Yeah, obviously you're right ont he sole fact that the fake pics do not show the plugs in the back of the system.
Also, I doubt the shape would mimic the fat PS3 that closely, as the cooling solution is probably radically different.
I imagine that Sony expects to see some kind of boom, then a decline, and then the redesign for the cheapskates who wait until the end of a generation and save a ton of cash.
You know, it's not clear that a PS3 itself costs more than $300 in parts. The factories and the like must be paid for, and that's what Reuters is really talking about, though they aren't clear enough.
All those stories of $1000 or $800 PS3s were probably largely bullshit, and certainly are today. I imagine that in terms of parts and labor, every PS3 is sold at a profit, but not enough of a profit to pay for the factories yet. That's how Sony works: they engineer kickass factories. The entire reason the Cell was selected was because of how they were expected to be cheaper to mass produce.
Obviously the problem was just that Intel makes a better laptop processor, and not that IBM is some kind of awful supplier. Apple really was being very stupid about how they order stuff, and this is minimized with Intel only because Apple is a small fluctuation to a huge PC processor market.
They de-specialized because they are too unpredictable. Apple was smart to go this route, but I really don't think it's IBM's "fault" except that they just aren't as good at making laptop processors in general.
And we do need to get use to high numbers of parallel processors. It's clearly the future. Things don't happen faster than light, and we're approaching that kind of limit with processors. Smaller helps, but more processors is the best way to beat this problem. The coding hurdles will be overcome.
I agree that Sony is likely to drop price again before the end of March.
But I kinda think you're wrong about the value of a PS3 blu-ray player. They aren't that expensive compared to an average blu-ray player, and you have to keep in perspective that these blu-ray players often sit next to expensive televisions. I have to add that the PS3 needs a sound system to deliver the kind of sound most people want, so there might be a huge advantage to buying a normal bluray player if you lack a modern sound system. And of course many have to buy a USB IR device of some kind to use a remote control (I just use my PS2 remote).
I do not see a lot of living rooms relying on a PC or laptop for DVD playback, and perhaps this will begin to change more, but I doubt the PC is a statistical competitor to PS3s and normal players in the living room.
Note that the PS3 streams content very nicely, plays a lot of free demos, will probably be capable of renting movies online, and is future proof relative to other blu-ray players. And it's technically a PC if you add linux (and I do use my PS3 for MAME and word processing, so it's a legit point for a tiny set of the market).
I really don't understand how any of the other blu-ray players are selling well, and I think it's absurd to recommend anything but either a PS3 or a PC drive like you're saying to those who want blu-ray. And I have to ask what a PC does for your TV that a PS3 doesn't do? PCs and desks work very well together for work and surfing the internet in a way the living room couch can be a bit of a hassle. Why not leave the PC in the office when TVs can be in the capable hands of an xbox or PS3?
PS2 functionality can be had for very little by simply getting a PS2. They retail for 130$ new, and it's so hard to get a 60gb model that you are probably a lot better off with one of the more energy efficient newer models. I'd wait until these new ones come out, because I think there will be a price drop before April (MGS4 + Home time).
You can put your seperate PS2 in another room (with your old TV, perhaps). You can put off the purchase for a while, saving you some money.
Hell, if you are really really wanting to play PS2 games, forget the PS3 for a year or so and you have plenty of cheap games to enjoy. You'll save a ton in the long run. But I find that once I had my PS3, I really didn't want to play PS2 games, becauze they were generally kinda ugly, and graphics actually do matter a lot to game enjoyment.
While I wish all PS3's had emotion engines built in, the fact is that it's not that big a deal when PS2 are still being made. The main problem is that many customers will expect the functionality and be rudely surprised.
Absolutely true, and most folks ignore it. Though if you factor in the entire cost of setting up the product line, factories and all that, Sony was losing money on each PS3 sold (financial statements bear this out), but for sheer hardware costs, it's not actually that clear if the $599 us dollar for maximum damage were really costing Sony $800 in parts as the financial news people were saying. Of course Sony isn't going to refute a story that makes its console seem like a terrific bargain.
Sony has one core competency: making electronics factories work well. Everything else stems from that (except the media stuff). Unlike Nintendo, which has embarrassed itself with its inability to produce the wiis it needs, and unlike MS, which has been a manufacturing disaster last gen and this gen, Sony seems to have things under control.
They had such idiots marketing their product that I was sure it would fail, but people really think the PS3 is worth a lot more thana wii or a 360. It's got that cachet, and now that a PS3 is $399, going on $350 (less than a wii forced bundle), with all the games and blu-ray stuff, 2008 is just full of news for Sony.
All these things are happening at the same time Home, Europe DVR, and the big games are coming out, and I think Sony had all this crap on a chart three years ago, knowing that its late adopting PS2 family (generally not affluent people) would respond to something like this.
