Cut through the marketing bs and get to the point... IS IT ENOUGH?
I don't know... try playing it... that's the only way to "cut through the marketing bs" and find out for yourself before passing judgment. Or watch the news, or Slashdot or Digg articles and see how many people are buying and enjoying their Wiis.
Again, Sony and MS could easily develope a similar or better input device... and still have a bigger market share.
The Wiimote wasn't something that was just thrown together... it was developed over a period of years, and heavily tested and refined. I'd like to see Sony or MS just "easily develop" a controller that completely changes the mechanics of gameplay, then get developers to design for it. Good luck on that.
And features? Bluetooth, expansion port (for nunchuk, classic controller, and future possible add-ons), simple button layout, onboard memory for storing Mii information, built-in speaker, rumble (Sony doesn't seem willing to license it)... I'm sure someone can come up with some more interesting features, but I'd say Nintendo did a great job coming up with features that not only made sense, but were also things that took some imagination. If MS designs a similar controller, it will have functionality that noone will figure out how to use, 3 times as many buttons as necessary, and will not work consistently.
But Nintendo is admitting defeat and they are in effect taking themselves out of the fight.
Where did you hear that? It looks to me like they're squarely in the fight to sell consoles, and I think they will sell plenty (and they are selling them so far). They're not directly competing with MS and Sony because those two have tried to make a games console that's not just a games console anymore. Nintendo's doing what they've always done, and expanding their market to new users. Sounds like it's been doing well in only 10 days. I'm guessing they're not worried about market share yet.
The Wii isnt even HD. Thats crazy.
Most TVs in homes across America or across the world are not HDTV's, and Nintendo knows it. Their goal of appealing to the casual gamer doesn't require HD, but it does require keeping costs down, which means not blowing their Bill of Materials costs on HD hardware. I'd say that for what they're trying to do, including HD support would be crazy. They're saving HD for the next round.
I think Nintendo is pulling a blunder here by using the controller to promote games, instead of games to promote the controller.
I'm not sure you understand the concept of the Wiimote... it's not about having a different controller, it's about having a more natural and fun way to interact with the system. As you (and I) said above, gimmicky controllers for systems past only had one or two games for them, so the controllers were not successful. Nintendo wants to encourage people who aren't currently gamers to become gamers. Releasing a new add-on controller and then trying to push a whole library just for that add-on is a bigger effort than you seem to believe. The Wii was designed for and around the new interface. And now, all of the games can take advantage of that interface.
To me, it really doesn't make sense for a developer to create a tennis game for a gamepad-style controller. In the past, they've always had to do that. Even if a Wiimote-style controller would have been developed (well) for an earlier system, a game developer can't count on very many people buying that controller to use it with their game. Now, someone can come in and make a great tennis game that really uses that controller, because everyone who owns a Wii has that controller. Suddenly developers have a reason to make a game that can take advantage of the controller.
The Wii may be twice as powerful as the previous Gamecube, but the Gamecube wasn't a powerhouse to begin with.
I skipped over the GameCube/Xbox/PS2 generation entirely, but my understanding was that the PS2 was the least powerful of that generation, and that the GameCube was a close 2nd to the XBox.
I'll come right out and admit it: Graphics matter.
They matter... to a point, and Nintendo knows that to appeal to a wide market, they can't make the console too expensive by throwing in all of the HD stuff. It'll do what it needs to for an SD display, which is still by far the most dominant display type in peoples' homes. They can tackle HD in the next generation. And as for Wii Sports... it's not supposed to be a graphical marvel. It's there as an introduction to the Wiimote. That's why it's free with the console. That's why there's several different games (none with any real depth) on the disc. It's funny though, from people I've talked to that own a Wii, it's the most talked about title. People seem to be playing it for hours and having a great time. And it's not the same as Atari 2600 fun... even though it doesn't have the PS3 graphics, it still is immersing. The graphics are enough to start to draw people in, and the technology in the Wiimote draws people in the rest of the way.
As I said before, Nintendo hasn't abandoned cool technology in the Wii. They've just changed the focus of that technology.
Secondly, acknowledge the importance of 3rd parties. Nintendo may be able to survive with their 1st party games, but I believe they can flourish with adequate support from other developers.
Is this currently a problem? from what I understand, the development kits are much, much less expensive than those for the PS3 or the XBox360, and the development is made easier for programmers who have already done GameCube games, since the hardware is so similar. I've heard someone at Nintendo (Reggie? I can't remember who) saying they want to bring more mature titles to the console as well.
I know there's been a few skeptical developers when it comes to the Wii, but most of the developer response I have heard is positive... So I'm asking serioiusly... is there still a problem with 3rd party relations for Nintendo, or are things smoothed/smoothing over after the GameCube era?
And goldeneye on the wii? It's good that we get a classic game, but what about new franchises?
