Re:As a mac user who doesn't want the damn thing
on
The Perfect Phone Storm?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While I also think Apple has focused a lot recently on the iPhone (for good reason), they did update their Mac Pro line recently. Furthermore, if you notice on sites like http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/, every long drought has brought about a significant update. New enclosures, processor generation jumps (i.e. G4 to G5).
This push for the iPhone will in fact help Mac users and possibly standards users. If the iPhone is very successful, Safari / web standards compatibility will be a requirement. I don't have to keep wondering when the top hit list will ever change over (http://webkit.org/projects/compat/hitlist.html). More services will open up for the Mac; for instance, push IMAP instead of proprietary Blackberry protocols may become standard which would allow desktop apps to take advantage of. Better synchronization support for OS X. H.264 may become a "de facto" standard which would stop the Windows Media only sites I keep encountering. There are many reasons for you to care about the iPhone as a Mac users that aren't directly related to the phone.
People who just tend to focus on Mac OS X are missing the bigger picture. I may not get an iPhone but I understand and do care about its success. And its coattails may not be limited to just Apple. Everyone benefits from a more open and standards based web. It might just take an iPhone like phenomenon (or hype machine) to nudge webmasters and other parties in the right direction.
What feature from the 20GB vs. the 60GB is not upgradable that you would want? The big 3 are bigger hard drive capacity, memory card readers, and wireless. The hard drive is user swappable and standard connections (unlike the extortion-like prices that Microsoft is charging for their hard drive). Memory card readers can be attached via USB. Wireless supposedly could have been expanded too via a USB adapter.
The Xbox 360 cannot use a HDMI connection without the Elite model. And while the Xbox 360 is upgradable, it is expensive to do so compared to standard PC parts (which the PS3 uses). That's why you can use bluetooth or USB devices on the PS3 to expand but have to pay outrageous prices for the hard drive, keyboard, etc. for the Xbox 360.
IMO, Microsoft made a bigger mistake by not including the hard drive as a standard. Developers can count on a hard drive in the PS3 which could be used in a few different ways (expansions, caching, MMORPG content, etc.). The missing wireless and memory card readers don't affect game development like a missing hard drive would.
Why didn't you buy the iPod remote (the controller extension)? You strap the iPod securely to your arm via one of those armbands and then plug in the iPod remote and you have a pretty rugged solution that you can easily control sweating and all. It doesn't seem like money is a huge concern for you.
There's no motivation to write a virus that destroys user files.
Okay maybe there's a slight motivation by people who just want to destroy things, but that's not the purpose of most modern viruses. They're written so that other people can use your machine to do malicious deeds.
No one else really cares if your files are hosed. More than likely if they were that important, you should have a backup. However, if people are able to get control of your machine they can turn it into a spambot, a DOS machine or other such device without your knowledge.
Perhaps most surprisingly though, AppleInsider was exceedingly accurate back in November.
And yesterday (day before keynote), several blogs such as the one by Kevin Rose did post about the name MacBook Pro and the updates, but with less than 24 hours before unveiling, Apple did do a good job of being secretive.
Xbox brought in Xbox Live, one of the very first broadband gaming services that was mildly successful. Xbox 360 is bringing in multimedia streaming capabilities to the TV if you have the right PC software.
PS2 brought DVDs to the forefront and helped everyone watch media differently (no more be kind, please rewind BS). PS3 brings basically a multimedia tank to the living room (Blu-ray, wireless hub, card readers, Bluetooth, etc.).
Revolution's novelty is a radically different controller.
It's pretty obvious Nintendo's focus is on games. Afterall they have no outside interests to serve. They aren't feeling threatend by living room multimedia hubs taking over as the most interactive computing devices. They aren't worried that a competiting disc format isn't partially owned by them. They don't want to control how people watch, listen, and enjoy all their other content.
Yes you can. Setup a special 1-800 number and put that number in the ad if they want to know more about the product. Or setup a special website address. It's the same more or less as a clickthrough, and these customers may be more valuable since they actually have to do "more" to get the information (compared to just clicking on a link). Therefore, they aren't just clicking on a whim, and the likelihood of them buying your product is increased. There may be tons of people that see the ad and don't follow up on it, but that's just like the tons of people on the Internet that avoid clicking on ads too.
