A better question would be to ask a PC gamer to choose between a 18 or 19 inch monitor and a 40 inch behemoth, considering all factors such as price, space, heat, etc.
It's stupid to hold televisions and monitors to the same standards because they evolved in very different directions. TV's got bigger and not clearer because the medium doesn't have a great emphasis on text or fine detail, and people enjoy their large home theaters. Monitors got clearer because no one needed the size when you are inches away from the thing, and text and finely detailed graphics are very important on a PC.
That was all before games came along. Now, since both standards are used to play video games, they are being held up against each other. PC users don't care because they already have what matters to them: resolution. Most people wouldn't know what to do with a 30" monitor if they had one, which wouldn't be the case most of the time anyway because they are so expensive. If you really want more space, you can even get two regular size monitors for cheaper than one huge one and have more screen real estate. The TV viewers on the other hand, they get to keep the size of their screens, AND new technology is making them clearer as well.
Everything is going so well for Nintendo. I really hope for them that the launch dates go off without a hitch and the awesome reviews start pouring in a few days later. It would be a make a huge impact in the definition of what "next-gen" games are if this console is a massive success.
Hopefully nothing has gone wrong in the production process. I can't imagine the stress of being a designer or tester for the console hardware. What happens when your company is successfully rolling millions of new machines off the line and someone finds a showstopper hardware bug? We all rememeber the Intel division fiasco.
That's fantastic, seriously. I'm going to write that one down to explain to my parents next time they are thinking about upgrading.
Re:They're delivering what we want
on
Will the Wii Work?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My thoughts exactly. My only hope is that the relatively large and powerful (read: spends lots of money) "core gamer" or "dedicated gamer" marketshare doesn't look at the Wii and say "oh, it's a stupid toy, it's not serious about serious video games like my 360/PS3 is." To people who play video games, "dedicated gamer" can mean something very different than what it means in the marketplace.
Have you read this Penny Arcade? http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/09/15 At the bottom of Tycho's first post, he makes an interesting point and links to a video of some people at a game show playing Metroid Prime with the controllers. The interesting part is that you can hear them talking about the controls as they play and essentially complaining that it's not what they're used to.
I have a feeling that what the "dedicated gamers" may see is something that essentially isn't a games console because it doesn't have a console controller. You can't play games on it like you can play games on an Xbox, PS1/2/3, SNES, or any other console that has come out before it. A dedicated gamer suddenly feels not so dedicated and not such an expert when they pick up the newest toy that's branded as a games console and they have to relearn much of what they knew about video games, and especially for those who care about "asserting their pwnership over the medium" as Tycho puts it, this will likely lead to lots of "elitist" video game players shrugging their shoulders and passing off the Wii like it was a new DDR dance pad: a toy related to video games, but not an actual game.
I think a greater concern for Nintendo, who is trying to shift the idea of gaming into the average joe's spotlight, is that over the past few years, the ways that video games have developed may leave the average joe feeling this way too. Everyone and their dog has played Halo, and that to them is a video game. Look at what has happened in the development of the ridiculous "PC vs. Mac" arguments: any average guy can jump into the flamewar and say "The Mac is just a toy, it can't run my games and doesn't do what *I* want it to," and more or less be right, because it doesn't do what he wants it to, which is look, sound, act and feel like Windows, which is what he has grown accustomed to over the past x years of working with computers. "A 'computer' runs Windows, and anything else is a stupid imitation and a waste of time." Well, the technically inclined among us know that that simply isn't the case, and the same goes for the Wii: truly dedicated gamers, the ones who enjoy playing games for what they are and that rate low on the fanboy scale, will agree with what you've said and will embrace the new console because it offers the potential of something different. The average person that is not overly concerned or interested in the video games marketplace, that in actuality makes up much of the "core gamer" or "dedicated gamer" demographic that market analysts refer to, may act similarly and write the Wii off as a pale imitation.
It is in the truly dedicated gamer's interest that the Wii is a massive success. Actually, I take that back: it is in the greatest interest of every single person who has ever even picked up or tried a video game, or ever will. Why? If the Wii fails, it may fully drive home the notion that although small ragged bands of true gamers here and there complain about stagnating gameplay and the lack of innovation, their voice really doesn't matter, and what will sell is sequels and rehashes and new graphics. Sure, people have tried innovative stuff before, but in my memory at least, this is the first time in the video games industry that an industry juggernaut has jumped into the fray to directly compete with the market dominators with something truly unique and different (I don't count the Virtual Boy: I don't believe it was ever designed to directly compete with the other major consoles. Maybe I'm wrong).
If the Wii is an abysmal failure, Nintendo will be kaput, regardless
Watch some more of the videos. While it seems that Wii Sports has you stand up to play, it's largely an "ice-breaker" for the console: A pack in with simple character design, but most likely great control designed to showcase what the Wii does best. It's a discussion piece, a fun little party game, something to get your parents and grandparents to pick up and try.
Many of the gameplay videos showing players is exaggerated to play to people who aren't as interested as those that follow the game industry closely. It jumps up and says "look at this, you actually have to move around!" The fact that games like this CAN be developed with this new control design is exciting.
Look at the gameplay for Metroid, Zelda, Excite Truck, Project Hammer, Mario, etc. You can sit and relax just like every other video game you play. The controllers are generally pretty sensitive: wrist flicks seem to do it with most movements. However, you may be sitting slightly more upright in a more active stance so your arms are free to move a little bit, rather than vegging on your recliner with an Xbox style controller propped up on your leg.
As for people worried that holding their arms in front of them is going to be tiring after a while, someone else in a thread on a previous topic made an excellent point that sitting down with no game in front of you and pressing buttons on a controller gets really old and tiring in just a minute or two. Most of us haven't yet tried the actual Wii remote with an actual game. The distraction will likely cause you to ignore any minor discomforts. Plus, I don't think that you will have to sit there like a puppet with your arms fully out in front of you anyway; you can rest your elbows or forearms on chair arms or on your legs.
