Which is all nice to know, of course, but not that important to actually enjoying your system of choice well into the future.
That's really the only important thing for the future. Fan boys aside, I continue to hope that all three platforms continue to be successful, if only so there continues to be motivation for people to continue making games. Last thing we need is for good developers to end up putting all of their eggs in one basket, only to have the bottom drop out of it.
The ability to choose between consoles is important, even if it might be frustrating to find a game that you really want is exclusive to the one console you don't have. I'd rather have companies vying to make great exclusives that get you to buy their console, rather than diluted cross-platform titles, or a single console with no real motivation to innovate. This so called "war" is a good thing, and the tighter it is, the better for all of us. . . . regardless of our choice of console(s).
Unfortunately, there probably isn't going to be a significant shift in Wii sales simply because they are already selling out continuously . The only thing you will see after Super Mario Galaxy is released is lots of sales of Super Mario Galaxy, the Wii numbers will not shift significantly.
Having owned a Wii since early 2007, and having just recently purchased a 360, I couldn't be any more excited about the upcoming Holiday season. The only real question is how I'm going to afford giving anyone else any gifts after I give so many to myself.
Actually, no, the biggest thing about the free Live service is downloadable demos, wallpapers and trailers and access to arcade-like games on XBL Arcade. I'd say this is a huge incentive to connect the 360 to the web too.
The difference is that XBL offers tiered service (Gold vs. Silver) that confuses anyone without any real knowledge of what it entails. Additionally, there are additional purchases required if a wireless connection is desired, or cable needs to be run to the TV where the console resides. By contrast, the Wii offers a wireless connection out of the box that is mostly idiot-proof in its setup. I don't think anyone is knocking XBL, as it is certainly a superior service, but I think the barrier to entry for the average consumer is lower with WiiConnect24.
While a lot of old games have been bought from the Virtual Console, I'd love to see how many customers they have. If it turns out 250,000 people are buying everything, this would be very dissapointing I think, since that's about 1/8th of the user base, probably even less, maybe 1/10th. That's probably more or less a subset of their hardcore users. Not good.
Let's assume that your assumptions (heh!) are correct. The costs incurred by Nintendo on the VC are minimal at best,as (A)they own a good deal of the material already, and (B)the size of all of the VC games is almost nothing from a bandwidth standpoint. I wouldn't be surprised if their profit margin on VC games was somewhere between 50 and 75%. If your hypothetical 250,000 people each bought only one classic NES game at $5 each, that's between $500,000 and $1,000,000 of profit! I would be willing to bet that (A)they're selling significantly more than that, and (B)more than 250,000 unique users have bough a virtual console game. All of the Wii owners that I know personally have their Wii on-line and have purchased at least one game from the VC. While "all of the Wii owners I know" is certainly not a representative sample of Wii users as a whole, I think it still constitutes a good sign for Nintendo.
I think the release of things like these small channels is how Nintendo can best stave off the impending "short lived gimmick" status that most people keep trying to apply to the Wii. There have been many implications (primarily by the fanboy crowd) that the Wii's novelty will quickly wear off with the general dearth of games between now and the third or fourth quarter. If Nintendo can keep throwing out little updates like this that will keep the Wii's slot blinking blue, people are going to keep it out and ready to find out what the next new thing is. This should help sustain people's interest until the next wave of AAA titles starts hitting the console.
One question that I have, however, is how many of these channels can they actually release before the fill up the minimal amount of system memory the Wii has? Did Nintendo handicap themselves with this, especially as games (at least currently) can't be played directly from the SD Card slot?
we're talking downloadable content I think. I probably wouldn't buy Bookworm adventures, but I'd download it onto my wii no problem if the price were right.
(emphasis mine)
Apparently the only acceptable price for you is "Free". Last I checked, Nintendo is still planning on charging for this downloaded content.
