Here's a good point. Blu-Ray and HD DVD's successes depend on enough consumers buying HDTVs in the first place. DVDs were able to destroy the VHS market because it required no external upgrades.
And... even when one buys an HDTV, one might not be in a rush to buy a Blu-Ray or HD DVD player. An early adopter, credit card junkie, or frivolous spender might purchase them in a heartbeat, but a consumer on a budget who is sick to death of his or her gigantic ugly CRT will be patient. After all, who's eager to buy into either format if one of them is doomed to irrelevance?
Oh, and I must insert the obligatory "cost of living, cost of fuel" comment.
Decipher likely couldn't afford to be at GenCon if in fact they weren't there. The company is a skeleton of its former self, with a core designer located far away from the office in Norfolk. They are reduced to two licenses with marginal value. All of their attempts to capture the kiddie gaming market failed.
Decipher is somewhat indicative of the gaming industry in general. It's always been a fringe business, subject to the increase of cost of living, no matter how many gamers finance their addiction on credit. The choice of appearing at GenCon or Origins might have become one of budget rather than exposure for many companies.
There's also the tangential issue of poker tapping gamers from the CCG pool. Why hang out with smelly guys for eight hours to win $1,000 when you can do the same and win ten times that amount?
I don't believe paper gaming will die. On the contrary, there will always be those who need just the right outlet to unleash their imagination. And just about anyone with a decent amount of capital can release a game or two, if only to a large local market like New York or Chicago.
The juggernaut of electronic gaming is just going to erode some of the paper gaming market. Electronic gaming has been able to market itself above "geeky" or "dorky." It's a hot industry. Paper gaming is still largely the same thing it was ten years ago. GenCon, being the loud event it is because of Hasbro, is going to cash in on electronic gaming as much as it can.
I'd much rather sit this mess out. While my budget prevents me from engorging myself on the latest sound system, television, satellite service, or movie format, I'm not keen on accidentally investing in something that fails to become an accessible standard.
It'll all shake out in another year or two. But I can't help but think that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD could become the next S-VHS.
Let's keep throwing money at band-aids for an antiquated space program. After all, we have a station that needs a shuttle and a shuttle that needs a station. We can't just ignore the obscene amounts of money already spent at creating this uncorruptible symbiosis.
What's wrong with this country? Why do spending budgets have such inertia?
ABC is already hedging this bet. They've inserted a few commercials in their series -- most notably a non sequitir conversation about a Ford Hybrid on an episode of Alias.
This is one of the most enlightened things I've read here in a long time. Taking it one step further, how about inspired games that don't require brand new hardware?
How is my comment Flamebait while others that are far more vitroilic considered Insightful? Oh, yeah, because I'm one of the BMOCs of Slashdot. Here's some flamebait...
Geeks are bigger egomaniacs and elistists than jocks.
There is a precedent. Alcatel was allowed to buy and completely decimate DSC Communication Corp about eight years ago. Granted, that company was smaller than Lucent, but it was based in the U.S.
A significant number of households in this country are tuned into "basic cable". This means they have access to the first three Trek series. A long-time Trek fan or someone new to sci-fi could quickly and more easily get involved in those series than a show stuck at 7PM on Fridays, even if the Friday show is the newest.
I think a significant number of Trek fans also couldn't get over the fact that Enterprise was trouncing on their precious canon. While I disagree with that group on principle, the writers did resort to TNG and DS9 tentpoles (Borg and Ferengi) to attract the Trek audience, which ultimately left the crew of the NX-01 with nothing to distinguish themselves. In the fourth season, we get some sense of pre-TOS events, but it was too little too late. What I hated about Enterprise is that it seemed to ignore canon then strictly adhere to it. The canon-clutching was a factor in the show's problems.
Berman and Braga exploited the franchise rather tended it. How they got away with seven seasons of Voyager is a mystery to me. The most punishment they received were slightly reduced seasons and slightly reduced air-times toward the end of the series. Enterprise had the potential to erase the problems of Voyager, but they continued the over-glossed, over-produced, sterile approach to sci-fi with the occasional gratituitous titilation that ultimately turns viewers away.