No, the combination of all the technological parts related to processing power in the Wii is a rip-off. With any console, you get more than the machinery, you get the fun value, which is basically everything else that the console can provide to you *through* its parts. The fun-value is only created through the purchase of games, though. The Wii is the only console of this (and the last, and arguably others) generation to really differentiate itself by what it offers above and beyond it's machinery, besides the titles unique to the system (notice I say "titles," not games. It's reasonable to believe that a Halo 2 clone could exist on the PS2, but it's still not "Halo" and doesn't have the value that Halo does). Additionally, the other consoles do differentiate themselves through their hardware (Cell vs. whatever the 360's got, compared in numerous ways), but at the end of the day, all that hardware does basically the same thing: crunch numbers and spit out graphics. Nintendo has created new hardware that does something besides that, and through that hardware, the experience on Wii is vastly different.
Finally, it's very important to understand that the value of the hardware and the fun-value are directly related. The value of the hardware is zero if no one writes anything for it, and very low if no one writes anything *good* for it. It's getting harder and harder to write something *good* because generally with video games, good and unique are directly related, meaning that a console's value is tied very closely to the games that are unique to itself (i.e. Madden 2007 raises the value of a console very little, if at all, because all consoles have virtually the same game. The value it delivers is based on what is different between each port). What does this mean? Sony and MS will have their blockbuster system-sellers that make the system, like Halo 3, obtained through exclusive licensing and contracts. The Wii will have more games unique to itself than the other systems combined because they are made possible through its unique hardware, and even if it has games that are available on other systems, the possibilities for differentiating the game through the unique controllers may make it more valuable on the Wii.
The fun-value is vital to a console's success because the raw hardware power isn't much of a differentiating factor anymore. Everyone can display 3d graphics at a pretty fast rate, so there's no ability to differentiate: every console can provide the same types of games that do the same thing. The Wii potentially has a much greater fun value because it has differentiated itself and will do things that the other consoles can't do, when the other consoles can virtually do the same things across the board. This, in turn, raises the value of owning the Wii hardware. The combination of the fun value, plus the hardware value that is affected by the fun value, dictate the total value of the Wii. The Wii's hardware *cost* may be low, but Nintendo can sell it at a profit because the fun value pushes the hardware value over cost. Sony and MS are forced to sell their consoles as loss-leaders because the market has dictated that the hardware's value isn't as high as its cost, due to lack of differentiation.
I'm sure an econ major is going to come along and kick my ass on this, but in general, it makes sense. You have to separate "value" and "cost." Value is acquired through many factors, and differentiation is a huge one.
Ah, I also forgot to mention: the Wii will play Gamecube games straight out of the box. A lot of Cube games are dirt cheap right now (I'd go buy them now before the price goes up due to new interest of people playing them on the Wii!) Never had a Cube? I didn't either. But I'm going to go grab RE4 (considered game of the year on ANY console by at least one industry reviewer I know of), Zelda, a few other classics and a couple controllers.
This console's given you a ton of stuff to do for a relatively low price. I'd say its a steal.
It's curious how many people are kind of crestfallen now that they know the Wii has a release date, a price, and is confirmed come with x, y, and z accessories. It's almost like people were expecting Nintendo to give it to them for free. "What do you mean it's going to cost $250?!!" Well, it's a piece of very advanced technology being sold by a company that would like to make money. Of course the controller is $60! A wireless XBox controller is 50 and it doesn't do half the stuff the Wiimote + nunchuck does. Of course it's not going to come with Zelda! Everyone who buys a Wii will pay for it separately. OK, so you would pay $200 for it but not $250 - that's just fine. I understand that the fact that it is $250 frustrates some people too, that it puts it out of their price range for what is considered reasonable. But don't act like Nintendo just violated you bodily or something.
I also think the price comparisons with the Xbox360 Core system are interesting. Someone made an excellent note above that "well, that's great, and yes it has to be competitive on price... but people will pay the money because they want the *Wii*, not because they are balancing the pros and cons of different consoles." Normally I don't think this would be the case, but the Wii is bringing something very unique to the home entertainment system.
It's not a genie in a lamp, people. It's a video game console. It looks very fun and interesting and of the highest quality, which I would expect from Nintendo. It will cost money, like all things do. Why must every purchase nowadays be considered "voting with your dollars?" It's a fun toy. Buy it if you want it.
Incidentally, $250 is a great value. You get the system and all of its online-ness, including built in wireless (wireless radios aren't pennies-cheap) and all the online capabilities that *don't require a subscription,* unlike Xbox Live: If you have a wireless router in your house, just power up the system and you are online. It comes with a full wiimote+nunchuck controller; if you want multiplay, another wiimote will cost you $40 and you can probably skip the nunchuck. This is a little more spendy than a 360, unless you want to pay $50 for the wireless 360 controller. The system comes with Wii sports: sure, not a AAA title, but it's something to play if you don't feel like buying another game right away, and it's something *else* to play after you get a little tired of 8 straight hours of Zelda. No other console comes with anything to play. You can purchase Virtual Console games for about 5 bucks online... the only reason everyone considers this so expensive is because pirating ROMs is free and a lot of people do it. Geometry Wars for the 360 costs about 5 bucks and no one complains about that - hell, it's the most popular game for the system. If you could pirate it for free, no one would buy it, because there's a big mental jump between pirating a $5 item and a $50 or $60 item.
Hard drive? No. But Nintendo chose to go with the inexpensive industry standard: SD cards (correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Wii has a 500 MB-ish built in flash chip and you can use any old SD card as a memory card). This is the best of both the "memory-card" and "hard-drive" worlds: huge storage that's very portable. I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet: SD cards are a great deal for the Wii. They're cheap and getting cheaper, and there's no lock-in. Anyways, a key feature is that you can be playing Wii tennis/boxing/golf/what have you on a Wii with a friend for less than or equal to the price of owning a Core 360 with one controller and no games.
I wonder if the fun-value of what the Wii does will actually make inroads to the "fratboys." In my experience, the PS2 had nothing on the Xbox when it came to that market demographic, mainly because the Xbox had 4 controller ports, Halo and Halo 2, a few racing and sports (football/basketball, mostly) games, and a network connection. Mod-chip-ability didn't hurt either, what with all the pirated media that floats around college students and the availability of emulators and media centers for modded Xboxes. Sure, the Cube had 4 controller ports, but the Cube didn't really have anything going for it other than a certain look and feel that didn't appeal to the 20-somethings. Anyways, it's amazing how often three or four people are sitting around a fraternity with nothing to do and and say "hey, lets play Halo." A lot of those people play Halo simply because other people have it and that's what there is to play that's quick, fun and easy to set up multiplayer. Halo is an FPS, so it's got instant gratification - no running laps or collecting 100 items. Microsoft sealed the deal with this demographic by giving them something fun to do that required no commitment - a multiplayer toy. It hit so hard that it achieved credibility through sheer force - many people would now rather play the Xbox version of any game rather than the PS2 version because "they like the Xbox controller better," or just because the Xbox is so much cooler. I tell people all the time it's funny to me that they seem so enthralled with 4 or 8 player or online deathmatch when college aged PC gamers have been doing it since they could figure out how to install Quake years and years ago, but the Xbox brought it to the TV screen for four people in the same room. Goldeneye did it too, and Goldeneye was just as big in it's heyday as Halo is now. The only difference is that Halo is capitalizing on its success to a much greater extent.