I expect to see Sony surprise everyone with some big announcement we haven't expected in the next three months to add some jazz to the rest of the PS3 soup.
It will take a lot for the PS3 to dethrone my 360's awesome game selection, but somehow I think Sony knows exactly what it's doing.
you should express your thoughts in sentences. Those require a noun and a verb. You obviously have the noun part down, and all you need is the verb.
For example, you could say "Red Steel sucks" as a way of telling me you agree that the wii has awful third party games at this time. I think that might be what you're saying, because nobody in their right mind could suggest that's an example of the wii's success.
Or, you could be attempting to list the wii's stellar third party catalog to refute me... but the list is tiny and of terrible quality, far inferior to the PS3 or 360 by light years, so I guess that's unlikely.
Third amendment, and it applies during war or peace. 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to be armed so they can assemble into militia and attack the government.
I don't want to call you a jackass, but I looked up your post history because you keep replying to me with random, indecipherable lists. Is English not a first language for you?
I think the Duke Nuken Forever that was nearly finished several years ago would be fine for the wii.
But if you develop it for the wii, you might as well develop it for the PS2. You're probably getting rid of multiplayer, and you're getting rid of all the super profitable expansion maps, players, songs, whatever. You're also trying to sell a crude game on a Nintendo, and trying to sell a third party game on a Nintendo. Nintendo has been a dick to third parties, and some of them just don't want to bother overcoming the storage and power limitations of the wii when the PS3 and 360 are actually selling plenty of systems to be very successful.
You can blame the developer, but it's really his choice. It would make a lot more sense to blame Nintendo for running off all its developers over decades.
I like how you throw in the swipe at Sony, even though they have been pretty awesome to developers, and it shows in their 8000+ game library for the PS1 and PS2 *each*. YEah, Sony is run by arrogant morons who are marketing to the Autistic, and their system costs a zillion dollars, but in many parts of the world, this system is still outselling the Wii. Why? because it's all about the games, and the wii follows a nintendo tradition of offering few third party games. The stories of developers flocking to the wii are old... the stories of developers flocking back to the PS3 are fresh (and at Fry's I noticed you cannot get a Wii bundle for less than $369, but you can get a PS3 for $399 with that dumb blu-ray player that a lot of people will want.)
The wii's controller is pretty innovative, but the real innovation comes on the discs, and I'm seeing more innovation on the 360 and PS3s these days.
Combine all this, especially the storage and online issues, with the fact that the wii has dominated mostly in the economy that is growing the least and has a shrinking disposable income, and you understand why all the fascinating third party games are coming out on the two "loser" systems.
Oh, NOW graphics matter? So unless a PC is capable of Wii like graphics, it just doesn't count?
Or should we take the same logic and apply it to the 360, and only count systems that are up to its level of graphics: millions of PCs, PS3s and 360s.
Truth is, the wii is not a large source of revenue for 3rd parties. I think that can change a lot, but historically, Nintendo consoles are tougher for third parties to make a lot of money on. When you consider that a lot of new profit windows are opening up with expansion maps, players, songs, online multiplayer, even items in Home eventually, you realize that the wii is actually even more comparatively limited for profit than prior nintendo systems. Those $2 cars on Need for Speed are sheer profit.
I like the wii, but it's not as perfect as its amazing popularity suggests.
But the games you mention are nowhere near the quality of 3rd party 360 and Playstation games. I believe the key to a good system is strong third party support. This leads to new directions in games. A controller can only do so much, but GTA, MGS, Halo, all went in interesting directions.
Zelda, Mario, to lesser extent Metroid all sort of rely on the same basic ideas.
The 360 does not hold your disc in place like most disc players.
You probably need to leave it horizontal to let gravity help. And be as acareful as possible not to jostle the 360 when a disc is playing.
I agree: the games and online variety on the 360 are great, and it would have been a terrific system had it been more robust, but the fact is that if MS had taken the time to engineer this thing to, well, PS3 quality, it would have been released with the PS3. The 360's game library is partly due to it being the only super console for a year.
There is something to be said for minimizing the visual impact of failure.
With the totally unreliable Win 95, we had this brilliant blue screen to punch us in the face.
With the 360, we get this kinda cool looking ring of light.
Why? When a PS3 fails, you get a tiny red dot (like the wifi led, but red). When a PS2 fails, you might get the "bad disc" message, but there's really no impact.
MS has one consistent problem: over design. There was no reason to spend time developing the coolest failure indication possible.
I loved my gameboy, and it's one of the most revolutionary line of electronics.
But Gameboys had massive recalls, and were bulky clumsy fisherprice style electronics. They did huge things for gaming and were damn near ubiquitious, but they are not really as tough as the tough huge plastic shell would suggest.