MSFT takes a loss on each sale and they expect it. MSFT isn't dumb. They weren't going to win the console wars with the first Xbox (and some at MSFT realistically say they won't win the next generation either). They came in expecting losses against Nintendo and Sony because these are giants. They want to grab more and more marketshare until they have enough and then they start their real antipiracy measures. The Xbox would not be as popular if it wasn't mod friendly.
What people should call Apple is a solutions company even though I know so many companies are hopping on that bandwagon now. They sell you the complete package from software to hardware making sure that everything works well together. People didn't jump onto the iPod just because they thought the hardware interface was good. They bought it because it was finally a plug and play experience.
Here's another point of view I read recently. You're assuming that all of the titles on the Xbox 360 are exclusives. If even half of those titles are ported, PS3 may have a larger launch library than Xbox 360 will. The Xbox 360 versions come out first, but the PS3 versions will get some (IMO minor) improvements like what happens with Xbox and PS2 versions of games.
The 3rd party publishers love it because they cash in on the same title multiple times with relatively minor costs compared to coming out with a new launch title.
The whole point may be moot though with some big selling (if not great) titles coming out for the previous generation consoles next year (e.g. Final Fantasy XII). I think that's why backwards compatibility is a must have now, and why all 3 console manufacturers have realized the importance.
Look at your Purchase History under your account in iTunes (click your e-mail address for your account options). You can find all the music you purchased before.
The Xbox is just now starting to see games that substantially differentiate itself from PS2 games. Do you get upset at MSFT for making it hard to get great looking games until 4 years after they released the Xbox?
Isn't MSFT also demoing things of what they think they can do? By most accounts, some demos were running at barely 20fps. ATI's hardware also isn't finalized, and furthermore, IBM's hardware isn't actually being produced yet. I don't see how that's any different than Sony's position today.
Look at Epic or id, and they develop for hardware that doesn't exist yet either, but they still show demos and screenshots of the game. By the time the games are released, you can get hardware that runs the game somewhat smoothly. Did they lie too then?
I just tried to help point out that Sony didn't exaggerate when they showed their PS2 tech demos. Did they exaggerate the PS3's capabilities? We'll find out again in 5 years, but looking at some of the games being developed today, it isn't too far fetched to believe.
Check out this thread and just scroll down a bit for the screenshots. Looking at the FF8 screenshot, in-game FFX graphics are significantly better. I don't think anyone can deny that those demo screenshot looks like crap compared to today's titles.
Sony may have hyped them and the media may have greatly exaggerated their claims, but the tech demos did show capabilities of the machine.
IBM didn't market the Cell processor to Xbox 360. Sony would go bankrupt before doing that since Sony, IBM, and Toshiba have some sort of alliance regarding Cell. And Cell is not a next generation CPU platform no matter what IBM or Sony says. PowerPC may be, but definitely not Cell.
Did you forget about the 120 million+ PowerPC chips they're expected to produce for game consoles? Macs ship roughly 4 million PCs a year. Let's say 1/4th of that is their top of the line G5s (which is generous considering that iMacs and laptops outsell the PowerMacs).
A console's generation lifespan is about 6 years so divide 120 million by 6. 20 million processors is nothing to sneeze at considering it's an order of magnitude difference compared to the PowerPCs shipped to Apple.
I'm sorry to see Apple go to Intel, but no one at IBM is losing any sleep over it.
What have they rejected that passed before? I know they test against you for showstopper bugs and for their definition of inappropiate content, but I'm curious to what they have failed otherwise.
I honestly just don't understand how their testing is any different than what your publisher would be testing for on PC games, except it's a bit more complicated for PCs due to the various combinations.
HD ready TV sets have come down in price greatly. You don't necessarily need a 50" set to get HD, and you can get 30" TVs for about $650 that still support 1080i with DVI/HDCP connections at Best Buy. That's about the price of a good LCD monitor at 17" a year or two ago.
This is also an article about next generation consoles, and with MSFT requiring "HD ready" games, that 3 or 4 games list is going to skyrocket.