Now, we have the Wii: 4 players, all wireless controllers. Network connection. Kiddy look-and-feel and kiddy games? Sure, but there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing more adult-oriented content. What may turn out to be more important are casual games - simple sports games, Warioware type stuff, Super Monkey Ball. Stuff you can play with other people on a Saturday afternoon when there's nothing else to do. So, someone tries their kid sister's Wii at home or a friend buys one, a few people try it and voila - it's a blast with a few friends. Have a few beers and play Warioware (I see an entirely new generation of drinking games on the horizon involving Wii mini-game type games that involve steady hands), or swordfight with your friends. Yes, "serious" gamers will stand in the corner and say "I'll stick with my adult-looking controller and mature games, thank you." But the Wii is saying "ah, just come try me! I'm a fun toy."
Now, take all the people that didn't buy an Xbox360 or won't buy a PS3 for its expense, or lack of games, or whatever reason. Sure, the Wii looks fun, it's got that remote control gimmick. But wait, it's only $250. AND it has all the sports games the other consoles have. No, it doesn't have Halo 3, but Jake down the hall already has a 360. Why not just save some money, get a Wii to play Madden 200X and pretend not to notice it doesn't have as many polygons, and on the side, pick up a couple of those gimmick games? Maybe it'll help turn my room into a cool place for people to hang out during the evening (this is a huge driving force in fraternities and the like: people want "the party room" or "the chill room.").
I think Nintendo's got the classic name brand, the intelligence, and the market position to really hit a home run here. The console playing field has levelled out like it never has before: the processing and graphics technology is no longer adding to gameplay. No one can seem to make a genre-buster anymore. Madden sells like hotcakes simply because it doesn't make sense to play last year's version if you can have this year's for only 35 bucks, and Halo 3 will succeed because people
This is a problem I've been thinking about a lot recently. Every few days I come across something else that changes my thinking, and I think this article has pretty much brought everything to a head.
A few people here have mentioned that backup is such a tricky proposition because everyone has different needs. The setups I have been thinking about I think cater to the needs of the average tech-savvy person on Slashdot, and I'd love to hear responses on them:
My first thought is to have two entirely separate disks or arrays of disks: one for system data and the other for personal data. This solution is cheap and fairly easy to do. Install your OS, apps and all related files on one disk or array; if you have a fast, expensive disk or an array you can stripe, this is where you would do it to maximize speed. The other half is where you store your personal data. Originally I planned for this to be a two-disk mirror, but after reading some of the excellent comments here, I can't believe I thought it was a good idea to use RAID-1 as an actual backup mechanism. Anyways, this method is cool because all you need is a data copy of the "personal data" disk - it doesn't need to be bootable, you can remove it and store it somewhere safe, and it can easily be attached to another system. Most OSes can map the standard "My Documents"-type folder to another directory besides the default one, including putting it on a separate drive. The cons with this setup is that some personal data invariably gets jumbled into the system and is not something you would ordinarily think to back up.
The other option I am thinking of is to locate all of your files on a single disk or array, and back that up to a mirror copy (bootable and all) that could then be removed and stored somewhere safe. This ensures that you don't lose any of that personal data that gets stored with the OS and system files.
This is where my subject line question comes in. If you need a "perfect copy" of a drive, bootable and all, couldn't you just plug it in, enable RAID, rebuild the mirror from the disk/array you have onto the backup disk, then power off, unplug the backup and reboot? That way you have a 1:1 copy - if your hard drives spontaneously combusted inside your system you could just plug this one in and go. If your whole system went kaput, you may not be able to boot from the drive on another system if it had different hardware, but at least you have all of the system files and you could recover anything on the whole disk.
This is a push in the right direction, but it isn't quite there.
It's fairly trivial to do something that can help educate the average PC user about OSS, as we can see from this article. The challenge is getting them to care.
I believe OSS suffers from "Apple Advertising Syndrome." I've heard it said before that if Apple actually ran advertisements that showed a Mac and PC working side by side, saying "Watch as this Mac does exactly what this PC does, but it's faster, more usable, and easier to look at, and you can get MS Office, email, calendaring, IM, etc." they'd sell a lot more. OSS needs the same sort of thing, but they need to tout that great "Free" price tag. MS Office vs. OpenOffice is a great example. The only reason the average PC user would even consider leaving something like MS Office for OpenOffice is that it could do exactly the same thing, but cheaper or for free. Period. I don't personally know a single person that uses OpenOffice instead of MS Office, and it's all because of network externality. Is my copy of Office busted? I'm sure someone can help me fix it. I am sure that if I just click "Save," everyone else will be able to see this document, because everyone uses MS Office. No worries. The only way network externality can be defeated is with something incredibly tempting and convincing, and no amount of usability or features pumped into an application will make it one millionth of one percent as tempting as saying "Hey, it works just like MS Office but it's free!"
The average PC user doesn't care about "Free as in freedom, not free as in beer." Free as in beer is what will get the software out there.
I guess the most unfortunate part is that increasing recognition of OSS to "average PC users" won't add a single person to those contributing to the source. Average PC users consume, not produce, applications.
...they refine the answer we've had for years, which is:
"It depends on the individual, which means the responsibility falls on the parents or guardians to ensure that their children aren't being exposed to something that is going to alter their behavior in a negative way."
The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap. Yeah, it is great looking and I really love the baby blue leather case but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?
You can. They're called CDs. Those things your organization used to rip off the American public for years before a theoretically more powerful content distribution system was found and you started bitching about it because you no longer had a monopoly over distribution.
Seems the RIAA may be the only organization that actually doesn't like it when other kids play by their rules, which seem to be "Make sure we're the only ones that can make money off of this so we get it all."