Kinda thing sometimes that nintendo fans are just more nostaligic than fans of Sony or Sega or MS. After all, many of the Wii's best games are simply rehashes of 20 year old plots and characters. Enjoyable as hell, but where are the new third party franchises? Where's the Uncharted or Gears of War?
Something about that knack to love the past leads a lot of nintendo fans to remember their old consoles like I remember old girlfriends. Just an interesting aspect of things, I think.
Actually there are people who lost their jobs when their game company went out of business or was not profitable enough to avoid purchase by EA type companies. Imagine making a great game only to find that 60% of the users did not pay for it (and lies that none of them would have paid for it are frankly, ridiculous when these folks had $1000 computers). Sometimes just ten percent more profit would have saved jobs. It's impossible to point at exactly who game piracy has harmed, but it's genuinely harmed some people.
Including everyone who likes games, since there are surely fewer great ones thanks to this phenom. Stealing games is actually pretty much identical to stealing physical stuff from a profit perspective, and that's what counts. A lot of physical inventory is thrown away too. Is it ok to steal one pack of gum if you know that eventually, a store will throw away five packages of gum instead of 6? No, because you have reduced demand for gum. You are profiting where others must pay.
Nobody's perfect, and stealing software is a relatively minor sin. Nobody is claiming he is a bad person for making a mistake. It's a sign of strength that the GP realizes his piracy did actually do some bad.
Sad, but not surprising, that companies can assume their product will be stolen if they do not actively secure it. It's just 1s and 0s that need only be communicated in a world of amazing communication ability. Judging from my own experience of pirating when I was a kid, a lot of those with the interest but lack of resources in games are kids. How do you fight a kid who stole from you? He already played the game, so he can't give the stolen good back.
You can only build more and more locks. This online serial thing is a great lock that minimizes the harm to the legit consumers... in some ways actually benefits them (if I can download my stuff again without keeping a backup, that's cool).
You're right that this is about making a living. In today's tough world of software, it's obvious that some unknown number of folks lost their job due to piracy. You'll find people who claim it's not stealing, but those people are not good people.
So when I see effective, non idiotic DRM, I cheer that some company is going to maximize profits which will fuel jobs and new games and more investments. When I see stupid DRM, rootkits or lawsuits, I am disappointed that it's going to make it harder to build good DRM.
We pretend that this is a sign that human civilization has slid down the evolutionary scale, that we are revealing a worse greedier nature thane ver before. That untrue. We're just accepting a truth that has been ignored by some for a long time. And also, as humankind gets richer, the poorest and dumbest also are getting richer and have more access to things. We have the absolute dumbest jackasses in the US ont he internet. Dumb people who might steal or troll of whatever. It's actually a sign of progress that those who necessitate DRM are in access to technology. We have much more universal basic wealth in certain countries. Owning a PC and accessing video games is not an exclusive thing.
Game consoles are nothing without games. Game consoles are only a way to get to games.
The dreamcast is everything people pretend the PS3 is. The dreamcast was overburdend and poorly thought out, and it didn't have many good games.
The xbox is among the worst consoles. Nobody bought one, and relatively few games were made for it, and Microsoft abandoned the system due to idiotic planning, screwing all the gamers over.
And if you take away Nintendo's awesome first party work, their consoles, especially recent ones, are the worst.
All about the games. That's why the PSone and PS2, and the gameboys are the best consoles.
Multiplayer gaming is an extremely important part of anti-piracy efforts, and more and more games are going to insert some kind of online component.
XBOX and PS3 games mimic the CD key, and for many games must routinely check with the central server to continue allowing play - for games with no online ocmponent more than a scoreboard.
Yeah, I don't think Mitt's the best government executive running.
But he is does have the best business background by far. In my view, it's not entirely clear that the president really influences the economy very much, but if the economy is an issue, Mitt deserves some credit for his experience.
And of course, Mitt is largely credited with saving Boston, and fixing the enormous big dig boondoogle. Of course Massachusetts doesn't love him, since he's a republican and anti-union, but I don't think that he did the state harm. I think the state, and Boston in particular, greatly benefited from his leadership... relative to predecessors of course.
Fair rebuttal. And while it is impossible, in some books, to prove that cigarettes cause lung cancer, we know. There's probably never going to be ironclad proof that pot caused a specific incidence of schizophrenia, the statistics are pretty grim, from 100% to 400% increased chance.
The link is there. It's intuitively obvious if you are around potheads and schizos. Do you know any psychiatrists? Ask them their thoughts.
I am not trying to condemn potheads. I just know that this is a risk factor worth their attention.
Cigarettes make schizophrenics feel like they have a measure of control over their stress. It can make a huge difference in their quality of life. Yeah, it's physically without merit, but I know many schizophrenics who simply do better, take their meds, live better lives, if they can whip out a smoke when they feel stressed.