And if you think about it long enough, you'll realize that Goldeneye is based on a James Bond movie from over 10 years ago... They're not talking about a new Goldeneye game, but a Virtual Console version of the original game (the Virtual Console on the Wii is an online service that allows you to purchase and download games for older Nintendo systems).
The reason why people care is because GoldenEye 007 was one of the most popular games for the N64.
Hopefully this background information answers your questions... I'm not trying to provide too much information, you just didn't seem to understand what you were complaining about.
Sony and Microsoft could easily release a better, more developed controller device with similar/even more features... and still have a console that is by far superior.
But that would just be an add-on. Nintendo dived head-first into the Wiimote and made it the heart of the Wii experience. It's not just an optional add-on for playing a few games with. It is the controller for the system. They have worked for a long time to make the Wiimote experience solid and accurate and fun. Sure Sony or MS or any 3rd party could manufacture a Wii-like controller for the other systems, but not only would it not have the entire philosophical focus of the console behind it, the manufacturer wouldn't put the development and fine-tuning time into it to make it work well, or to make it work for any variety of games. (Look up U-Force or Power Glove on wikipedia for examples.)
It seems like nintendo is already accepting that they will be in last place.
TFA doesn't give any quotes or direct evidence that Nintendo doesn't care about market share. It doesn't necessarily give any real evidence that it will come in 3rd for market share, either, although it does talk about it as if it's a foregone conclusion. The only real information in the article is about how Nintendo isn't going after the fancy graphics technology. It's not like they've dropped out of exciting game technology. They've just switched their focus from the graphics to the physical interface.
All of the 3rd place market share talk in TFA is really more about the GameCube days than the Wii era. They were the most profitable company back then, too. But now they have a whole new approach to gaming interfaces, a simple and exciting system to develop for, and a small, simple, and quiet box to set next to your TV. I'd say any assumptions about Nintendo being 3rd in the new generation's race are very premature. Especially considering the fact that you still have to camp out on a sidewalk or at the least call ahead to a retail store and stand in a long line to even get your hands on a Wii, 10 days after launch.
I fully expect Nintendo to launch full-on into the HD scene with the next console after the Wii. I think the Wii was their start to moving in a different direction for games. And it came at a great time, since HDTV's aren't completely widespread yet. I'm sure that Wii 2.0 will be a higher-powered, 1080p system with graphics as good as those of Xbox 720 and PS4, but by then, they'll already have the Wiimote philosophy ingrained into people's minds, and they'll have technical issues (and practical things, like broken wrist-straps) solved.
They'll be ready to recapture the people who thought Nintendo doesn't do a "performance" console, and they'll be able to keep their current casual/new gamer market.
It's barely more capable than the Gamecube and the only two gimmicks it has going are the wireless controller and the virtual console. BOTH of these could have been released for the Gamecube, which already had a broadband adapter as well.
It's funny to see some people calling the XBox360 and the PS3 "just the same old warmed-over stuff with high-resolution graphics", talking up the Wii's "innovativeness", while others refer to the Wii as yesterday's technology with an extra gimmick or two, instead of what PS3/XBox360 are doing...
In the past, "innovative" controllers have been released for Nintendo consoles (Power Glove, U-Force, Power Pad, ROB the robot), but none of those ever had more than a couple of games at most that were really designed for the controller, because releasing it as a new controller for an existing system made it a gimmick. The Wiimote possibly could have been a GameCube add-on. It's probably not the technological focus of the console. But it is the philosophical focus of the Wii. Almost all Wii games are designed specifically for the Wii controller. At this point the controller can no longer be considered a gimmick, since it's really an integral part of the whole console. The console would have to be the gimmick, and time will tell. There seems to be an awful lot of reviewers out there that write about how playing games on the Wii is "just plain fun", and they can't stop smiling while they play. At this point it's still hard to buy a Wii at any retail store because they're selling out, just like the PS3. I'd say the Wii is not going to be just a gimmick.
It's barely more capable than the Gamecube...
From what I understand it's about twice as capable as a GameCube. Obviously it doesn't have the graphical power of the PS3 or the XBox360, but as it has been said many many times, that's not what they're going for. I'm guessing that a lot of the focus on the earliest game development has been on making the controller work well with games. I'm sure that once developers get more familiar with the Wii, they'll be more prepared to make use of the added power the Wii has over the GameCube, just like developers will do over time for the new generations of the other consoles.
And now all of these games which look like budget titles (Wii sports, Excite Truck) are $60 just like all the other new consoles.
I agree that average games sold per console sold would be a better metric. However, that's partially clouded by what the early buyers are getting the console for. It seems that a larger percentage of PS3 buyers are reselling them. So that metric is quite likely tainted against PS3.