I love all the complaints in here about Netflix being a dishonest company. Especially when you complain that you are renting so many DVDs in such a small timespan that Netflix won't send you more.
Yeah, I bet you're doing really honest things with them.
I think the "antiaolism" (I like that word by the way) is because AOL so heavily supports the excessive dumbing-down of computing. A lot of people here see it as a steady pace moving in exactly the wrong direction. By "dumbing down" computing, AOL is not truly making it easier to use. They are removing functionality and tying all the functionality they do have to an enormous resource hog of a client and network.
True, some people like it this way, and would prefer to have their computers be "AOL boxes." But to the rest of us, it doesn't seem fair. It deprives inexperienced users of so many things.
But it just seems like Apple can't pin down the market they want to target. They're not scalable enough and not cheap enough for the low end and you can do way better than the $1900 for the high end one. A perfect example is the proverbial "mom," who reads her email, surfs the net a little bit, and maybe prints some color pages occasionally. $1300 is too expensive, even with the monitor: she already has a monitor, and you can throw together a pretty, easy to use Linux box for about half the price.
I love Apple and what they are trying to do, but why must they cower in a corner? Apple insists on telling it's consumers what they should want, but not why they should want it. All Apple has to do to sell their computers is tell people why they should want to buy them, and they know it. People will never get over the fact that they are more expensive than what Dell is trying to sell them today unless Apple says "Hey, we design our hardware and software together because it's more stable and can make you more productive. Now watch as I show you that you can play games and use Microsoft Office files on a Mac..."
It's just a shame to see a platform purposefully remain "underground" when it could benefit from so much innovation if it was more mainstream.
They could just sent a browser popup or a Messenger window pop up to every IP address on the internet telling the user that the RIAA has filed a lawsuit against them for violating the DMCA by using technology invented after 1965.
Replace * with your favorite legal music downloading software (Napster, iTunes, etc.)
1: Use * to access the * music store and purchase DRM protected music.
2: Use * to sort that music into a playlist.
3: Use * to burn that playlist to a CD.
4: Use * to rip the songs from that CD in MP3 format.
Does the average person not realize that this is easily done? With a CD-RW, it's a free process. I just wish that someone would come up with a hack around this process so you wouldn't actually have to take the time to burn the CD and rip it back. They could just sell unprotected content to begin with... oh WAIT, wait, they can't do that. In fact, it's such a pain in the ass to do that I'd rather spend almost the same amount of money to buy the actual CD (yes, it's possible. Go to Best Buy on a sale weekend), get full quality unprotected music with the actual CD, case, and liner notes. Am I particularly emotional about the liner notes? No. But it's a cool bonus.
I feel like the record industry is trying to make people feel guilty for owning unprotected music. It's not like it transforms you into some copyright-abusing animal, recklessly giving the song out to everyone you know. It just makes it less of a pain in the ass to enjoy. Enough bullsh*t about not wanting to sell us unprotected music: you already are, except for the fact that you have decreased the quality (convenience of downloading the music is nulled by the fact you have to copy it to CD and rip it back). I couldn't believe it when I reformatted my computer and tried to play one of the very few DRM songs I had (purchased and hadn't burned/ripped yet): the damn thing told me I had to download the Napster client before I could listen to it. I looked around for whoever was playing the joke on me; I couldn't believe the thing was being serious!
Next thing you know, you'll have to wade through a credit card application and a Flash ad just to listen to the song that you payed for.
I wish things were that simple, but I have a couple of viewpoints:
1. I have a mom who is computer illiterate. To her, the computer is an appliance to look up recipes and travel information online, send email, and instant message. As you said, "People like this poor unfortunate person don't know that their PC is not an appliance." The heart of the matter is, they don't understand that it's not an appliance no matter what you tell them. In fact, they steadfastly refuse to accept that they need to learn a few things to be able to use the computer on their own without running into huge problems. I could back up this person's data, reformat and reintsall, and they probably wouldn't notice. They don't know what reformat means. They know that their computer is speedy again, doesn't crash, and stops giving error windows when they try to use the internet. The fact is, these people do exist, in large numbers, and they are by no means stupid. Much like I just want my car to start when I turn the key, they just want their PC to work. Many Slashdotters may turn up their nose, and say "If you're not curious enough to know how it works, you don't deserve to have it work for you." Please. I guarantee there are at least a few things in your life that you take for granted, and just expect to work: Running water, the wiring in your house, your car, the government, etc. For these people, the computer is one of those things.
2. I live in a fraternity. These guys have more warez, movies, music, sketchy DVD and CD burning and ripping utilities, etc. on their computers than anyone I have ever met. They see something that looks good or useful, they download it. The network in the house is the computer equivalent of a trash heap. Viruses have crashed our server and slowed our network to a stop. Again: "People like [these poor unfortunate people] don't know that their PC is not an appliance." As one of the two or so computer literate people in the house, I am asked daily to "fix my network" or figure out "why doesn't Winamp work?" About 95% of the time, I tell them to reformat. I don't care if it's salvagable or not, and I don't care if it takes 10 hours or not. I don't care if it "saves me time but costs them twice as much in the long run," and neither does the rest of the house because their machine has a virus that floods the bandwidth on the internet connection. I have tolerance and respect for these people, and I do help them. I help them back up their data, and get them started on the fairly friendly XP reformat process. Problem solved.
"Reformatting someone's PC is damnright rude. They use that PC, they don't want to have to go through all the business of setting up and installing their programs again." They lose the right of "not having to go through all that business" when they come to me, hands waving, saying, "I don't care, just fix it!" Like I said, I am tolerant, but a reformat is the silver bullet. Computer illiterate people have it both good and bad; they can be completely and happily oblivious to anything bad that may happen to their computer, but when something does happen, they are helpless to fix it. Like a car, you don't have to know everything about it to use it, and you can happily go about your day not worrying about it, but you aren't going to get a free ride when the thing breaks and you can't fix it. Everyone whose computer I fix, I encourage them to learn about what makes it tick, why they should stop downloading sketchy stuff on the net, etc. It's their choice not to listen, and pay the price later.
An excellent point, thank you. Concept of "zombie box" totally slipped my mind.
Oh, and the posts above were right. Kerio PF is great so far; simple, stays out of my way.
