to roll back a server and players decide to sue for "lost wages", or if a game is no longer profitable for them and they decide to terminate the service, or if they choose to ban anybody and effectively seperate them from their "property".
The courts need to understand that the only group that has a legal reason to sue in these hacking cases (assuming that it was actually a hack and not just some idiot giving his password to the wrong person) is the game provider because the servers that belong to them and the network that belongs to them was compromised. The players have every right to quit and certainly could expect good customer service might restore stolen items, but the items are not real and they have no legal right to anything other than network access.
This court ruling frightens me if it makes it to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... Maybe I should have watched that show more often.
an eeeeevil monorail?
Very valid question. Just how do you stay with recent technology on such a project?
There's a difference in this case. Nintendo has learned from alot of its failings. In this case Nintendo has the edge in that, in addition to name recognition, all of the old games are compatible. Additionally, they've been working on making the DS into a system that has developer friendly features (like the touch screen) while Sony has actually at times warned developers not to use certain features due to battery drain. Finally, Sony is missing the 4th quarter in the US (aka, Christmas) so Nintendo has a captive audience. Lastly, Nintendo has a bunch of cool features like voice chat and wireless. Sony is not going to win this one.
Is determining how such information will aid the United States Government and RATT in successfully fighting the Dinobots
I keep writing and calling my Senators about this stuff and get really very little response. This crap is going to kill our innovation edge and we'll all be stuck paying for it. It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of crap combined with everything else to trigger a revolt within a generation.
Anyone want to put these devices on cars and trucks to try human frogger? ;)
The DS is going to beat them out of the gate with a massive library of games while the PSP misses the US 4th Quarter completely. In addition, the stylus and 2 screens are going to give the developers more flexibility to make better, more interesting games. I played the DS at E3, it's fun. The PSP is just going to be more of the same and it's going to get stomped.
Wow. I've never been so glad that I still have my old TV from 1997. 25" tube with stereo sound may not be much, but it works well enough. Should be interesting to see these drop in price but I have to admit that it'd also be nice to have some stability in television technology for a little while.
Great to hear! I was at a conference this week and ended up talking up Firefox/Thunderbird quite a bit. I can't imagine that MS ever thought that open source could be the threat that it has become.
Seriously, part of the problem here is that people bought into personal attacks that had nothing to do away with issues... Many of which were lies. We need to ban campaign commercials on TV and Radio and just have a series of debates throughout the campaign that are non-negotiated and open to any national party's candidate. Make them debate in public. Make them answer the tough questions. Put in Moderators who will hold every candidate's feet to the fire. Then we'll start to see an educated public make decisions.
I tried out the DS at E3 this year and it was pretty freaking unreal. Metroid Hunters is a blast. I can't wait to try out more of their games.
[quote] Just because something is virtual, doesn't mean it it is without value[/quote] No, but the player needs to actually own it and not just subscribe to it in order to have a legal right to that value. If you join a gym, you don't have the right to sell the equipment there. If a particular cycle that you like to ride is out of service one day, you don't have a right to any cash value that you might associate with your usage that day, and if someone steals the equipment in the gym you don't have a right to sue the gym for the value of that equipment. You subscribe to a service, the provider isn't selling you anything other than that service and possibly a client to play it with. Beyond that, they own everything.
I hope to God that this doesn't cross over to any other countries because this sets a very bad precedent for online gaming services. Suddenly, the items in a game aren't an aspect of a [i]service[/i]. This is the court in China saying that the items are, for all intents and purposes, real and that players actually own them. God help the developers if they have to roll back a server and players decide to sue for "lost wages", or if a game is no longer profitable for them and they decide to terminate the service, or if they choose to ban anybody and effectively seperate them from their "property". The courts need to understand that the only group that has a legal reason to sue in these hacking cases (assuming that it was actually a hack and not just some idiot giving his password to the wrong person) is the game provider because the servers that belong to them and the network that belongs to them was compromised. The players have every right to quit and certainly could expect good customer service might restore stolen items, but the items are not real and they have no legal right to anything other than network access. This court ruling frightens me if it makes it to the US.