I think I am aware of your original intent, but when did "buying" something start to refer to only purchasing it in person. What do you call it if you purchase something that is downloaded?
and his opponents not believing that he'd be able to close the gap in stage 17 so that they didn't try to pursue him until it was too late (a very costly mistake)
Actually, the general consensus at the end of stage 17 was that they simply couldn't keep up with him. That's part of why many pundits are making out this years stage 17 as one of the greatest achievements in modern cycling's history. Attributing it to a tactical mistake on the part of the other teams downplays what was accepted by many of the riders in the tour as a pace that no one else could come close to matching.
Despite Nintendo's adherence to disruptive-thinking, the company is clearly wedded to the concept of up-front single payments for product as its main revenue source.
The issue now is that single payments as the only real revenue stream IS dirsuptive thinking. More and more companies are looking at the 'pay now, then keep paying' school of design. This has been going on for quite some time (expansion packs for PC Games), but the addition of hard drives and on-line capabilities to the major console systems has made this a more feasible concept. We saw the first iteration of it with the last generation, but many of the next gen consoles (especially Sony) appear to be designed around 'upgradable content'. What used to be an anathema to console design is rappidly becoming a 'feature'. Add in the recent success of Blizzard, and now everyone is looking for the next big addiction inducing game that they can reap a constant stream of cash from.
I initially was extremely dissapointed by the lack of an HD in the Wii, but now it looks like a major selling point to me. I don't need to worry about patches, or incomplete games with additional "episodes" to complete the product. I'm also not worried about a lack of variety, as it's in Nintendo's best interest to produce a vast array of games to ensure that they keep selling product, and keep making money.
PS2's largest appeal was the library of games available. The console was neither the most powerful, nor necessarily the most affordable, but people wanted to get it because of the vast selection of games they could choose from. Sony appears to have tossed all that out the window by making a console that is (reportedly) significantly more difficult to program for, thus creating a much greater barrier to entry for new titles. Nintendo, on the other hand, appears to be saying "Here is a relatively easy console to develop for with a brand new opportunity for interface, develop what you will". They did something similar with the DS, and look at it's market share in comparison to the PSP.
The thing that has impressed me the most about Nintendo is that they've figured out the "right" changes to make. When they came out with the DS as their next gen gameboy, the vast consensus was WTF? But they still managed to change the way we play handheld games, and the gaming community is better for it. They're doing the exact same thing with the Wii, everyone let out a collective WTF, but it seems like more and more people feel that Nintendo just gets it. Count me in.
Also I don't think it makes good business sense even if it is possible - why charge less when you can charge more, when the effect on sales is going to be insignificant?
I think the real factor that will affect the starting price is the availability of the console. If the manufacturing yield is as high as might be expected, the might be able to have a boat load of these available at launch. Rather than try to ride the early adopter wave at a higher price point, I think Nintendo would be better off making the Wii something everyone wants to buy. A $200 price point with a good catalogue of launch titles could easily cattapult the Wii into the lead for market share, especially if it launches early enough before the holidays. The sooner they grab more marketshare, the sooner 3rd parties get excited about the console and ramp up their development schedule.
An additional item to think about is the back catalogue of games available. I have no idea what kind of pricing scheme they're going to be using, but that's another revenue stream that is entirely dependent on the amount of consoles out there.
IMHO, the only reason I see the Wii launching at $250 or above is if they're going to be in short supply. Since they won't be making the initial revenue in volume, they'll have to compensate by increasing their margins until their production capacity catches up. Either way, Nintendo won't be using the same loss-leader formula as MS and SONY, so they have a little room to adjust their pricing options (which I'm sure is why they haven't even started talking about price yet).
I think much of the appeal of this game would be lost if online weren't supported.
Bah, while I like on-line multiplayer for many games (especially FPS games like HALO), I don't think on-line is a necessity for SSB. It's probably one of the most successful games for the GC, and that's because the real fun comes from crouding around the TV with three of your friends and beating the living crap out of eachother. Any kind of lag would be an all out buzz kill, due to the frenetic nature of the game. Hell, this is a game that has been designed around the idea of everyone being in the same room, why would you want to screw that up by making it more accessible for on-line play.