Listen, I think anyone can tell that you're a big supporter of PC games. I love PC games because they're generally more complex, have great user made mods, and usually require more strategy than their console counterparts. But don't just deny that consoles have great potential too and that soon they will have just as much capability as PCs for gaming.
Somehow I don't believe that it's less costly and complicated to develop for a PC rather than a console. You're talking about patching after release, but do you know how much it costs to patch, test, and support a PC release? I don't think it's as light as you imagine.
There may be more rules for a console release, but you have one target platform, a console manufacturer who does testing for you, etc. If you can't get it working on a fixed platform, how are you expected to get it to work on multiple platforms with buggy drivers and the like?
I'm not saying developing for the PC isn't worth it, but for the potential profit to be made, if I were a CEO I would definitely go console first.
One of the maximum HDTV's resolution is at 1080x1920 I believe. That's a little bit more than the number of pixels 1600x1200 is at. Most HDTVs support 720p or 1080i at the very least.
I wouldn't have posted if you hadn't stated that 1600x1200 at 120fps (is this even achievable with recent games and less than a $500 budget?) beat out HDTV resolutions. Yes, computer monitors today beat out 95% of TV monitors, but it doesn't mean HDTVs aren't capable.
And it's pretty funny because the graphics card industry is releasing practically the same type of designs for their console counterparts. You can have their latest generation either in a console or a computer and get it for roughly the same price or less, if the latest graphic cards still cost $500+ and the consoles sell for ~$300.
I think you have the two genres mixed up. FPS, thanks to Halo, is now switching over to consoles for better or worse. Gear of Wars (and practically any Unreal engine powered game such as Splinter Cell) is debuting on consoles first. MMORPGs are also on consoles (FFXI and EverQuest Adventures amongst others). Since it seems that the consoles are finally allowing USB keyboards and mice to be supported, more MMORPGs are sure to follow.
Some of the last genres that aren't being embraced by consoles are RTS (could change with mice support) and pure strategy games (like Civilization). The exclusive genres for PCs and consoles are no longer there more or less.
I will miss PC gaming as it seems all the big publishers are leaving.
Maybe that's why they are called minigames and sidequests? What game hands you the most powerful weapons of the game (unless it's part of the plot like Zelda)? Some require stupid sidequests, some require tedious gameplay, some require you to reach a certain spot in less than 12 hours, some require you to beat an absolutely impossible boss unless you cheat, etc.
Do you know of any minigames (that weren't based on games like Tetris, Pong, etc.) that were more fun than the original game? I can't recall any.
In any case, I was just saying that the FFX minigames weren't that bad compared to the previous ones. I think I'll never get over Chocobo racing in FF7 and what a pointless thing that was to get the most powerful materia in that game.
Good marketing? Gimme a break. Good marketing is getting them to buy the game, and that's mainly due to its looks or its "legendary" gameplay. No one is buying games solely for the minigames that they don't hear about, and it isn't something to really brag about more than once.
BTW, it only takes about an hour for each weapon if you have good hand eye coordination (this is mainly for the lightning and the chocobo race). Have you actually tried getting the weapons? Some are just tedious (blitzball, doesn't really require skill since you can just get a good fast runner or someone that can throw very long and pull everyone to your goal and swim to the other side). Others require just watching the screen. Most people I know that have played the game have gotten at least half the weapons if they were told what to do.
And I don't think you give players credit. They love these impossible challenges. Otherwise, why do people do them? They get thrills for getting an ultimate weapon that was hard to get. You don't need them to finish the game. As a matter of fact, I recommend not getting them for the first time since it really ruins the game's difficulty. These weapons are for those that like the game. Most people don't play with FAQs, and they don't max out their characters.
Most kids won't be getting these weapons on their own BTW. There aren't that many clues that kids would be able to piece together to find each weapon. People who will be getting them are the nitpicky audience who want each and every little thing perfect, and that's what the minigames are designed for.
And no, kids don't formulate their self esteem based on these minigames. Do you remember any kid screaming "OMG, I got Knights of the Round!!!!! I am the l33t master of this game!"? It doesn't require weeks on end. I got them in less than a week and that's with mild playing, and I have many friends who will tell you I am not that great in games, and my hand and eye coordination sucks now for FPS games. And sheesh, they don't commit suicide if they don't get them.