But those PS3's were still bought and (eventually) used by someone. Whoever would have bought a PS3 for $1800 on eBay would most likely have preordered some games or bought some games on launch day or soon after, so even the PS3's sold on eBay should already have games accounted to them. I guess that's assuming it takes less than 10 days to sell a PS3 on eBay and ship it. In any case, if those games haven't already been accounted for, they will be soon.
Let's say you have two different brands of HDTVs. One has a profit margin of $300, while the other has a margin of $600. Furthermore, let's say you have 4 DVDs with profit margins of $2.00, $3.00, $4.00, and $0.50. How do we compare the profits of one type of item over the other?
My head hurts from your analysis. One question though: Are those African HDTVs or European HDTVs?
The idea is to pass legislation to prevent ISPs from doing something they aren't doing in any great numbers anyway in the absence of the legislation, presumably because we either suspect that they will begin doing what we don't want them to do or we just love legislation kind of in general and want more of it to be passed.
It has been done, here a little, there a little. It was an issue of discussion on the Vonage forum for a while. What I think is funny is that ISPs say "There's not evidence that we'll be non-neutral, so you shouldn't regulate us", then they turn around and say that neutrality prevents them from funding the growth of the Internet infrastructure... using astroturfing fake grass roots campaigns (how genuine). So how are they planning on funding that growth? If they really didn't plan on being non-neutral, how would neutrality prevent them from funding the growth of the Internet?
They give one answer (We haven't been non-neutral, and we don't think we will...) to one group, then turn around and give another answer (How else can we help the Internet grow?) to someone else, then they turn around again and complain about the "freeloaders" like Google, eBay and other content providers, even though those providers are already paying for the bandwidth they use. They basically have said that they will charge for priority, and that they won't, at the same time.
Considering that the Government is responsible for the creation of the Internet, I'd say the government ought to have some say about the neutrality of the Internet in this country.
TFA (which I haven't read btw) seems to take the stance that the current setup allows for online games to receive higher priority than other traffic (which I doubt very much).
Hint: Don't reference "TFA" without reading it... I can understand if the summary confused you, but then you should have just referenced the summary
No, the article doesn't say gaming gets preference now, the article says there is no preference now. But if that changes and neutrality goes away, online gaming will be all but killed off, unlike VoIP and video. ISP's have alternatives to VoIP and video (and so do other non-internet sources, like land lines for phone and Video on demand service for video), but it's not likely that the ISP's will offer online gaming services, because they don't know anything about that whole industry. And even if they did try to offer it, it wouldn't be good, because it wouldn't be coming from the good game publishers.
So, to sum up, TFA says that gaming, like other internet services, will suffer due to latency problems. Unlike other services, there are not alternatives to online gaming, and a worse experience for a large segment of users upsets the rest of the users (if there are any who don't have latency issues) so the whole industry stands to be hurt badly by non-neutrality.
Some use "net neutrality" to refer to legislation which prevents phone/cable companies from selling preferential bandwidth to certain websites for a fee. Others (as in the summary above) seem to use it for the opposite meaning, referring to the position that the government should stay neutral and not interfere with phone/cable company rights to sell this preferential bandwidth.
Net Neutrality refers to a neutral internet... the ISP's wouldn't be able to treat one type of packet different from another. The point the original article is making is that if net neutrality isn't protected, the only services (VoIP, gaming, video), that won't suffer will be ones that are either supplied by your ISP, or ones where the providers have paid your ISP extra. Hence, if you like XBox Live, and Microsoft hasn't paid Verizon (or AT&T, etc), your online games will suffer. If Microsoft has paid up with all of the ISP's, then you're in great shape. Suddenly it's a whole lot more difficult to provide content and services, unless you are the ISP.
Now that you know, the best way to make sure Joe Sixpack understands is to Spread the Word!
"- Numerous high def upscaling issues including PS3 BluRay movies not appearing in high definition properly"
I believe this only effects certain older TVs and that there are work arounds in those cases.
Actually, you're thinking of the problem where the games scale down to 480p instead of 1080i. This one is about Blu-Ray movies... The PS3 won't scale Blu-Ray movies down to 720p, and apparently (according to the linked article) the 1080i looks bad, so if you don't have a 1080p display, the movies scale back to 1080i or 480p... 1080p is much less common than 720p, so this affects everyone almost anyone who bought their displays over a year ago, and most people who have bought a display within the last year. The link I posted is to a page that was on Digg... I don't know how accurate it is, but it is a rumored problem, and if it is true, it's serious, and affects most of the HDTV owners out there.
silly questions but......do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?
I don't know about Canadians, but my understanding is that with the Zune situation, the artists get half of the money that Universal gets from Zune sales. I think Universal gets about $1/Zune. So each artist gets a pico-cent from the Zune. Altogether they should end up with a total of 12 pico-cents each.