Professionals say that the cigarettes create more stress than they relieve, but that's not the point. It's the idea that you can control your stress that has the most impact.
There are a lot of studies out there linking pot to schizophrenia:
I recall one statistic that found 9 out of ten schizos having used pot, and frankly it is utterly unsurprising. Delta-9-thc basically IS chemical schizophrenia.
Now, of course, that is not to say most pot heads become schizo, just as most cigarette smokers do not die of lung cancer. It's a risk to be evaluated, but so many crackpots out there refuse to listen. They stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala I can't hear you!!!!" I mean, look at this thread. I am opposed to the war on drugs's extremes, and so many people here totally hare my guts. I have tons of friends who smoke pot, and I spend my life trying to help people who deal with mental problems. I'm not Bill O'Reilly or anything like that.
anyway, here's some sources. You certainly were not trolling to ask for them, but google is a pretty decent way to find this stuff.
Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: follow-up study of 535 incident cases. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;187:510-5
Toward a world consensus on prevention of schizophrenia. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2005;7(1):53-67.
Risk for schizophrenia--broadening the concepts, pushing back the boundaries. Schizophr Res. 2005 Nov 1;79(1):5-13.
The environment and schizophrenia: the role of cannabis use. Schizophr Bull. 2005 Jul;31(3):608-12. Epub 2005 Jun 23.
Predictors of schizophrenia--a review. Br Med Bull. 2005 Jun 9;73:1-15. Print 2005.
Cannabis as a risk factor for psychosis: systematic review. J Psychopharmacol. 2005 Mar;19(2):187-94.
Cannabis use prior to first onset psychosis predicts spared neurocognition at 10-year follow-up. Schizophr Res. 2005 Jun 1;75(1):135-7.
[Acute and chronic cognitive disorders caused by cannabis use] Rev Prat. 2005 Jan 15;55(1):23-6; discussion 27-9. French.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophrenia: implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction. Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Mar 15;57(6):594-608.
Cannabis use and psychotic disorders: an update. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2004 Dec;23(4):433-43. Review.
Is cannabis an anti-antipsychotic? The experience in psychiatric intensive care. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2005 Apr;20(3):207-10.
Cannabis and risk of psychosis. Swiss Med Wkly. 2004 Nov 13;134(45-46):659-63. Review.
[Cannabis can double the risk of schizophrenia. Increasing but still controversial knowledge of the psychological effects of the drug] Lakartidningen. 2004 Oct 7;101(41):3126-7. Swedish.
Is the party over? Cannabis and juvenile psychiatric disorder: the past 10 years. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004 Oct;43(10):1194-205. Review.
Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Aug;28(5):849-63. Review.
Cannabis use and risk of psychosis: an etiological link? Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2004 Apr-Jun;13(2):113-9. Review.
[Cannabis and schizophrenia. From euphoria to psychosis] Rev Med Liege. 2004 Feb;59(2):98-103. French.
Heavy cannabis users seeking treatment- prevalence of psychiatric disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004 Feb;39(2):97-105.
Cannabis use and the risk of later schizophrenia: a review. Addiction. 2004 Apr;99(4):425-30. Review.
Cannabis use and psychosis.Drug Alcohol Rev. 1998 Dec;17(4):433-44.
Dude, with arguments like those, it's obvious you are not willing to have an open mind. You are so personally invested in the idea that pot is harmless that you won't accept that I'm legitimately trying to help people.
I never said that I want to outlaw pot. I said that it's not perfect, like any other substance. Be informed and make your own mind up. Don't expect your hideous views to sway those with legitimate gripes about pot legalization. It's very disgusting that you are totally unwilling to help sick people because of your politics.
I agree. Our problems with Iran are predicated on our tampering with their elections in the 50s and 60s.
When Iran had legitimate elections, the US had no right to interfere, and it has bitten us on the ass. AHmenidijad had never won and would never win a legitimate election. Iran today is not a legitimate state, and the US has a responsibility to protect the world from Iran partly because Iran's screw up stemmed from the cold war efforts we made.
However, Saddam's US links are kinda tenuous. He was definitely a Russian ally more than a US ally. we aided him in an effort to damage Iran (which committed an act of war against us), but you're right, Saddam is despicable and we should not have helped him in any way.
Osama, too, was meant to fight the Russians. Even 9/11 was worth winning the cold war, since the Soviets killed millions of innocent people.
But we had an obligation to take care of Osama when it became clear our mistake was a great threat, and we failed. Our leaders deserve blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, obviously you're right ont he sole fact that the fake pics do not show the plugs in the back of the system.
Also, I doubt the shape would mimic the fat PS3 that closely, as the cooling solution is probably radically different.
I imagine that Sony expects to see some kind of boom, then a decline, and then the redesign for the cheapskates who wait until the end of a generation and save a ton of cash.