Does it gunk up your system as bad as ZA? I tried ZA once a long time ago and it was nothing but a struggle. I just uninstalled; no one's hacked my box. It's not like there's anything good on it.
I hope Craigslist maintains its grassroots look and feel (doubtful), as well as customers. You can find more free crap on Craigslist than anywhere else I've ever seen. It's become a new hobby for our fraternity; a guy upstairs managed to get a three piece connected leather lounger with built in telephone and massager for free. We tried to hook up the school bus one guy offered but it didn't go through. Fishtanks, computer stuff... you can find anything on there.
Slashdot Mirror
A better question would be to ask a PC gamer to choose between a 18 or 19 inch monitor and a 40 inch behemoth, considering all factors such as price, space, heat, etc.
It's stupid to hold televisions and monitors to the same standards because they evolved in very different directions. TV's got bigger and not clearer because the medium doesn't have a great emphasis on text or fine detail, and people enjoy their large home theaters. Monitors got clearer because no one needed the size when you are inches away from the thing, and text and finely detailed graphics are very important on a PC.
That was all before games came along. Now, since both standards are used to play video games, they are being held up against each other. PC users don't care because they already have what matters to them: resolution. Most people wouldn't know what to do with a 30" monitor if they had one, which wouldn't be the case most of the time anyway because they are so expensive. If you really want more space, you can even get two regular size monitors for cheaper than one huge one and have more screen real estate. The TV viewers on the other hand, they get to keep the size of their screens, AND new technology is making them clearer as well.
Everything is going so well for Nintendo. I really hope for them that the launch dates go off without a hitch and the awesome reviews start pouring in a few days later. It would be a make a huge impact in the definition of what "next-gen" games are if this console is a massive success.
Hopefully nothing has gone wrong in the production process. I can't imagine the stress of being a designer or tester for the console hardware. What happens when your company is successfully rolling millions of new machines off the line and someone finds a showstopper hardware bug? We all rememeber the Intel division fiasco.
That's fantastic, seriously. I'm going to write that one down to explain to my parents next time they are thinking about upgrading.
My thoughts exactly. My only hope is that the relatively large and powerful (read: spends lots of money) "core gamer" or "dedicated gamer" marketshare doesn't look at the Wii and say "oh, it's a stupid toy, it's not serious about serious video games like my 360/PS3 is." To people who play video games, "dedicated gamer" can mean something very different than what it means in the marketplace.
Have you read this Penny Arcade? http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/09/15 At the bottom of Tycho's first post, he makes an interesting point and links to a video of some people at a game show playing Metroid Prime with the controllers. The interesting part is that you can hear them talking about the controls as they play and essentially complaining that it's not what they're used to.
I have a feeling that what the "dedicated gamers" may see is something that essentially isn't a games console because it doesn't have a console controller. You can't play games on it like you can play games on an Xbox, PS1/2/3, SNES, or any other console that has come out before it. A dedicated gamer suddenly feels not so dedicated and not such an expert when they pick up the newest toy that's branded as a games console and they have to relearn much of what they knew about video games, and especially for those who care about "asserting their pwnership over the medium" as Tycho puts it, this will likely lead to lots of "elitist" video game players shrugging their shoulders and passing off the Wii like it was a new DDR dance pad: a toy related to video games, but not an actual game.
I think a greater concern for Nintendo, who is trying to shift the idea of gaming into the average joe's spotlight, is that over the past few years, the ways that video games have developed may leave the average joe feeling this way too. Everyone and their dog has played Halo, and that to them is a video game. Look at what has happened in the development of the ridiculous "PC vs. Mac" arguments: any average guy can jump into the flamewar and say "The Mac is just a toy, it can't run my games and doesn't do what *I* want it to," and more or less be right, because it doesn't do what he wants it to, which is look, sound, act and feel like Windows, which is what he has grown accustomed to over the past x years of working with computers. "A 'computer' runs Windows, and anything else is a stupid imitation and a waste of time." Well, the technically inclined among us know that that simply isn't the case, and the same goes for the Wii: truly dedicated gamers, the ones who enjoy playing games for what they are and that rate low on the fanboy scale, will agree with what you've said and will embrace the new console because it offers the potential of something different. The average person that is not overly concerned or interested in the video games marketplace, that in actuality makes up much of the "core gamer" or "dedicated gamer" demographic that market analysts refer to, may act similarly and write the Wii off as a pale imitation.
It is in the truly dedicated gamer's interest that the Wii is a massive success. Actually, I take that back: it is in the greatest interest of every single person who has ever even picked up or tried a video game, or ever will. Why? If the Wii fails, it may fully drive home the notion that although small ragged bands of true gamers here and there complain about stagnating gameplay and the lack of innovation, their voice really doesn't matter, and what will sell is sequels and rehashes and new graphics. Sure, people have tried innovative stuff before, but in my memory at least, this is the first time in the video games industry that an industry juggernaut has jumped into the fray to directly compete with the market dominators with something truly unique and different (I don't count the Virtual Boy: I don't believe it was ever designed to directly compete with the other major consoles. Maybe I'm wrong).
If the Wii is an abysmal failure, Nintendo will be kaput, regardless
Watch some more of the videos. While it seems that Wii Sports has you stand up to play, it's largely an "ice-breaker" for the console: A pack in with simple character design, but most likely great control designed to showcase what the Wii does best. It's a discussion piece, a fun little party game, something to get your parents and grandparents to pick up and try. Many of the gameplay videos showing players is exaggerated to play to people who aren't as interested as those that follow the game industry closely. It jumps up and says "look at this, you actually have to move around!" The fact that games like this CAN be developed with this new control design is exciting. Look at the gameplay for Metroid, Zelda, Excite Truck, Project Hammer, Mario, etc. You can sit and relax just like every other video game you play. The controllers are generally pretty sensitive: wrist flicks seem to do it with most movements. However, you may be sitting slightly more upright in a more active stance so your arms are free to move a little bit, rather than vegging on your recliner with an Xbox style controller propped up on your leg.
As for people worried that holding their arms in front of them is going to be tiring after a while, someone else in a thread on a previous topic made an excellent point that sitting down with no game in front of you and pressing buttons on a controller gets really old and tiring in just a minute or two. Most of us haven't yet tried the actual Wii remote with an actual game. The distraction will likely cause you to ignore any minor discomforts. Plus, I don't think that you will have to sit there like a puppet with your arms fully out in front of you anyway; you can rest your elbows or forearms on chair arms or on your legs.