I wouldn't say it's the greed that's so disturbing... if someone's willing to wait outside forever, enduring muggings and cold and not showering, then that's fine with me.
What disturbs me is the things like the auction someone else linked to above... $89 million for a game console??? Sure it's in short supply, but within a few months it probably won't be anymore. Something's fishy about an $89 million bid, I don't see that as being legitimate, but still, seeing that other people are willing to pay 3, 5, or 9 thousand dollars or more is still incredibly insane... What do we value in the world anymore???
It may not be supported, and therefore, not guaranteed, because the OS is not released, but it should function anyway... the whole purpose of beta and RC releases is to have a period where hardware and software manufacturers can test to make sure that something does work. Software and hardware which should be able to work in the released OS should also function with the RC/beta releases. Unsupported means you can't call MS tech support to ask them to fix your problems, but beta means you can report bugs and incompatibilities so they get fixed before the release.
If the Zune department couldn't be bothered to make their "revolutionary" new product function with the "revolutionary", yet often delayed flagship OS, then that is pathetic.
Because Microsoft's early adopter, Media-Center/Vista hungry customers should be the ones who are first in line to buy a Zune. Because Microsoft has had public and non-public beta versions of Vista out for a while now, and because other software and hardware manufacturers should have been the main targets of those betas, to make their products compatible a long time ago. Because Vista is the flagship product, which was supposed to be released years ago. Because although the department that made the Zune is a separate department from the Windows/Office departments, it exists specifically to boost the usefulness of Windows media formats, which in turn exist specifically to lock people into, I mean, to encourage people to use that flagship product. Because Vista is supposed to be the be-all end-all next-gen multimedia "the future is now" Operating System to work with everything.
Why in the world would Microsoft create a new product, and only enable it out of the box for yesterday's OS? According to Paul Thurrott's review of Vista RC1, iTunes works fine, no mention of iPods specifically, but I would imagine that all of the other mp3 players out there will work fine under Vista... otherwise the entire customer base will be pissed. Zune isn't so next-gen fancy that it needs any newfangled technology that other mp3 players can't use.
In short, this matters because all existing mp3 players should work with Vista. Why wouldn't Zune be able to? If the separate departments argument has any real bearing on the situation, then it's a sign that MS is too big for their britches.
I didn't have a Power Glove, I bought a U-Force... Nevermind that when I got to the store, it cost %50 more than I had thought it would, I bought it anyway... See my previous post on buying the CDi.
The U-Force was cool, but games, as well as the console itself, were not designed for it. You had to set a bunch of DIP switches differently for each game. The manual actually encouraged you to experiment with different switch settings for different games -- that was scary, there wasn't any type of guide or information on what each switch did.
The U-Force was fun, but I kept hitting it when I played Punch-Out. They had a T-bar handle thing for playing Rad Racer, and that was OK, but not as good as a steering wheel controller would have been, and playing it without the T-bar was tough, and tiring (you had to hold your hands up in the air in the same position for a long time... not really fun).
The Wii is different. The console and the games are built specifically for the Wiimote. No DIP switches, no guessing for yourself how to play a game if the manual doesn't specifically talk about the settings and controls for that game. The controller is simple and elegant. The games are designed to let you move, but I'm sure you can get by in most games with small motions, so you won't wear yourself out, or look really stupid. Not to mention that everyone who buys a Wii will know how it works... noone knew what the heck the U-Force was, because I'm the only one who bought it west of the continental divide. I think the Wii will be very successful. This is no Power Glove, U-Force, or Virtual Boy. This is the new flagship product, so they're putting everything behind it to make it successful.
I think there's already been more than one headline on Slashdot previously and on digg that says almost exactly the same thing... IBM is the real winner. But it's not like it's a big story... if it is, then who's the loser? Intel? AMD? Do they really care that they aren't in the consoles? Not as far as I've heard. They're more worried about chasing the living room PC. (Even though I think they'd get into more living rooms with consoles, but I guess it's more work to design a new console processor than it is to make up a silly meaningless standard for "media" PCs... let the marketing staff do the work, instead of paying engineers to make a product.)
We owned a CDi... Hard to believe my parents got suckered into that one. I wasn't even asking for it or anything. We bought three lame games with it (a crappy mini-golf game with Eugene Levy's voice taunting you, tetris, and some carnival-style game) You could buy an add-on module to watch movies on the discs, but we never got that. I remember thinking "Movies on a disc, like a CD? Never...!"
After that, it's funny to think that in 2000, my mom returned a DVD player that my Dad got her for her birthday, because she didn't think she's use it. My parents never did get the hang of useful technology/useless technology.
It's not the inappropriate videos we should worry about... it's the new undercover MPAA air marshals who will be watching out for anyone allowing other passengers to see any movie that they haven't paid to see. There will be a new MPAA box for you to deposit $5 into on your way off the plane if you watched the movie on the screen of the person next to you... The marshals are watching, you'd better pay up!