The Star Trek franchise has left a bad taste in many mouths, and I think we need three to four years to cleanse our palate. Hopefully, Paramount will look to what I hope is continued success of the Stargate franchise, the new Battlestar Galactica, and whatever new series may appear as examples of how to approach any new Star Trek series. They must make the hard choice of maintaining the lengthy, often-contradictory canon or of starting over. They must also decide which network will be the best venue.
The industry should put as much effort on sensible power consumption and battery technology as they do on miniaturization. I realize these goals often intersect, but with an increase in the cost of fuel that is not likely to decrease in the short- to middle-term, I'd be happier with devices that were power-savvy.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know why they push the Mac Mini. They might see great sales if they converted 10% of their iPod advertising into Mac Mini advertising.
I couldn't agree more. My shop just recently migrated a trading system from Unix/Forte/C++ to Linux/gcc/C++. We had some hurdles to jump for the new compiler and "quirks" of Linux, but it was something we only had to do only once. We have no intentions of moving on to anything else for a long while. We didn't change languages, but we had to adjust our coding practices to make gcc happy.
Does anyone really need something that can compile and run anywhere?
Slashdot Mirror
I meant, "There's a good point." I'm not terribly proud of what I write here.
Here's a good point. Blu-Ray and HD DVD's successes depend on enough consumers buying HDTVs in the first place. DVDs were able to destroy the VHS market because it required no external upgrades.
And... even when one buys an HDTV, one might not be in a rush to buy a Blu-Ray or HD DVD player. An early adopter, credit card junkie, or frivolous spender might purchase them in a heartbeat, but a consumer on a budget who is sick to death of his or her gigantic ugly CRT will be patient. After all, who's eager to buy into either format if one of them is doomed to irrelevance?
Oh, and I must insert the obligatory "cost of living, cost of fuel" comment.
You gotta love paper gaming. Only in this industry could a new version of something be a bad thing.
Decipher likely couldn't afford to be at GenCon if in fact they weren't there. The company is a skeleton of its former self, with a core designer located far away from the office in Norfolk. They are reduced to two licenses with marginal value. All of their attempts to capture the kiddie gaming market failed.
Decipher is somewhat indicative of the gaming industry in general. It's always been a fringe business, subject to the increase of cost of living, no matter how many gamers finance their addiction on credit. The choice of appearing at GenCon or Origins might have become one of budget rather than exposure for many companies.
There's also the tangential issue of poker tapping gamers from the CCG pool. Why hang out with smelly guys for eight hours to win $1,000 when you can do the same and win ten times that amount?
I don't believe paper gaming will die. On the contrary, there will always be those who need just the right outlet to unleash their imagination. And just about anyone with a decent amount of capital can release a game or two, if only to a large local market like New York or Chicago.
The juggernaut of electronic gaming is just going to erode some of the paper gaming market. Electronic gaming has been able to market itself above "geeky" or "dorky." It's a hot industry. Paper gaming is still largely the same thing it was ten years ago. GenCon, being the loud event it is because of Hasbro, is going to cash in on electronic gaming as much as it can.
Amen!
I'd much rather sit this mess out. While my budget prevents me from engorging myself on the latest sound system, television, satellite service, or movie format, I'm not keen on accidentally investing in something that fails to become an accessible standard.
It'll all shake out in another year or two. But I can't help but think that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD could become the next S-VHS.
Let's keep throwing money at band-aids for an antiquated space program. After all, we have a station that needs a shuttle and a shuttle that needs a station. We can't just ignore the obscene amounts of money already spent at creating this uncorruptible symbiosis.
What's wrong with this country? Why do spending budgets have such inertia?
ABC is already hedging this bet. They've inserted a few commercials in their series -- most notably a non sequitir conversation about a Ford Hybrid on an episode of Alias.
Interesting observation.
Could this mean that Microsoft may some day have their own PC to rival the Mac? Let the games begin.
Wouldn't this be the next logical step? Trade cash for money used online by services like iTunes. Neither Apple nor the user need to deal with a bank.
This is one of the most enlightened things I've read here in a long time. Taking it one step further, how about inspired games that don't require brand new hardware?