No, the combination of all the technological parts related to processing power in the Wii is a rip-off. With any console, you get more than the machinery, you get the fun value, which is basically everything else that the console can provide to you *through* its parts. The fun-value is only created through the purchase of games, though. The Wii is the only console of this (and the last, and arguably others) generation to really differentiate itself by what it offers above and beyond it's machinery, besides the titles unique to the system (notice I say "titles," not games. It's reasonable to believe that a Halo 2 clone could exist on the PS2, but it's still not "Halo" and doesn't have the value that Halo does). Additionally, the other consoles do differentiate themselves through their hardware (Cell vs. whatever the 360's got, compared in numerous ways), but at the end of the day, all that hardware does basically the same thing: crunch numbers and spit out graphics. Nintendo has created new hardware that does something besides that, and through that hardware, the experience on Wii is vastly different.
Finally, it's very important to understand that the value of the hardware and the fun-value are directly related. The value of the hardware is zero if no one writes anything for it, and very low if no one writes anything *good* for it. It's getting harder and harder to write something *good* because generally with video games, good and unique are directly related, meaning that a console's value is tied very closely to the games that are unique to itself (i.e. Madden 2007 raises the value of a console very little, if at all, because all consoles have virtually the same game. The value it delivers is based on what is different between each port). What does this mean? Sony and MS will have their blockbuster system-sellers that make the system, like Halo 3, obtained through exclusive licensing and contracts. The Wii will have more games unique to itself than the other systems combined because they are made possible through its unique hardware, and even if it has games that are available on other systems, the possibilities for differentiating the game through the unique controllers may make it more valuable on the Wii.
The fun-value is vital to a console's success because the raw hardware power isn't much of a differentiating factor anymore. Everyone can display 3d graphics at a pretty fast rate, so there's no ability to differentiate: every console can provide the same types of games that do the same thing. The Wii potentially has a much greater fun value because it has differentiated itself and will do things that the other consoles can't do, when the other consoles can virtually do the same things across the board. This, in turn, raises the value of owning the Wii hardware. The combination of the fun value, plus the hardware value that is affected by the fun value, dictate the total value of the Wii. The Wii's hardware *cost* may be low, but Nintendo can sell it at a profit because the fun value pushes the hardware value over cost. Sony and MS are forced to sell their consoles as loss-leaders because the market has dictated that the hardware's value isn't as high as its cost, due to lack of differentiation.
I'm sure an econ major is going to come along and kick my ass on this, but in general, it makes sense. You have to separate "value" and "cost." Value is acquired through many factors, and differentiation is a huge one.
Ah, I also forgot to mention: the Wii will play Gamecube games straight out of the box. A lot of Cube games are dirt cheap right now (I'd go buy them now before the price goes up due to new interest of people playing them on the Wii!) Never had a Cube? I didn't either. But I'm going to go grab RE4 (considered game of the year on ANY console by at least one industry reviewer I know of), Zelda, a few other classics and a couple controllers. This console's given you a ton of stuff to do for a relatively low price. I'd say its a steal.
It's curious how many people are kind of crestfallen now that they know the Wii has a release date, a price, and is confirmed come with x, y, and z accessories. It's almost like people were expecting Nintendo to give it to them for free. "What do you mean it's going to cost $250?!!" Well, it's a piece of very advanced technology being sold by a company that would like to make money. Of course the controller is $60! A wireless XBox controller is 50 and it doesn't do half the stuff the Wiimote + nunchuck does. Of course it's not going to come with Zelda! Everyone who buys a Wii will pay for it separately. OK, so you would pay $200 for it but not $250 - that's just fine. I understand that the fact that it is $250 frustrates some people too, that it puts it out of their price range for what is considered reasonable. But don't act like Nintendo just violated you bodily or something.
I also think the price comparisons with the Xbox360 Core system are interesting. Someone made an excellent note above that "well, that's great, and yes it has to be competitive on price... but people will pay the money because they want the *Wii*, not because they are balancing the pros and cons of different consoles." Normally I don't think this would be the case, but the Wii is bringing something very unique to the home entertainment system.
It's not a genie in a lamp, people. It's a video game console. It looks very fun and interesting and of the highest quality, which I would expect from Nintendo. It will cost money, like all things do. Why must every purchase nowadays be considered "voting with your dollars?" It's a fun toy. Buy it if you want it.
Incidentally, $250 is a great value. You get the system and all of its online-ness, including built in wireless (wireless radios aren't pennies-cheap) and all the online capabilities that *don't require a subscription,* unlike Xbox Live: If you have a wireless router in your house, just power up the system and you are online. It comes with a full wiimote+nunchuck controller; if you want multiplay, another wiimote will cost you $40 and you can probably skip the nunchuck. This is a little more spendy than a 360, unless you want to pay $50 for the wireless 360 controller. The system comes with Wii sports: sure, not a AAA title, but it's something to play if you don't feel like buying another game right away, and it's something *else* to play after you get a little tired of 8 straight hours of Zelda. No other console comes with anything to play. You can purchase Virtual Console games for about 5 bucks online... the only reason everyone considers this so expensive is because pirating ROMs is free and a lot of people do it. Geometry Wars for the 360 costs about 5 bucks and no one complains about that - hell, it's the most popular game for the system. If you could pirate it for free, no one would buy it, because there's a big mental jump between pirating a $5 item and a $50 or $60 item.
Hard drive? No. But Nintendo chose to go with the inexpensive industry standard: SD cards (correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Wii has a 500 MB-ish built in flash chip and you can use any old SD card as a memory card). This is the best of both the "memory-card" and "hard-drive" worlds: huge storage that's very portable. I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet: SD cards are a great deal for the Wii. They're cheap and getting cheaper, and there's no lock-in. Anyways, a key feature is that you can be playing Wii tennis/boxing/golf/what have you on a Wii with a friend for less than or equal to the price of owning a Core 360 with one controller and no games.