Slashdot Mirror
Everything most of you said makes sense.
Unlike that statement...
Cut through the marketing bs and get to the point... IS IT ENOUGH?
I don't know... try playing it... that's the only way to "cut through the marketing bs" and find out for yourself before passing judgment. Or watch the news, or Slashdot or Digg articles and see how many people are buying and enjoying their Wiis.
Again, Sony and MS could easily develope a similar or better input device... and still have a bigger market share.
The Wiimote wasn't something that was just thrown together... it was developed over a period of years, and heavily tested and refined. I'd like to see Sony or MS just "easily develop" a controller that completely changes the mechanics of gameplay, then get developers to design for it. Good luck on that.
And features? Bluetooth, expansion port (for nunchuk, classic controller, and future possible add-ons), simple button layout, onboard memory for storing Mii information, built-in speaker, rumble (Sony doesn't seem willing to license it)... I'm sure someone can come up with some more interesting features, but I'd say Nintendo did a great job coming up with features that not only made sense, but were also things that took some imagination. If MS designs a similar controller, it will have functionality that noone will figure out how to use, 3 times as many buttons as necessary, and will not work consistently.
But Nintendo is admitting defeat and they are in effect taking themselves out of the fight.
Where did you hear that? It looks to me like they're squarely in the fight to sell consoles, and I think they will sell plenty (and they are selling them so far). They're not directly competing with MS and Sony because those two have tried to make a games console that's not just a games console anymore. Nintendo's doing what they've always done, and expanding their market to new users. Sounds like it's been doing well in only 10 days. I'm guessing they're not worried about market share yet.
The Wii isnt even HD. Thats crazy.
Most TVs in homes across America or across the world are not HDTV's, and Nintendo knows it. Their goal of appealing to the casual gamer doesn't require HD, but it does require keeping costs down, which means not blowing their Bill of Materials costs on HD hardware. I'd say that for what they're trying to do, including HD support would be crazy. They're saving HD for the next round.
I think Nintendo is pulling a blunder here by using the controller to promote games, instead of games to promote the controller.
I'm not sure you understand the concept of the Wiimote... it's not about having a different controller, it's about having a more natural and fun way to interact with the system. As you (and I) said above, gimmicky controllers for systems past only had one or two games for them, so the controllers were not successful. Nintendo wants to encourage people who aren't currently gamers to become gamers. Releasing a new add-on controller and then trying to push a whole library just for that add-on is a bigger effort than you seem to believe. The Wii was designed for and around the new interface. And now, all of the games can take advantage of that interface.
To me, it really doesn't make sense for a developer to create a tennis game for a gamepad-style controller. In the past, they've always had to do that. Even if a Wiimote-style controller would have been developed (well) for an earlier system, a game developer can't count on very many people buying that controller to use it with their game. Now, someone can come in and make a great tennis game that really uses that controller, because everyone who owns a Wii has that controller. Suddenly developers have a reason to make a game that can take advantage of the controller.
The Wii may be twice as powerful as the previous Gamecube, but the Gamecube wasn't a powerhouse to begin with.
I skipped over the GameCube/Xbox/PS2 generation entirely, but my understanding was that the PS2 was the least powerful of that generation, and that the GameCube was a close 2nd to the XBox.
I'll come right out and admit it: Graphics matter.
They matter... to a point, and Nintendo knows that to appeal to a wide market, they can't make the console too expensive by throwing in all of the HD stuff. It'll do what it needs to for an SD display, which is still by far the most dominant display type in peoples' homes. They can tackle HD in the next generation. And as for Wii Sports... it's not supposed to be a graphical marvel. It's there as an introduction to the Wiimote. That's why it's free with the console. That's why there's several different games (none with any real depth) on the disc. It's funny though, from people I've talked to that own a Wii, it's the most talked about title. People seem to be playing it for hours and having a great time. And it's not the same as Atari 2600 fun... even though it doesn't have the PS3 graphics, it still is immersing. The graphics are enough to start to draw people in, and the technology in the Wiimote draws people in the rest of the way.
As I said before, Nintendo hasn't abandoned cool technology in the Wii. They've just changed the focus of that technology.
Secondly, acknowledge the importance of 3rd parties. Nintendo may be able to survive with their 1st party games, but I believe they can flourish with adequate support from other developers.
Is this currently a problem? from what I understand, the development kits are much, much less expensive than those for the PS3 or the XBox360, and the development is made easier for programmers who have already done GameCube games, since the hardware is so similar. I've heard someone at Nintendo (Reggie? I can't remember who) saying they want to bring more mature titles to the console as well.
I know there's been a few skeptical developers when it comes to the Wii, but most of the developer response I have heard is positive... So I'm asking serioiusly... is there still a problem with 3rd party relations for Nintendo, or are things smoothed/smoothing over after the GameCube era?