If they can add on-line play wihtout futzing up the core gameplay, be my guest. But I'm not really going to complain if on-line functionality isn't really there. Judging from Nintendo's general strategy and the images in their advertising campaign, they too are more focused on making the games fun for people to play as a group (together in person), as opposed to worrying exclusively about on-line functionality.
I saw another comment the other day in a news story that was kind of interesting, it stated that because both the Wii and PS3 included motion detection that there were going to be a lot of games ported only to those two platforms, leaving the 360 out in the cold. I could see that happening...
Dear god, please let this not be the case. While I understand some peoples prima facie tendency to lump the PS3's crippled motion detection in with the Wii's, I hope developers don't make this mistake. I want them to focus on games that use all of the functionality of the Wii-mote, not just a muddled down port of a PS3 game. I'm sure this might be Sony's goal in including motion detection, but this would be the worst thing that could happen to our gaming future (killing the potential of the Wiimote if the majority of 3rd party developers take this route).
Nintendo has given everyone a couple bright spots in what is otherwise a 'same as it ever was' gaming future. I want developers to reject the Sony move as the sham that it is, and stick with a solution that keeps things fresh.
But if there is one motion most lazy people are used to, it's pointing. "Hey, bring me that!" "Put that over there!" "Bring me the thing, and put it right here"
Most people who are going to enjoy themselves will be gesturing all over the place, but the sensitivity on the controller should be high enough that the lazier people should be able to do the same with minimal adjustment.
I don't see this being a very functional home entertainment device. There's no easy way to keep track of individual players (anyone can touch the table) so cheating, especially amongst younger players, would be a frustratingly frequent behavior.
That being said, I could see a significant potential for usage as a bar surface. An entire bar surface created with these things (assuming waterproof models exist) could create some interesting dynamics. It could easily fill the role of almost any of the exisiting touch screens you find so often at bars, would work as several independent televisions, and could even be used to make the service of drinks more interactive. Patrons could place orders using the bar surface, rather than having to flag down the bartender. The bar itself could serve for an almost unlimited number of interactive drinking games. Sure it would be a huge initial investment, but the sheer novelty of it could be a great customer draw.
Almost as interesting as subsidiaries in one nation buying from the main company in different nation compontents to excessive prices, in order to turn their profits in said nation to zero, and pay only taxes in the country of the main company, where the taxes are coincidentally much lower than in the country the profits were originally made.
I work for a large Japanese corporation, and this is often used as a method to funnel money back to Japan. For example we need to buy manufacturing piece of equipment X. There might be 10 different domestic suppliers who would sell it to us, but our head office (Japanese) "decides" that we will buy it from our company's engineering division for three to four times the price of the domestic suppliers.
I'd be interested to see if Sony America does anything similar.
No, I really do believe what I said. The physical activities involved in playing a videogame are entirely different from those required to perform those same activites in real life (although certain human interface devices do try to maximize the 'reality' of the experience). All activities, while they might be carried out inside a virtual 3d world, are actually happening on a 2D plane (the TV/Monitor Screen). You don't move your head to turn your point of view, you don't lift or lower your entire arm to raise or lower your gun. Your 'inanimate object and trigger' is a gross oversimplification of the actual actions required.
For a more obvious example, try playing halo, then head to the arcade and play a game of House of the Dead. Both involve shooting, but the physical interaction (and many of the skills required) are entirely different.
I entirely disagree with you. The fact that games are more interactive is what makes them less harmful than movies or books. With the exception of light gun games, carrying out any kind of violent act in a video game requires an input entirely dissasociated with the act itself. Moving an analog stick and pressing a button does not generally emulate what would actually need to be done to carry out an act of violence.