You know, it's not clear that a PS3 itself costs more than $300 in parts. The factories and the like must be paid for, and that's what Reuters is really talking about, though they aren't clear enough.
All those stories of $1000 or $800 PS3s were probably largely bullshit, and certainly are today. I imagine that in terms of parts and labor, every PS3 is sold at a profit, but not enough of a profit to pay for the factories yet. That's how Sony works: they engineer kickass factories. The entire reason the Cell was selected was because of how they were expected to be cheaper to mass produce.
Obviously the problem was just that Intel makes a better laptop processor, and not that IBM is some kind of awful supplier. Apple really was being very stupid about how they order stuff, and this is minimized with Intel only because Apple is a small fluctuation to a huge PC processor market.
They de-specialized because they are too unpredictable. Apple was smart to go this route, but I really don't think it's IBM's "fault" except that they just aren't as good at making laptop processors in general.
And we do need to get use to high numbers of parallel processors. It's clearly the future. Things don't happen faster than light, and we're approaching that kind of limit with processors. Smaller helps, but more processors is the best way to beat this problem. The coding hurdles will be overcome.
I agree that Sony is likely to drop price again before the end of March.
But I kinda think you're wrong about the value of a PS3 blu-ray player. They aren't that expensive compared to an average blu-ray player, and you have to keep in perspective that these blu-ray players often sit next to expensive televisions. I have to add that the PS3 needs a sound system to deliver the kind of sound most people want, so there might be a huge advantage to buying a normal bluray player if you lack a modern sound system. And of course many have to buy a USB IR device of some kind to use a remote control (I just use my PS2 remote).
I do not see a lot of living rooms relying on a PC or laptop for DVD playback, and perhaps this will begin to change more, but I doubt the PC is a statistical competitor to PS3s and normal players in the living room.
Note that the PS3 streams content very nicely, plays a lot of free demos, will probably be capable of renting movies online, and is future proof relative to other blu-ray players. And it's technically a PC if you add linux (and I do use my PS3 for MAME and word processing, so it's a legit point for a tiny set of the market).
I really don't understand how any of the other blu-ray players are selling well, and I think it's absurd to recommend anything but either a PS3 or a PC drive like you're saying to those who want blu-ray. And I have to ask what a PC does for your TV that a PS3 doesn't do? PCs and desks work very well together for work and surfing the internet in a way the living room couch can be a bit of a hassle. Why not leave the PC in the office when TVs can be in the capable hands of an xbox or PS3?
I disagree totally.
PS2 functionality can be had for very little by simply getting a PS2. They retail for 130$ new, and it's so hard to get a 60gb model that you are probably a lot better off with one of the more energy efficient newer models. I'd wait until these new ones come out, because I think there will be a price drop before April (MGS4 + Home time).
You can put your seperate PS2 in another room (with your old TV, perhaps). You can put off the purchase for a while, saving you some money.
Hell, if you are really really wanting to play PS2 games, forget the PS3 for a year or so and you have plenty of cheap games to enjoy. You'll save a ton in the long run. But I find that once I had my PS3, I really didn't want to play PS2 games, becauze they were generally kinda ugly, and graphics actually do matter a lot to game enjoyment.
While I wish all PS3's had emotion engines built in, the fact is that it's not that big a deal when PS2 are still being made. The main problem is that many customers will expect the functionality and be rudely surprised.
Absolutely true, and most folks ignore it. Though if you factor in the entire cost of setting up the product line, factories and all that, Sony was losing money on each PS3 sold (financial statements bear this out), but for sheer hardware costs, it's not actually that clear if the $599 us dollar for maximum damage were really costing Sony $800 in parts as the financial news people were saying. Of course Sony isn't going to refute a story that makes its console seem like a terrific bargain.
Sony has one core competency: making electronics factories work well. Everything else stems from that (except the media stuff). Unlike Nintendo, which has embarrassed itself with its inability to produce the wiis it needs, and unlike MS, which has been a manufacturing disaster last gen and this gen, Sony seems to have things under control.
They had such idiots marketing their product that I was sure it would fail, but people really think the PS3 is worth a lot more thana wii or a 360. It's got that cachet, and now that a PS3 is $399, going on $350 (less than a wii forced bundle), with all the games and blu-ray stuff, 2008 is just full of news for Sony.
All these things are happening at the same time Home, Europe DVR, and the big games are coming out, and I think Sony had all this crap on a chart three years ago, knowing that its late adopting PS2 family (generally not affluent people) would respond to something like this.
I expect to see Sony surprise everyone with some big announcement we haven't expected in the next three months to add some jazz to the rest of the PS3 soup.
It will take a lot for the PS3 to dethrone my 360's awesome game selection, but somehow I think Sony knows exactly what it's doing.
you should express your thoughts in sentences. Those require a noun and a verb. You obviously have the noun part down, and all you need is the verb.