And goldeneye on the wii? It's good that we get a classic game, but what about new franchises?
And if you think about it long enough, you'll realize that Goldeneye is based on a James Bond movie from over 10 years ago... They're not talking about a new Goldeneye game, but a Virtual Console version of the original game (the Virtual Console on the Wii is an online service that allows you to purchase and download games for older Nintendo systems).
The reason why people care is because GoldenEye 007 was one of the most popular games for the N64.
Hopefully this background information answers your questions... I'm not trying to provide too much information, you just didn't seem to understand what you were complaining about.
Sony and Microsoft could easily release a better, more developed controller device with similar/even more features... and still have a console that is by far superior.
But that would just be an add-on. Nintendo dived head-first into the Wiimote and made it the heart of the Wii experience. It's not just an optional add-on for playing a few games with. It is the controller for the system. They have worked for a long time to make the Wiimote experience solid and accurate and fun. Sure Sony or MS or any 3rd party could manufacture a Wii-like controller for the other systems, but not only would it not have the entire philosophical focus of the console behind it, the manufacturer wouldn't put the development and fine-tuning time into it to make it work well, or to make it work for any variety of games. (Look up U-Force or Power Glove on wikipedia for examples.)
It seems like nintendo is already accepting that they will be in last place.
TFA doesn't give any quotes or direct evidence that Nintendo doesn't care about market share. It doesn't necessarily give any real evidence that it will come in 3rd for market share, either, although it does talk about it as if it's a foregone conclusion. The only real information in the article is about how Nintendo isn't going after the fancy graphics technology. It's not like they've dropped out of exciting game technology. They've just switched their focus from the graphics to the physical interface.
All of the 3rd place market share talk in TFA is really more about the GameCube days than the Wii era. They were the most profitable company back then, too. But now they have a whole new approach to gaming interfaces, a simple and exciting system to develop for, and a small, simple, and quiet box to set next to your TV. I'd say any assumptions about Nintendo being 3rd in the new generation's race are very premature. Especially considering the fact that you still have to camp out on a sidewalk or at the least call ahead to a retail store and stand in a long line to even get your hands on a Wii, 10 days after launch.
I fully expect Nintendo to launch full-on into the HD scene with the next console after the Wii. I think the Wii was their start to moving in a different direction for games. And it came at a great time, since HDTV's aren't completely widespread yet. I'm sure that Wii 2.0 will be a higher-powered, 1080p system with graphics as good as those of Xbox 720 and PS4, but by then, they'll already have the Wiimote philosophy ingrained into people's minds, and they'll have technical issues (and practical things, like broken wrist-straps) solved.
They'll be ready to recapture the people who thought Nintendo doesn't do a "performance" console, and they'll be able to keep their current casual/new gamer market.
It's funny to see some people calling the XBox360 and the PS3 "just the same old warmed-over stuff with high-resolution graphics", talking up the Wii's "innovativeness", while others refer to the Wii as yesterday's technology with an extra gimmick or two, instead of what PS3/XBox360 are doing...
In the past, "innovative" controllers have been released for Nintendo consoles (Power Glove, U-Force, Power Pad, ROB the robot), but none of those ever had more than a couple of games at most that were really designed for the controller, because releasing it as a new controller for an existing system made it a gimmick. The Wiimote possibly could have been a GameCube add-on. It's probably not the technological focus of the console. But it is the philosophical focus of the Wii. Almost all Wii games are designed specifically for the Wii controller. At this point the controller can no longer be considered a gimmick, since it's really an integral part of the whole console. The console would have to be the gimmick, and time will tell. There seems to be an awful lot of reviewers out there that write about how playing games on the Wii is "just plain fun", and they can't stop smiling while they play. At this point it's still hard to buy a Wii at any retail store because they're selling out, just like the PS3. I'd say the Wii is not going to be just a gimmick.
From what I understand it's about twice as capable as a GameCube. Obviously it doesn't have the graphical power of the PS3 or the XBox360, but as it has been said many many times, that's not what they're going for. I'm guessing that a lot of the focus on the earliest game development has been on making the controller work well with games. I'm sure that once developers get more familiar with the Wii, they'll be more prepared to make use of the added power the Wii has over the GameCube, just like developers will do over time for the new generations of the other consoles.
Wii Sports is included with the console (for now), and games in general seem to peak out at around $50, with some going as low as $30.
I'm pretty sure the dead guy mentioned just above qualifies as deaf, too... since you can't hear when you're dead.
I agree that average games sold per console sold would be a better metric. However, that's partially clouded by what the early buyers are getting the console for. It seems that a larger percentage of PS3 buyers are reselling them. So that metric is quite likely tainted against PS3.