I wonder if the fun-value of what the Wii does will actually make inroads to the "fratboys." In my experience, the PS2 had nothing on the Xbox when it came to that market demographic, mainly because the Xbox had 4 controller ports, Halo and Halo 2, a few racing and sports (football/basketball, mostly) games, and a network connection. Mod-chip-ability didn't hurt either, what with all the pirated media that floats around college students and the availability of emulators and media centers for modded Xboxes. Sure, the Cube had 4 controller ports, but the Cube didn't really have anything going for it other than a certain look and feel that didn't appeal to the 20-somethings. Anyways, it's amazing how often three or four people are sitting around a fraternity with nothing to do and and say "hey, lets play Halo." A lot of those people play Halo simply because other people have it and that's what there is to play that's quick, fun and easy to set up multiplayer. Halo is an FPS, so it's got instant gratification - no running laps or collecting 100 items. Microsoft sealed the deal with this demographic by giving them something fun to do that required no commitment - a multiplayer toy. It hit so hard that it achieved credibility through sheer force - many people would now rather play the Xbox version of any game rather than the PS2 version because "they like the Xbox controller better," or just because the Xbox is so much cooler. I tell people all the time it's funny to me that they seem so enthralled with 4 or 8 player or online deathmatch when college aged PC gamers have been doing it since they could figure out how to install Quake years and years ago, but the Xbox brought it to the TV screen for four people in the same room. Goldeneye did it too, and Goldeneye was just as big in it's heyday as Halo is now. The only difference is that Halo is capitalizing on its success to a much greater extent.
Now, we have the Wii: 4 players, all wireless controllers. Network connection. Kiddy look-and-feel and kiddy games? Sure, but there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing more adult-oriented content. What may turn out to be more important are casual games - simple sports games, Warioware type stuff, Super Monkey Ball. Stuff you can play with other people on a Saturday afternoon when there's nothing else to do. So, someone tries their kid sister's Wii at home or a friend buys one, a few people try it and voila - it's a blast with a few friends. Have a few beers and play Warioware (I see an entirely new generation of drinking games on the horizon involving Wii mini-game type games that involve steady hands), or swordfight with your friends. Yes, "serious" gamers will stand in the corner and say "I'll stick with my adult-looking controller and mature games, thank you." But the Wii is saying "ah, just come try me! I'm a fun toy."
Now, take all the people that didn't buy an Xbox360 or won't buy a PS3 for its expense, or lack of games, or whatever reason. Sure, the Wii looks fun, it's got that remote control gimmick. But wait, it's only $250. AND it has all the sports games the other consoles have. No, it doesn't have Halo 3, but Jake down the hall already has a 360. Why not just save some money, get a Wii to play Madden 200X and pretend not to notice it doesn't have as many polygons, and on the side, pick up a couple of those gimmick games? Maybe it'll help turn my room into a cool place for people to hang out during the evening (this is a huge driving force in fraternities and the like: people want "the party room" or "the chill room.").
I think Nintendo's got the classic name brand, the intelligence, and the market position to really hit a home run here. The console playing field has levelled out like it never has before: the processing and graphics technology is no longer adding to gameplay. No one can seem to make a genre-buster anymore. Madden sells like hotcakes simply because it doesn't make sense to play last year's version if you can have this year's for only 35 bucks, and Halo 3 will succeed because people
This is a problem I've been thinking about a lot recently. Every few days I come across something else that changes my thinking, and I think this article has pretty much brought everything to a head.
A few people here have mentioned that backup is such a tricky proposition because everyone has different needs. The setups I have been thinking about I think cater to the needs of the average tech-savvy person on Slashdot, and I'd love to hear responses on them:
My first thought is to have two entirely separate disks or arrays of disks: one for system data and the other for personal data. This solution is cheap and fairly easy to do. Install your OS, apps and all related files on one disk or array; if you have a fast, expensive disk or an array you can stripe, this is where you would do it to maximize speed. The other half is where you store your personal data. Originally I planned for this to be a two-disk mirror, but after reading some of the excellent comments here, I can't believe I thought it was a good idea to use RAID-1 as an actual backup mechanism. Anyways, this method is cool because all you need is a data copy of the "personal data" disk - it doesn't need to be bootable, you can remove it and store it somewhere safe, and it can easily be attached to another system. Most OSes can map the standard "My Documents"-type folder to another directory besides the default one, including putting it on a separate drive. The cons with this setup is that some personal data invariably gets jumbled into the system and is not something you would ordinarily think to back up.
The other option I am thinking of is to locate all of your files on a single disk or array, and back that up to a mirror copy (bootable and all) that could then be removed and stored somewhere safe. This ensures that you don't lose any of that personal data that gets stored with the OS and system files.
This is where my subject line question comes in. If you need a "perfect copy" of a drive, bootable and all, couldn't you just plug it in, enable RAID, rebuild the mirror from the disk/array you have onto the backup disk, then power off, unplug the backup and reboot? That way you have a 1:1 copy - if your hard drives spontaneously combusted inside your system you could just plug this one in and go. If your whole system went kaput, you may not be able to boot from the drive on another system if it had different hardware, but at least you have all of the system files and you could recover anything on the whole disk.
NW
It's fairly trivial to do something that can help educate the average PC user about OSS, as we can see from this article. The challenge is getting them to care.
I believe OSS suffers from "Apple Advertising Syndrome." I've heard it said before that if Apple actually ran advertisements that showed a Mac and PC working side by side, saying "Watch as this Mac does exactly what this PC does, but it's faster, more usable, and easier to look at, and you can get MS Office, email, calendaring, IM, etc." they'd sell a lot more. OSS needs the same sort of thing, but they need to tout that great "Free" price tag. MS Office vs. OpenOffice is a great example. The only reason the average PC user would even consider leaving something like MS Office for OpenOffice is that it could do exactly the same thing, but cheaper or for free. Period. I don't personally know a single person that uses OpenOffice instead of MS Office, and it's all because of network externality. Is my copy of Office busted? I'm sure someone can help me fix it. I am sure that if I just click "Save," everyone else will be able to see this document, because everyone uses MS Office. No worries. The only way network externality can be defeated is with something incredibly tempting and convincing, and no amount of usability or features pumped into an application will make it one millionth of one percent as tempting as saying "Hey, it works just like MS Office but it's free!"
The average PC user doesn't care about "Free as in freedom, not free as in beer." Free as in beer is what will get the software out there.
I guess the most unfortunate part is that increasing recognition of OSS to "average PC users" won't add a single person to those contributing to the source. Average PC users consume, not produce, applications.
...they refine the answer we've had for years, which is:
"It depends on the individual, which means the responsibility falls on the parents or guardians to ensure that their children aren't being exposed to something that is going to alter their behavior in a negative way."