For TV shows, it isn't just a matter of sales, but eyeballs. You don't think that Cartoon Network is concerned that fewer people will watch Naruto this year? It is free to watch, but they still make some money on advertising and that advertising revenue is determined mainly by the number of people watching.
Or let's look at a/. favorite, Battlestar Galactica. Yes, they should have simultaneous broadcasts everywhere, but for whatever reasons, they didn't and it hurt a bit if you believe what people say.
While I believe that many pirates won't pay for content no matter what, lost potential sales aren't exactly a myth.
I like Naruto and all, but you have to understand that this show is maybe just a step up from DragonBall Z. Sure there are some good themes in the show, but to say that this is the poster child for being innovative or creative is a bit much. The original author took a cultural legend much like DBZ and put a spin on it and added ninjas and fighting battles that take about 5 episodes to complete.
BTW, this show is hardly obscure in Japan. It just hasn't come out in the US yet (this Summer possibly but more likely Fall), but it will on Cartoon Network.
And if you couldn't predict what has happened so far in the series, you must be very new to fighting anime.
You all complain about these minigames, but you know what? You can advance and beat the game without the minigames! These are sidequests for ULTIMATE weapons.
I got all of the ultimate weapons unlocked for FFX (except Kimarhi's which I really don't know anyone that's actually done it), and it really wasn't that hard nor that time consuming compared to FF7's chocobo races or FF9's chocobo digging. At least FFX's minigames required some interaction from you and were actually minigames and didn't require too much luck.
BTW, by the time I finished getting all the ultimate weapons unlocked, the game was ridiculously easy. One hit kills from Wakka for any monster (and nearly all the bosses), and this is with just slightly less than half the sphere grid covered for him. Not to say that the game wasn't easy to begin with, but getting those ultimate weapons made the game too easy and ruined some of the fun.
Slashdot Mirror
While I also think Apple has focused a lot recently on the iPhone (for good reason), they did update their Mac Pro line recently. Furthermore, if you notice on sites like http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/, every long drought has brought about a significant update. New enclosures, processor generation jumps (i.e. G4 to G5).
l e_snatches_14_percent_of_may_notebook_sales.html Apple notebooks updates come out about the same time as other PC manufacturers (in terms of shipping actual product and not just announcing).
I would be more concerned if there wasn't a notebook update. Desktops are "dying" so to speak for consumers which is where Apple targets. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/06/22/app
This push for the iPhone will in fact help Mac users and possibly standards users. If the iPhone is very successful, Safari / web standards compatibility will be a requirement. I don't have to keep wondering when the top hit list will ever change over (http://webkit.org/projects/compat/hitlist.html). More services will open up for the Mac; for instance, push IMAP instead of proprietary Blackberry protocols may become standard which would allow desktop apps to take advantage of. Better synchronization support for OS X. H.264 may become a "de facto" standard which would stop the Windows Media only sites I keep encountering. There are many reasons for you to care about the iPhone as a Mac users that aren't directly related to the phone.
People who just tend to focus on Mac OS X are missing the bigger picture. I may not get an iPhone but I understand and do care about its success. And its coattails may not be limited to just Apple. Everyone benefits from a more open and standards based web. It might just take an iPhone like phenomenon (or hype machine) to nudge webmasters and other parties in the right direction.
What feature from the 20GB vs. the 60GB is not upgradable that you would want? The big 3 are bigger hard drive capacity, memory card readers, and wireless. The hard drive is user swappable and standard connections (unlike the extortion-like prices that Microsoft is charging for their hard drive). Memory card readers can be attached via USB. Wireless supposedly could have been expanded too via a USB adapter.
The Xbox 360 cannot use a HDMI connection without the Elite model. And while the Xbox 360 is upgradable, it is expensive to do so compared to standard PC parts (which the PS3 uses). That's why you can use bluetooth or USB devices on the PS3 to expand but have to pay outrageous prices for the hard drive, keyboard, etc. for the Xbox 360.