But those PS3's were still bought and (eventually) used by someone. Whoever would have bought a PS3 for $1800 on eBay would most likely have preordered some games or bought some games on launch day or soon after, so even the PS3's sold on eBay should already have games accounted to them. I guess that's assuming it takes less than 10 days to sell a PS3 on eBay and ship it. In any case, if those games haven't already been accounted for, they will be soon.
Let's say you have two different brands of HDTVs. One has a profit margin of $300, while the other has a margin of $600. Furthermore, let's say you have 4 DVDs with profit margins of $2.00, $3.00, $4.00, and $0.50. How do we compare the profits of one type of item over the other?
My head hurts from your analysis. One question though: Are those African HDTVs or European HDTVs?
The idea is to pass legislation to prevent ISPs from doing something they aren't doing in any great numbers anyway in the absence of the legislation, presumably because we either suspect that they will begin doing what we don't want them to do or we just love legislation kind of in general and want more of it to be passed.
It has been done, here a little, there a little. It was an issue of discussion on the Vonage forum for a while. What I think is funny is that ISPs say "There's not evidence that we'll be non-neutral, so you shouldn't regulate us", then they turn around and say that neutrality prevents them from funding the growth of the Internet infrastructure... using astroturfing fake grass roots campaigns (how genuine). So how are they planning on funding that growth? If they really didn't plan on being non-neutral, how would neutrality prevent them from funding the growth of the Internet?
They give one answer (We haven't been non-neutral, and we don't think we will...) to one group, then turn around and give another answer (How else can we help the Internet grow?) to someone else, then they turn around again and complain about the "freeloaders" like Google, eBay and other content providers, even though those providers are already paying for the bandwidth they use. They basically have said that they will charge for priority, and that they won't, at the same time.
Considering that the Government is responsible for the creation of the Internet, I'd say the government ought to have some say about the neutrality of the Internet in this country.
TFA (which I haven't read btw) seems to take the stance that the current setup allows for online games to receive higher priority than other traffic (which I doubt very much).
Hint: Don't reference "TFA" without reading it... I can understand if the summary confused you, but then you should have just referenced the summary
No, the article doesn't say gaming gets preference now, the article says there is no preference now. But if that changes and neutrality goes away, online gaming will be all but killed off, unlike VoIP and video. ISP's have alternatives to VoIP and video (and so do other non-internet sources, like land lines for phone and Video on demand service for video), but it's not likely that the ISP's will offer online gaming services, because they don't know anything about that whole industry. And even if they did try to offer it, it wouldn't be good, because it wouldn't be coming from the good game publishers.
So, to sum up, TFA says that gaming, like other internet services, will suffer due to latency problems. Unlike other services, there are not alternatives to online gaming, and a worse experience for a large segment of users upsets the rest of the users (if there are any who don't have latency issues) so the whole industry stands to be hurt badly by non-neutrality.
Net Neutrality refers to a neutral internet... the ISP's wouldn't be able to treat one type of packet different from another. The point the original article is making is that if net neutrality isn't protected, the only services (VoIP, gaming, video), that won't suffer will be ones that are either supplied by your ISP, or ones where the providers have paid your ISP extra. Hence, if you like XBox Live, and Microsoft hasn't paid Verizon (or AT&T, etc), your online games will suffer. If Microsoft has paid up with all of the ISP's, then you're in great shape. Suddenly it's a whole lot more difficult to provide content and services, unless you are the ISP.
Now that you know, the best way to make sure Joe Sixpack understands is to Spread the Word!
Actually, you're thinking of the problem where the games scale down to 480p instead of 1080i. This one is about Blu-Ray movies... The PS3 won't scale Blu-Ray movies down to 720p, and apparently (according to the linked article) the 1080i looks bad, so if you don't have a 1080p display, the movies scale back to 1080i or 480p... 1080p is much less common than 720p, so this affects everyone almost anyone who bought their displays over a year ago, and most people who have bought a display within the last year. The link I posted is to a page that was on Digg... I don't know how accurate it is, but it is a rumored problem, and if it is true, it's serious, and affects most of the HDTV owners out there.
silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?
I don't know about Canadians, but my understanding is that with the Zune situation, the artists get half of the money that Universal gets from Zune sales. I think Universal gets about $1/Zune. So each artist gets a pico-cent from the Zune. Altogether they should end up with a total of 12 pico-cents each.
I wouldn't say it's the greed that's so disturbing... if someone's willing to wait outside forever, enduring muggings and cold and not showering, then that's fine with me.
What disturbs me is the things like the auction someone else linked to above... $89 million for a game console??? Sure it's in short supply, but within a few months it probably won't be anymore. Something's fishy about an $89 million bid, I don't see that as being legitimate, but still, seeing that other people are willing to pay 3, 5, or 9 thousand dollars or more is still incredibly insane... What do we value in the world anymore???