For example, you could say "Red Steel sucks" as a way of telling me you agree that the wii has awful third party games at this time. I think that might be what you're saying, because nobody in their right mind could suggest that's an example of the wii's success.
Or, you could be attempting to list the wii's stellar third party catalog to refute me... but the list is tiny and of terrible quality, far inferior to the PS3 or 360 by light years, so I guess that's unlikely.
But I'm not sure. What are you trying to say?
Third amendment, and it applies during war or peace. 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to be armed so they can assemble into militia and attack the government.
I don't want to call you a jackass, but I looked up your post history because you keep replying to me with random, indecipherable lists. Is English not a first language for you?
I think the Duke Nuken Forever that was nearly finished several years ago would be fine for the wii.
But if you develop it for the wii, you might as well develop it for the PS2. You're probably getting rid of multiplayer, and you're getting rid of all the super profitable expansion maps, players, songs, whatever. You're also trying to sell a crude game on a Nintendo, and trying to sell a third party game on a Nintendo. Nintendo has been a dick to third parties, and some of them just don't want to bother overcoming the storage and power limitations of the wii when the PS3 and 360 are actually selling plenty of systems to be very successful.
You can blame the developer, but it's really his choice. It would make a lot more sense to blame Nintendo for running off all its developers over decades.
I like how you throw in the swipe at Sony, even though they have been pretty awesome to developers, and it shows in their 8000+ game library for the PS1 and PS2 *each*. YEah, Sony is run by arrogant morons who are marketing to the Autistic, and their system costs a zillion dollars, but in many parts of the world, this system is still outselling the Wii. Why? because it's all about the games, and the wii follows a nintendo tradition of offering few third party games. The stories of developers flocking to the wii are old... the stories of developers flocking back to the PS3 are fresh (and at Fry's I noticed you cannot get a Wii bundle for less than $369, but you can get a PS3 for $399 with that dumb blu-ray player that a lot of people will want.)
The wii's controller is pretty innovative, but the real innovation comes on the discs, and I'm seeing more innovation on the 360 and PS3s these days.
Combine all this, especially the storage and online issues, with the fact that the wii has dominated mostly in the economy that is growing the least and has a shrinking disposable income, and you understand why all the fascinating third party games are coming out on the two "loser" systems.
Oh, NOW graphics matter? So unless a PC is capable of Wii like graphics, it just doesn't count?
Or should we take the same logic and apply it to the 360, and only count systems that are up to its level of graphics: millions of PCs, PS3s and 360s.
Truth is, the wii is not a large source of revenue for 3rd parties. I think that can change a lot, but historically, Nintendo consoles are tougher for third parties to make a lot of money on. When you consider that a lot of new profit windows are opening up with expansion maps, players, songs, online multiplayer, even items in Home eventually, you realize that the wii is actually even more comparatively limited for profit than prior nintendo systems. Those $2 cars on Need for Speed are sheer profit.
I like the wii, but it's not as perfect as its amazing popularity suggests.
Dude, that sucks. I'd really hate to be in your shoes, because there's little chance anyone is going to replace your expensive games.
I used to use a strip of scotch tape across the hole to help hold my disc in place with my PSone, but I don't think you have any similar options.
Good luck!
I cannot read your post.
But the games you mention are nowhere near the quality of 3rd party 360 and Playstation games. I believe the key to a good system is strong third party support. This leads to new directions in games. A controller can only do so much, but GTA, MGS, Halo, all went in interesting directions.
Zelda, Mario, to lesser extent Metroid all sort of rely on the same basic ideas.
The 360 does not hold your disc in place like most disc players.
You probably need to leave it horizontal to let gravity help. And be as acareful as possible not to jostle the 360 when a disc is playing.
I agree: the games and online variety on the 360 are great, and it would have been a terrific system had it been more robust, but the fact is that if MS had taken the time to engineer this thing to, well, PS3 quality, it would have been released with the PS3. The 360's game library is partly due to it being the only super console for a year.
Win some loose some, as you say.
There is something to be said for minimizing the visual impact of failure.
With the totally unreliable Win 95, we had this brilliant blue screen to punch us in the face.
With the 360, we get this kinda cool looking ring of light.
Why? When a PS3 fails, you get a tiny red dot (like the wifi led, but red). When a PS2 fails, you might get the "bad disc" message, but there's really no impact.
MS has one consistent problem: over design. There was no reason to spend time developing the coolest failure indication possible.
I loved my gameboy, and it's one of the most revolutionary line of electronics.
But Gameboys had massive recalls, and were bulky clumsy fisherprice style electronics. They did huge things for gaming and were damn near ubiquitious, but they are not really as tough as the tough huge plastic shell would suggest.