Figure it out, people.
You can. They're called CDs. Those things your organization used to rip off the American public for years before a theoretically more powerful content distribution system was found and you started bitching about it because you no longer had a monopoly over distribution.
Seems the RIAA may be the only organization that actually doesn't like it when other kids play by their rules, which seem to be "Make sure we're the only ones that can make money off of this so we get it all."
Yeah, I bet you're doing really honest things with them.
True, some people like it this way, and would prefer to have their computers be "AOL boxes." But to the rest of us, it doesn't seem fair. It deprives inexperienced users of so many things.
Looks like making the ozone hole actually accomplished something.
I love Apple and what they are trying to do, but why must they cower in a corner? Apple insists on telling it's consumers what they should want, but not why they should want it. All Apple has to do to sell their computers is tell people why they should want to buy them, and they know it. People will never get over the fact that they are more expensive than what Dell is trying to sell them today unless Apple says "Hey, we design our hardware and software together because it's more stable and can make you more productive. Now watch as I show you that you can play games and use Microsoft Office files on a Mac..."
It's just a shame to see a platform purposefully remain "underground" when it could benefit from so much innovation if it was more mainstream.
They could just sent a browser popup or a Messenger window pop up to every IP address on the internet telling the user that the RIAA has filed a lawsuit against them for violating the DMCA by using technology invented after 1965.
1: Use * to access the * music store and purchase DRM protected music.
2: Use * to sort that music into a playlist.
3: Use * to burn that playlist to a CD.
4: Use * to rip the songs from that CD in MP3 format.
Does the average person not realize that this is easily done? With a CD-RW, it's a free process. I just wish that someone would come up with a hack around this process so you wouldn't actually have to take the time to burn the CD and rip it back. They could just sell unprotected content to begin with... oh WAIT, wait, they can't do that. In fact, it's such a pain in the ass to do that I'd rather spend almost the same amount of money to buy the actual CD (yes, it's possible. Go to Best Buy on a sale weekend), get full quality unprotected music with the actual CD, case, and liner notes. Am I particularly emotional about the liner notes? No. But it's a cool bonus.
I feel like the record industry is trying to make people feel guilty for owning unprotected music. It's not like it transforms you into some copyright-abusing animal, recklessly giving the song out to everyone you know. It just makes it less of a pain in the ass to enjoy. Enough bullsh*t about not wanting to sell us unprotected music: you already are, except for the fact that you have decreased the quality (convenience of downloading the music is nulled by the fact you have to copy it to CD and rip it back). I couldn't believe it when I reformatted my computer and tried to play one of the very few DRM songs I had (purchased and hadn't burned/ripped yet): the damn thing told me I had to download the Napster client before I could listen to it. I looked around for whoever was playing the joke on me; I couldn't believe the thing was being serious!
Next thing you know, you'll have to wade through a credit card application and a Flash ad just to listen to the song that you payed for.
The internet will continue to be a victim of capitalism.
1. I have a mom who is computer illiterate. To her, the computer is an appliance to look up recipes and travel information online, send email, and instant message. As you said, "People like this poor unfortunate person don't know that their PC is not an appliance." The heart of the matter is, they don't understand that it's not an appliance no matter what you tell them. In fact, they steadfastly refuse to accept that they need to learn a few things to be able to use the computer on their own without running into huge problems. I could back up this person's data, reformat and reintsall, and they probably wouldn't notice. They don't know what reformat means. They know that their computer is speedy again, doesn't crash, and stops giving error windows when they try to use the internet. The fact is, these people do exist, in large numbers, and they are by no means stupid. Much like I just want my car to start when I turn the key, they just want their PC to work. Many Slashdotters may turn up their nose, and say "If you're not curious enough to know how it works, you don't deserve to have it work for you." Please. I guarantee there are at least a few things in your life that you take for granted, and just expect to work: Running water, the wiring in your house, your car, the government, etc. For these people, the computer is one of those things.
2. I live in a fraternity. These guys have more warez, movies, music, sketchy DVD and CD burning and ripping utilities, etc. on their computers than anyone I have ever met. They see something that looks good or useful, they download it. The network in the house is the computer equivalent of a trash heap. Viruses have crashed our server and slowed our network to a stop. Again: "People like [these poor unfortunate people] don't know that their PC is not an appliance." As one of the two or so computer literate people in the house, I am asked daily to "fix my network" or figure out "why doesn't Winamp work?" About 95% of the time, I tell them to reformat. I don't care if it's salvagable or not, and I don't care if it takes 10 hours or not. I don't care if it "saves me time but costs them twice as much in the long run," and neither does the rest of the house because their machine has a virus that floods the bandwidth on the internet connection. I have tolerance and respect for these people, and I do help them. I help them back up their data, and get them started on the fairly friendly XP reformat process. Problem solved.
"Reformatting someone's PC is damnright rude. They use that PC, they don't want to have to go through all the business of setting up and installing their programs again." They lose the right of "not having to go through all that business" when they come to me, hands waving, saying, "I don't care, just fix it!" Like I said, I am tolerant, but a reformat is the silver bullet. Computer illiterate people have it both good and bad; they can be completely and happily oblivious to anything bad that may happen to their computer, but when something does happen, they are helpless to fix it. Like a car, you don't have to know everything about it to use it, and you can happily go about your day not worrying about it, but you aren't going to get a free ride when the thing breaks and you can't fix it. Everyone whose computer I fix, I encourage them to learn about what makes it tick, why they should stop downloading sketchy stuff on the net, etc. It's their choice not to listen, and pay the price later.
An excellent point, thank you. Concept of "zombie box" totally slipped my mind. Oh, and the posts above were right. Kerio PF is great so far; simple, stays out of my way.
Does it gunk up your system as bad as ZA? I tried ZA once a long time ago and it was nothing but a struggle. I just uninstalled; no one's hacked my box. It's not like there's anything good on it.
I hope Craigslist maintains its grassroots look and feel (doubtful), as well as customers. You can find more free crap on Craigslist than anywhere else I've ever seen. It's become a new hobby for our fraternity; a guy upstairs managed to get a three piece connected leather lounger with built in telephone and massager for free. We tried to hook up the school bus one guy offered but it didn't go through. Fishtanks, computer stuff... you can find anything on there.
Watching these posts come in is brightening my day by the minute. The responses and the "don't get it factor" are funnier than the article!