Yes. No mention of whether the iPod functions with iTunes under Vista, but iTunes itself seems to work.
It may not be supported, and therefore, not guaranteed, because the OS is not released, but it should function anyway... the whole purpose of beta and RC releases is to have a period where hardware and software manufacturers can test to make sure that something does work. Software and hardware which should be able to work in the released OS should also function with the RC/beta releases. Unsupported means you can't call MS tech support to ask them to fix your problems, but beta means you can report bugs and incompatibilities so they get fixed before the release.
If the Zune department couldn't be bothered to make their "revolutionary" new product function with the "revolutionary", yet often delayed flagship OS, then that is pathetic.
Because Microsoft's early adopter, Media-Center/Vista hungry customers should be the ones who are first in line to buy a Zune. Because Microsoft has had public and non-public beta versions of Vista out for a while now, and because other software and hardware manufacturers should have been the main targets of those betas, to make their products compatible a long time ago. Because Vista is the flagship product, which was supposed to be released years ago. Because although the department that made the Zune is a separate department from the Windows/Office departments, it exists specifically to boost the usefulness of Windows media formats, which in turn exist specifically to lock people into, I mean, to encourage people to use that flagship product. Because Vista is supposed to be the be-all end-all next-gen multimedia "the future is now" Operating System to work with everything.
Why in the world would Microsoft create a new product, and only enable it out of the box for yesterday's OS? According to Paul Thurrott's review of Vista RC1, iTunes works fine, no mention of iPods specifically, but I would imagine that all of the other mp3 players out there will work fine under Vista... otherwise the entire customer base will be pissed. Zune isn't so next-gen fancy that it needs any newfangled technology that other mp3 players can't use.
In short, this matters because all existing mp3 players should work with Vista. Why wouldn't Zune be able to? If the separate departments argument has any real bearing on the situation, then it's a sign that MS is too big for their britches.
Just in general, it's a good idea to make something compatible with the products you plan to release in say the next quarter.
Especially when one of those products is The Flagship Product, which was supposed to be released... well... how many quarters ago?
Woops, I forgot the obligatory Wikipedia link for the U-Force.
I didn't have a Power Glove, I bought a U-Force... Nevermind that when I got to the store, it cost %50 more than I had thought it would, I bought it anyway... See my previous post on buying the CDi.
The U-Force was cool, but games, as well as the console itself, were not designed for it. You had to set a bunch of DIP switches differently for each game. The manual actually encouraged you to experiment with different switch settings for different games -- that was scary, there wasn't any type of guide or information on what each switch did.
The U-Force was fun, but I kept hitting it when I played Punch-Out. They had a T-bar handle thing for playing Rad Racer, and that was OK, but not as good as a steering wheel controller would have been, and playing it without the T-bar was tough, and tiring (you had to hold your hands up in the air in the same position for a long time... not really fun).
The Wii is different. The console and the games are built specifically for the Wiimote. No DIP switches, no guessing for yourself how to play a game if the manual doesn't specifically talk about the settings and controls for that game. The controller is simple and elegant. The games are designed to let you move, but I'm sure you can get by in most games with small motions, so you won't wear yourself out, or look really stupid. Not to mention that everyone who buys a Wii will know how it works... noone knew what the heck the U-Force was, because I'm the only one who bought it west of the continental divide. I think the Wii will be very successful. This is no Power Glove, U-Force, or Virtual Boy. This is the new flagship product, so they're putting everything behind it to make it successful.
I think there's already been more than one headline on Slashdot previously and on digg that says almost exactly the same thing... IBM is the real winner. But it's not like it's a big story... if it is, then who's the loser? Intel? AMD? Do they really care that they aren't in the consoles? Not as far as I've heard. They're more worried about chasing the living room PC. (Even though I think they'd get into more living rooms with consoles, but I guess it's more work to design a new console processor than it is to make up a silly meaningless standard for "media" PCs... let the marketing staff do the work, instead of paying engineers to make a product.)
We owned a CDi... Hard to believe my parents got suckered into that one. I wasn't even asking for it or anything. We bought three lame games with it (a crappy mini-golf game with Eugene Levy's voice taunting you, tetris, and some carnival-style game) You could buy an add-on module to watch movies on the discs, but we never got that. I remember thinking "Movies on a disc, like a CD? Never...!"
After that, it's funny to think that in 2000, my mom returned a DVD player that my Dad got her for her birthday, because she didn't think she's use it. My parents never did get the hang of useful technology/useless technology.
It's not the inappropriate videos we should worry about... it's the new undercover MPAA air marshals who will be watching out for anyone allowing other passengers to see any movie that they haven't paid to see. There will be a new MPAA box for you to deposit $5 into on your way off the plane if you watched the movie on the screen of the person next to you... The marshals are watching, you'd better pay up!