Kinda thing sometimes that nintendo fans are just more nostaligic than fans of Sony or Sega or MS. After all, many of the Wii's best games are simply rehashes of 20 year old plots and characters. Enjoyable as hell, but where are the new third party franchises? Where's the Uncharted or Gears of War?
Something about that knack to love the past leads a lot of nintendo fans to remember their old consoles like I remember old girlfriends. Just an interesting aspect of things, I think.
Actually there are people who lost their jobs when their game company went out of business or was not profitable enough to avoid purchase by EA type companies. Imagine making a great game only to find that 60% of the users did not pay for it (and lies that none of them would have paid for it are frankly, ridiculous when these folks had $1000 computers). Sometimes just ten percent more profit would have saved jobs. It's impossible to point at exactly who game piracy has harmed, but it's genuinely harmed some people.
Including everyone who likes games, since there are surely fewer great ones thanks to this phenom. Stealing games is actually pretty much identical to stealing physical stuff from a profit perspective, and that's what counts. A lot of physical inventory is thrown away too. Is it ok to steal one pack of gum if you know that eventually, a store will throw away five packages of gum instead of 6? No, because you have reduced demand for gum. You are profiting where others must pay.
Nobody's perfect, and stealing software is a relatively minor sin. Nobody is claiming he is a bad person for making a mistake. It's a sign of strength that the GP realizes his piracy did actually do some bad.
Yeah, it is nice in the same way.
Sad, but not surprising, that companies can assume their product will be stolen if they do not actively secure it. It's just 1s and 0s that need only be communicated in a world of amazing communication ability. Judging from my own experience of pirating when I was a kid, a lot of those with the interest but lack of resources in games are kids. How do you fight a kid who stole from you? He already played the game, so he can't give the stolen good back.
You can only build more and more locks. This online serial thing is a great lock that minimizes the harm to the legit consumers... in some ways actually benefits them (if I can download my stuff again without keeping a backup, that's cool).
You're right that this is about making a living. In today's tough world of software, it's obvious that some unknown number of folks lost their job due to piracy. You'll find people who claim it's not stealing, but those people are not good people.
So when I see effective, non idiotic DRM, I cheer that some company is going to maximize profits which will fuel jobs and new games and more investments. When I see stupid DRM, rootkits or lawsuits, I am disappointed that it's going to make it harder to build good DRM.
We pretend that this is a sign that human civilization has slid down the evolutionary scale, that we are revealing a worse greedier nature thane ver before. That untrue. We're just accepting a truth that has been ignored by some for a long time. And also, as humankind gets richer, the poorest and dumbest also are getting richer and have more access to things. We have the absolute dumbest jackasses in the US ont he internet. Dumb people who might steal or troll of whatever. It's actually a sign of progress that those who necessitate DRM are in access to technology. We have much more universal basic wealth in certain countries. Owning a PC and accessing video games is not an exclusive thing.
Game consoles are nothing without games. Game consoles are only a way to get to games.
The dreamcast is everything people pretend the PS3 is. The dreamcast was overburdend and poorly thought out, and it didn't have many good games.
The xbox is among the worst consoles. Nobody bought one, and relatively few games were made for it, and Microsoft abandoned the system due to idiotic planning, screwing all the gamers over.
And if you take away Nintendo's awesome first party work, their consoles, especially recent ones, are the worst.
All about the games. That's why the PSone and PS2, and the gameboys are the best consoles.
You're absolutely right.
Multiplayer gaming is an extremely important part of anti-piracy efforts, and more and more games are going to insert some kind of online component.
XBOX and PS3 games mimic the CD key, and for many games must routinely check with the central server to continue allowing play - for games with no online ocmponent more than a scoreboard.
It's pretty nice.
Yeah, I don't think Mitt's the best government executive running.
But he is does have the best business background by far. In my view, it's not entirely clear that the president really influences the economy very much, but if the economy is an issue, Mitt deserves some credit for his experience.
And of course, Mitt is largely credited with saving Boston, and fixing the enormous big dig boondoogle. Of course Massachusetts doesn't love him, since he's a republican and anti-union, but I don't think that he did the state harm. I think the state, and Boston in particular, greatly benefited from his leadership... relative to predecessors of course.
Fair rebuttal. And while it is impossible, in some books, to prove that cigarettes cause lung cancer, we know. There's probably never going to be ironclad proof that pot caused a specific incidence of schizophrenia, the statistics are pretty grim, from 100% to 400% increased chance.
The link is there. It's intuitively obvious if you are around potheads and schizos. Do you know any psychiatrists? Ask them their thoughts.
I am not trying to condemn potheads. I just know that this is a risk factor worth their attention.
Cigarettes make schizophrenics feel like they have a measure of control over their stress. It can make a huge difference in their quality of life. Yeah, it's physically without merit, but I know many schizophrenics who simply do better, take their meds, live better lives, if they can whip out a smoke when they feel stressed.