Conversely, books and especially movies provide no interactive context for their viewer. Therefore, if something looks 'cool' on the TV, emulating it often involves carrying out the specific activity.
Videogames provide a nonviolent way to act out a violent activity, movies don't provide the same level of catharsis.
Back in the day when her "husband" was president, her supposed top priority was reforming health care to ensure that every American had some sort of reasonable coverage for if they were sick or injured. Now she's more worried about protecting our youth from potential images of sex or violence.
It seems to me that government in general lately has been more concerned with legislation that protects "morality" (e.g. media content, gay marriages, etc.) than with doing anything that tangibly affects people such as health care. It's like going back to the days of the Puritans and all of their 'blue laws' (many of which still exist in New England).
The issue with monthly fees as well as box price (the $$ you initially put down to purchase the game) is that many of these arguments have been emperically denied. Pretty much every generation of MMO games has experienced the same kind of discussion: "The market is saturated, how on earth do we expand?". At each of these junctures, it was argued that publishers should lower the purchase price, and lower the monthly fees. Yet one merely has to glance and the profit and subscription numbers for WoW to realise that neither of these is a huge barrier.
Companies don't need to lower their prices, they merely need to make sure that people feel that they're getting something back in value that matches what they paid. Many have said that they feel Bilzzard's $15/month fee is exhorbitant, but there's obviously a large number of people out there who disagree, and they're putting their money where their mouth is. Anyone who says "I would play if they would only meet conditions X, Y, and Z", Blizzard is obviously not targeting you.
MMO's are not a necessity, they don't have the same kind of pricing leverage that exists with something like gas or food. The only leverage they have is (A) the quality of their product relative to everyone elses, and (B) their ability to foster a large community to maintain interest in their product (no one wants to play on an empty server). If they can't provide the proper experience, people will simply walk away or go somewhere else where they find the conditions more agreeable. Certainly I can't imagine anyone complaining if they drop the prices, but I'd love to see gas drop back down below $1/gallon and there's no chance I'm going to make that happen.
One of the interesting things about packaging in general is that, when it comes to manufacturing, there are numerous products our there where the packaging is more expensive than what it contains. I work in the food packaging industry and I can tell you that the packaging Frito uses for their bags is more expensive than the chips (crisps) they are putting in them. Judging from the Halo2 boxes, I would expect the same to be true (speaking strictly manufacturing costs)
If MS truly did violate the NDA and take a proprietary box design to a comptetitor, that translates to a significant amount of money (especially when you look at Halo2's sales numbers). If someone were to do something similar in the food packaging industry (e.g. take the plastic film design from one supplier and provide the information to a competitor to have them produce the film more cheaply) the affected company would have their asses in court in a hurry.
Regardless of the complexity of the item in question, if an NDA was voilated then there should be some sort of reprimand. What's the point of an NDA if it's not enforcable? Corporations would stop any kind of cooperation pretty quickly if they knew any secrets they shared would be readily given to their competitors.
Maybe it's just me, but isn't this just adding more encouragement to those who (like me) have been waiting to buy the DS until there are more AAA titles available? What are the odds that the price on the DS is going to drop between now and when these games are released (especially MP:Hunters)?
It will be real interesting to see if the two recent releases (Advance Wars and Nintendogs) are going to push hardware sales enough for Nintendo to lay off any cost cutting measures. Certainly there are going to be some pressures from Sony around the holidays, and I don't know if the DS lineup is strong enough to carry the system without a price cut. Will Nintendo try to lo-ball Sony with their older (and arguably inferior) but significantly cheaper system?
Royalties are intended to fairly compensate non-salaried employees for work they have done, in proportion to the amount of sales their work is bringing in.
There's one key factor that you're leaving out here. Voice actors are paid at a prohibitively high rate (IIRC sometimes more than $400 an hour) for their work. To me that seems more than fair compensation for the small amount of work they actually have to do.