IMO, Microsoft made a bigger mistake by not including the hard drive as a standard. Developers can count on a hard drive in the PS3 which could be used in a few different ways (expansions, caching, MMORPG content, etc.). The missing wireless and memory card readers don't affect game development like a missing hard drive would.
Why didn't you buy the iPod remote (the controller extension)? You strap the iPod securely to your arm via one of those armbands and then plug in the iPod remote and you have a pretty rugged solution that you can easily control sweating and all. It doesn't seem like money is a huge concern for you.
There's no motivation to write a virus that destroys user files.
Okay maybe there's a slight motivation by people who just want to destroy things, but that's not the purpose of most modern viruses. They're written so that other people can use your machine to do malicious deeds.
No one else really cares if your files are hosed. More than likely if they were that important, you should have a backup. However, if people are able to get control of your machine they can turn it into a spambot, a DOS machine or other such device without your knowledge.
Perhaps most surprisingly though, AppleInsider was exceedingly accurate back in November. And yesterday (day before keynote), several blogs such as the one by Kevin Rose did post about the name MacBook Pro and the updates, but with less than 24 hours before unveiling, Apple did do a good job of being secretive.
Xbox brought in Xbox Live, one of the very first broadband gaming services that was mildly successful. Xbox 360 is bringing in multimedia streaming capabilities to the TV if you have the right PC software.
PS2 brought DVDs to the forefront and helped everyone watch media differently (no more be kind, please rewind BS). PS3 brings basically a multimedia tank to the living room (Blu-ray, wireless hub, card readers, Bluetooth, etc.).
Revolution's novelty is a radically different controller.
It's pretty obvious Nintendo's focus is on games. Afterall they have no outside interests to serve. They aren't feeling threatend by living room multimedia hubs taking over as the most interactive computing devices. They aren't worried that a competiting disc format isn't partially owned by them. They don't want to control how people watch, listen, and enjoy all their other content.
Yes you can. Setup a special 1-800 number and put that number in the ad if they want to know more about the product. Or setup a special website address. It's the same more or less as a clickthrough, and these customers may be more valuable since they actually have to do "more" to get the information (compared to just clicking on a link). Therefore, they aren't just clicking on a whim, and the likelihood of them buying your product is increased. There may be tons of people that see the ad and don't follow up on it, but that's just like the tons of people on the Internet that avoid clicking on ads too.
MSFT takes a loss on each sale and they expect it. MSFT isn't dumb. They weren't going to win the console wars with the first Xbox (and some at MSFT realistically say they won't win the next generation either). They came in expecting losses against Nintendo and Sony because these are giants. They want to grab more and more marketshare until they have enough and then they start their real antipiracy measures. The Xbox would not be as popular if it wasn't mod friendly.
What people should call Apple is a solutions company even though I know so many companies are hopping on that bandwagon now. They sell you the complete package from software to hardware making sure that everything works well together. People didn't jump onto the iPod just because they thought the hardware interface was good. They bought it because it was finally a plug and play experience.
Here's another point of view I read recently. You're assuming that all of the titles on the Xbox 360 are exclusives. If even half of those titles are ported, PS3 may have a larger launch library than Xbox 360 will. The Xbox 360 versions come out first, but the PS3 versions will get some (IMO minor) improvements like what happens with Xbox and PS2 versions of games.
The 3rd party publishers love it because they cash in on the same title multiple times with relatively minor costs compared to coming out with a new launch title.
The whole point may be moot though with some big selling (if not great) titles coming out for the previous generation consoles next year (e.g. Final Fantasy XII). I think that's why backwards compatibility is a must have now, and why all 3 console manufacturers have realized the importance.
Look at your Purchase History under your account in iTunes (click your e-mail address for your account options). You can find all the music you purchased before.
The Xbox is just now starting to see games that substantially differentiate itself from PS2 games. Do you get upset at MSFT for making it hard to get great looking games until 4 years after they released the Xbox?
Isn't MSFT also demoing things of what they think they can do? By most accounts, some demos were running at barely 20fps. ATI's hardware also isn't finalized, and furthermore, IBM's hardware isn't actually being produced yet. I don't see how that's any different than Sony's position today.