Professionals say that the cigarettes create more stress than they relieve, but that's not the point. It's the idea that you can control your stress that has the most impact.
There are a lot of studies out there linking pot to schizophrenia:
I recall one statistic that found 9 out of ten schizos having used pot, and frankly it is utterly unsurprising. Delta-9-thc basically IS chemical schizophrenia.
Now, of course, that is not to say most pot heads become schizo, just as most cigarette smokers do not die of lung cancer. It's a risk to be evaluated, but so many crackpots out there refuse to listen. They stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala I can't hear you!!!!" I mean, look at this thread. I am opposed to the war on drugs's extremes, and so many people here totally hare my guts. I have tons of friends who smoke pot, and I spend my life trying to help people who deal with mental problems. I'm not Bill O'Reilly or anything like that.
anyway, here's some sources. You certainly were not trolling to ask for them, but google is a pretty decent way to find this stuff.
Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: follow-up study of 535 incident cases. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;187:510-5
Toward a world consensus on prevention of schizophrenia.
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2005;7(1):53-67.
Risk for schizophrenia--broadening the concepts, pushing back the boundaries.
Schizophr Res. 2005 Nov 1;79(1):5-13.
The environment and schizophrenia: the role of cannabis use.
Schizophr Bull. 2005 Jul;31(3):608-12. Epub 2005 Jun 23.
Predictors of schizophrenia--a review.
Br Med Bull. 2005 Jun 9;73:1-15. Print 2005.
Cannabis as a risk factor for psychosis: systematic review.
J Psychopharmacol. 2005 Mar;19(2):187-94.
Cannabis use prior to first onset psychosis predicts spared neurocognition at 10-year follow-up.
Schizophr Res. 2005 Jun 1;75(1):135-7.
[Acute and chronic cognitive disorders caused by cannabis use]
Rev Prat. 2005 Jan 15;55(1):23-6; discussion 27-9. French.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophrenia: implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction.
Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Mar 15;57(6):594-608.
Cannabis use and psychotic disorders: an update.
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2004 Dec;23(4):433-43. Review.
Is cannabis an anti-antipsychotic? The experience in psychiatric intensive care.
Hum Psychopharmacol. 2005 Apr;20(3):207-10.
Cannabis and risk of psychosis.
Swiss Med Wkly. 2004 Nov 13;134(45-46):659-63. Review.
[Cannabis can double the risk of schizophrenia. Increasing but still controversial knowledge of the psychological effects of the drug]
Lakartidningen. 2004 Oct 7;101(41):3126-7. Swedish.
Is the party over? Cannabis and juvenile psychiatric disorder: the past 10 years.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004 Oct;43(10):1194-205. Review.
Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Aug;28(5):849-63. Review.
Cannabis use and risk of psychosis: an etiological link?
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2004 Apr-Jun;13(2):113-9. Review.
[Cannabis and schizophrenia. From euphoria to psychosis]
Rev Med Liege. 2004 Feb;59(2):98-103. French.
Heavy cannabis users seeking treatment- prevalence of psychiatric disorders.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004 Feb;39(2):97-105.
Cannabis use and the risk of later schizophrenia: a review.
Addiction. 2004 Apr;99(4):425-30. Review.
Cannabis use and psychosis.Drug Alcohol Rev. 1998 Dec;17(4):433-44.
Cannabis use and a
Dude, with arguments like those, it's obvious you are not willing to have an open mind. You are so personally invested in the idea that pot is harmless that you won't accept that I'm legitimately trying to help people.
I never said that I want to outlaw pot. I said that it's not perfect, like any other substance. Be informed and make your own mind up. Don't expect your hideous views to sway those with legitimate gripes about pot legalization. It's very disgusting that you are totally unwilling to help sick people because of your politics.
Fair enough... if you truly believe that America is fundamentally illegitimate. I don't. Especially in reference to China.
Obviously my opinions are opinions and you are not especially clever to point that out.
I agree. Our problems with Iran are predicated on our tampering with their elections in the 50s and 60s.
When Iran had legitimate elections, the US had no right to interfere, and it has bitten us on the ass. AHmenidijad had never won and would never win a legitimate election. Iran today is not a legitimate state, and the US has a responsibility to protect the world from Iran partly because Iran's screw up stemmed from the cold war efforts we made.
However, Saddam's US links are kinda tenuous. He was definitely a Russian ally more than a US ally. we aided him in an effort to damage Iran (which committed an act of war against us), but you're right, Saddam is despicable and we should not have helped him in any way.
Osama, too, was meant to fight the Russians. Even 9/11 was worth winning the cold war, since the Soviets killed millions of innocent people.
But we had an obligation to take care of Osama when it became clear our mistake was a great threat, and we failed. Our leaders deserve blame.