10 GB hard drives might be 2001, but 10 GB NAND chips are ultramodern. Remember, the nano doesn't use a hard drive.
Apple has stated they aren't interested in TiVo's approach to handling media. They'd rather leverage iTMS and Front Row.
TiVo is nice, but they a lot to learn about interfaces and menus. Of course, I'm stuck on a Series1 that doesn't have folders for recorded programs.
How is my comment Flamebait while others that are far more vitroilic considered Insightful? Oh, yeah, because I'm one of the BMOCs of Slashdot. Here's some flamebait...
Geeks are bigger egomaniacs and elistists than jocks.
This is funny, as not too many years ago the cry of agitated Apple acolytes was "Fight Microsoft, not IBM!"
But you're right. Playing nice with Microsoft while sending the evil eye to Dell and HP/Compaq is probably the best move right now.
There is a precedent. Alcatel was allowed to buy and completely decimate DSC Communication Corp about eight years ago. Granted, that company was smaller than Lucent, but it was based in the U.S.
Boy, am I glad I fled from telecom years ago.
A significant number of households in this country are tuned into "basic cable". This means they have access to the first three Trek series. A long-time Trek fan or someone new to sci-fi could quickly and more easily get involved in those series than a show stuck at 7PM on Fridays, even if the Friday show is the newest.
I think a significant number of Trek fans also couldn't get over the fact that Enterprise was trouncing on their precious canon. While I disagree with that group on principle, the writers did resort to TNG and DS9 tentpoles (Borg and Ferengi) to attract the Trek audience, which ultimately left the crew of the NX-01 with nothing to distinguish themselves. In the fourth season, we get some sense of pre-TOS events, but it was too little too late. What I hated about Enterprise is that it seemed to ignore canon then strictly adhere to it. The canon-clutching was a factor in the show's problems.
Berman and Braga exploited the franchise rather tended it. How they got away with seven seasons of Voyager is a mystery to me. The most punishment they received were slightly reduced seasons and slightly reduced air-times toward the end of the series. Enterprise had the potential to erase the problems of Voyager, but they continued the over-glossed, over-produced, sterile approach to sci-fi with the occasional gratituitous titilation that ultimately turns viewers away.
The Star Trek franchise has left a bad taste in many mouths, and I think we need three to four years to cleanse our palate. Hopefully, Paramount will look to what I hope is continued success of the Stargate franchise, the new Battlestar Galactica, and whatever new series may appear as examples of how to approach any new Star Trek series. They must make the hard choice of maintaining the lengthy, often-contradictory canon or of starting over. They must also decide which network will be the best venue.
Could AOL please find a smaller, less juvenile set of smilies for the next iteration?
The industry should put as much effort on sensible power consumption and battery technology as they do on miniaturization. I realize these goals often intersect, but with an increase in the cost of fuel that is not likely to decrease in the short- to middle-term, I'd be happier with devices that were power-savvy.
This might end up being the downfall of the pop-ups, unless TiVo finds a way to tie pop-ups to the ads being skipped.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know why they push the Mac Mini. They might see great sales if they converted 10% of their iPod advertising into Mac Mini advertising.
At least the director didn't go along with some stupid fake documentary about how he has psychic abilities.
So many of them just bought or built their third $500,000+ house in [insert impossibly expensive urban center or suburb].
Is the upcoming large number of elderly Baby Boomers coupled with the large number of Greatest Generation folks who JUST WON'T DIE a crisis?
Microsoft will halt operating systems development because Longhorn is taking too long.
Apple's Board of Directors will fire Steve Jobs because no one made any noise about his 50th birthday.
The open source community is giving up because it seems like every shop is using C#/.NET.
I couldn't agree more. My shop just recently migrated a trading system from Unix/Forte/C++ to Linux/gcc/C++. We had some hurdles to jump for the new compiler and "quirks" of Linux, but it was something we only had to do only once. We have no intentions of moving on to anything else for a long while. We didn't change languages, but we had to adjust our coding practices to make gcc happy.
Does anyone really need something that can compile and run anywhere?