Look at Epic or id, and they develop for hardware that doesn't exist yet either, but they still show demos and screenshots of the game. By the time the games are released, you can get hardware that runs the game somewhat smoothly. Did they lie too then?
I just tried to help point out that Sony didn't exaggerate when they showed their PS2 tech demos. Did they exaggerate the PS3's capabilities? We'll find out again in 5 years, but looking at some of the games being developed today, it isn't too far fetched to believe.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=54 4397
Check out this thread and just scroll down a bit for the screenshots. Looking at the FF8 screenshot, in-game FFX graphics are significantly better. I don't think anyone can deny that those demo screenshot looks like crap compared to today's titles.
Sony may have hyped them and the media may have greatly exaggerated their claims, but the tech demos did show capabilities of the machine.
IBM didn't market the Cell processor to Xbox 360. Sony would go bankrupt before doing that since Sony, IBM, and Toshiba have some sort of alliance regarding Cell. And Cell is not a next generation CPU platform no matter what IBM or Sony says. PowerPC may be, but definitely not Cell.
Did you forget about the 120 million+ PowerPC chips they're expected to produce for game consoles? Macs ship roughly 4 million PCs a year. Let's say 1/4th of that is their top of the line G5s (which is generous considering that iMacs and laptops outsell the PowerMacs).
A console's generation lifespan is about 6 years so divide 120 million by 6. 20 million processors is nothing to sneeze at considering it's an order of magnitude difference compared to the PowerPCs shipped to Apple.
I'm sorry to see Apple go to Intel, but no one at IBM is losing any sleep over it.
What have they rejected that passed before? I know they test against you for showstopper bugs and for their definition of inappropiate content, but I'm curious to what they have failed otherwise.
I honestly just don't understand how their testing is any different than what your publisher would be testing for on PC games, except it's a bit more complicated for PCs due to the various combinations.
HD ready TV sets have come down in price greatly. You don't necessarily need a 50" set to get HD, and you can get 30" TVs for about $650 that still support 1080i with DVI/HDCP connections at Best Buy. That's about the price of a good LCD monitor at 17" a year or two ago.
This is also an article about next generation consoles, and with MSFT requiring "HD ready" games, that 3 or 4 games list is going to skyrocket.
Listen, I think anyone can tell that you're a big supporter of PC games. I love PC games because they're generally more complex, have great user made mods, and usually require more strategy than their console counterparts. But don't just deny that consoles have great potential too and that soon they will have just as much capability as PCs for gaming.
Somehow I don't believe that it's less costly and complicated to develop for a PC rather than a console. You're talking about patching after release, but do you know how much it costs to patch, test, and support a PC release? I don't think it's as light as you imagine.
There may be more rules for a console release, but you have one target platform, a console manufacturer who does testing for you, etc. If you can't get it working on a fixed platform, how are you expected to get it to work on multiple platforms with buggy drivers and the like?
I'm not saying developing for the PC isn't worth it, but for the potential profit to be made, if I were a CEO I would definitely go console first.
One of the maximum HDTV's resolution is at 1080x1920 I believe. That's a little bit more than the number of pixels 1600x1200 is at. Most HDTVs support 720p or 1080i at the very least.
I wouldn't have posted if you hadn't stated that 1600x1200 at 120fps (is this even achievable with recent games and less than a $500 budget?) beat out HDTV resolutions. Yes, computer monitors today beat out 95% of TV monitors, but it doesn't mean HDTVs aren't capable.
And it's pretty funny because the graphics card industry is releasing practically the same type of designs for their console counterparts. You can have their latest generation either in a console or a computer and get it for roughly the same price or less, if the latest graphic cards still cost $500+ and the consoles sell for ~$300.
I think you have the two genres mixed up. FPS, thanks to Halo, is now switching over to consoles for better or worse. Gear of Wars (and practically any Unreal engine powered game such as Splinter Cell) is debuting on consoles first. MMORPGs are also on consoles (FFXI and EverQuest Adventures amongst others). Since it seems that the consoles are finally allowing USB keyboards and mice to be supported, more MMORPGs are sure to follow.
Some of the last genres that aren't being embraced by consoles are RTS (could change with mice support) and pure strategy games (like Civilization). The exclusive genres for PCs and consoles are no longer there more or less.
I will miss PC gaming as it seems all the big publishers are leaving.
Maybe that's why they are called minigames and sidequests? What game hands you the most powerful weapons of the game (unless it's part of the plot like Zelda)? Some require stupid sidequests, some require tedious gameplay, some require you to reach a certain spot in less than 12 hours, some require you to beat an absolutely impossible boss unless you cheat, etc.
Do you know of any minigames (that weren't based on games like Tetris, Pong, etc.) that were more fun than the original game? I can't recall any.
In any case, I was just saying that the FFX minigames weren't that bad compared to the previous ones. I think I'll never get over Chocobo racing in FF7 and what a pointless thing that was to get the most powerful materia in that game.
Good marketing? Gimme a break. Good marketing is getting them to buy the game, and that's mainly due to its looks or its "legendary" gameplay. No one is buying games solely for the minigames that they don't hear about, and it isn't something to really brag about more than once.
BTW, it only takes about an hour for each weapon if you have good hand eye coordination (this is mainly for the lightning and the chocobo race). Have you actually tried getting the weapons? Some are just tedious (blitzball, doesn't really require skill since you can just get a good fast runner or someone that can throw very long and pull everyone to your goal and swim to the other side). Others require just watching the screen. Most people I know that have played the game have gotten at least half the weapons if they were told what to do.
And I don't think you give players credit. They love these impossible challenges. Otherwise, why do people do them? They get thrills for getting an ultimate weapon that was hard to get. You don't need them to finish the game. As a matter of fact, I recommend not getting them for the first time since it really ruins the game's difficulty. These weapons are for those that like the game. Most people don't play with FAQs, and they don't max out their characters.
Most kids won't be getting these weapons on their own BTW. There aren't that many clues that kids would be able to piece together to find each weapon. People who will be getting them are the nitpicky audience who want each and every little thing perfect, and that's what the minigames are designed for.
And no, kids don't formulate their self esteem based on these minigames. Do you remember any kid screaming "OMG, I got Knights of the Round!!!!! I am the l33t master of this game!"? It doesn't require weeks on end. I got them in less than a week and that's with mild playing, and I have many friends who will tell you I am not that great in games, and my hand and eye coordination sucks now for FPS games. And sheesh, they don't commit suicide if they don't get them.
For TV shows, it isn't just a matter of sales, but eyeballs. You don't think that Cartoon Network is concerned that fewer people will watch Naruto this year? It is free to watch, but they still make some money on advertising and that advertising revenue is determined mainly by the number of people watching.
/. favorite, Battlestar Galactica. Yes, they should have simultaneous broadcasts everywhere, but for whatever reasons, they didn't and it hurt a bit if you believe what people say.
Or let's look at a
While I believe that many pirates won't pay for content no matter what, lost potential sales aren't exactly a myth.
I like Naruto and all, but you have to understand that this show is maybe just a step up from DragonBall Z. Sure there are some good themes in the show, but to say that this is the poster child for being innovative or creative is a bit much. The original author took a cultural legend much like DBZ and put a spin on it and added ninjas and fighting battles that take about 5 episodes to complete.
BTW, this show is hardly obscure in Japan. It just hasn't come out in the US yet (this Summer possibly but more likely Fall), but it will on Cartoon Network.
And if you couldn't predict what has happened so far in the series, you must be very new to fighting anime.
You all complain about these minigames, but you know what? You can advance and beat the game without the minigames! These are sidequests for ULTIMATE weapons.
I got all of the ultimate weapons unlocked for FFX (except Kimarhi's which I really don't know anyone that's actually done it), and it really wasn't that hard nor that time consuming compared to FF7's chocobo races or FF9's chocobo digging. At least FFX's minigames required some interaction from you and were actually minigames and didn't require too much luck.
BTW, by the time I finished getting all the ultimate weapons unlocked, the game was ridiculously easy. One hit kills from Wakka for any monster (and nearly all the bosses), and this is with just slightly less than half the sphere grid covered for him. Not to say that the game wasn't easy to begin with, but getting those ultimate weapons made the game too easy and ruined some of the fun.