Until you can provide me an example where anyone actually bought a game because of the voice actors involved (the names of the actors, not the actual quality of work), I will continue to believe that their pay rate is more than fair and that asking for royalties is entirely unjustified.
Has anyone in the history of the MTV Movie Awards ever decided to view a movie based solely on the fact that it won an award from MTV? The award itself is merely an excuse to provide programming that allows MTV to parade a bunch of celebrities and fill up about a weeks worth of programming with reruns. I can't really imagine a "Winner of MTV Movie Award for Best Video Game" sticker really adding much selling power to a product, whether you're an avid gamer or a member of the "general public".
IMHO, Spiderman 2 and Butcher Bay are both pretty good games, but I think they're the exception rather than the rule. Ultimately, however, I don't think MTV really cares about what the quality of the games are that they nominate for the award. It's just another gimmick award, like "best kiss" meant to differentiate the MTV awards from traditional awards and make them more "hip".
Why is it that nobody on the planet can spell the word "rogue"?
. . . it has me seeing red.
Seriously, it's only a matter of time before some dumbass starts a Rogue-only guild that's something along the lines of "The Rouge Army". Then they'll have to play the spin game and say they meant it as a reference to The Red Army.
Slashdot Mirror
That's really the only important thing for the future. Fan boys aside, I continue to hope that all three platforms continue to be successful, if only so there continues to be motivation for people to continue making games. Last thing we need is for good developers to end up putting all of their eggs in one basket, only to have the bottom drop out of it.
The ability to choose between consoles is important, even if it might be frustrating to find a game that you really want is exclusive to the one console you don't have. I'd rather have companies vying to make great exclusives that get you to buy their console, rather than diluted cross-platform titles, or a single console with no real motivation to innovate. This so called "war" is a good thing, and the tighter it is, the better for all of us. . . . regardless of our choice of console(s).
Unfortunately, there probably isn't going to be a significant shift in Wii sales simply because they are already selling out continuously . The only thing you will see after Super Mario Galaxy is released is lots of sales of Super Mario Galaxy, the Wii numbers will not shift significantly.
Having owned a Wii since early 2007, and having just recently purchased a 360, I couldn't be any more excited about the upcoming Holiday season. The only real question is how I'm going to afford giving anyone else any gifts after I give so many to myself.
I think the release of things like these small channels is how Nintendo can best stave off the impending "short lived gimmick" status that most people keep trying to apply to the Wii. There have been many implications (primarily by the fanboy crowd) that the Wii's novelty will quickly wear off with the general dearth of games between now and the third or fourth quarter. If Nintendo can keep throwing out little updates like this that will keep the Wii's slot blinking blue, people are going to keep it out and ready to find out what the next new thing is. This should help sustain people's interest until the next wave of AAA titles starts hitting the console.
One question that I have, however, is how many of these channels can they actually release before the fill up the minimal amount of system memory the Wii has? Did Nintendo handicap themselves with this, especially as games (at least currently) can't be played directly from the SD Card slot?
Apparently the only acceptable price for you is "Free". Last I checked, Nintendo is still planning on charging for this downloaded content.
I think I am aware of your original intent, but when did "buying" something start to refer to only purchasing it in person. What do you call it if you purchase something that is downloaded?
The issue now is that single payments as the only real revenue stream IS dirsuptive thinking. More and more companies are looking at the 'pay now, then keep paying' school of design. This has been going on for quite some time (expansion packs for PC Games), but the addition of hard drives and on-line capabilities to the major console systems has made this a more feasible concept. We saw the first iteration of it with the last generation, but many of the next gen consoles (especially Sony) appear to be designed around 'upgradable content'. What used to be an anathema to console design is rappidly becoming a 'feature'. Add in the recent success of Blizzard, and now everyone is looking for the next big addiction inducing game that they can reap a constant stream of cash from.
I initially was extremely dissapointed by the lack of an HD in the Wii, but now it looks like a major selling point to me. I don't need to worry about patches, or incomplete games with additional "episodes" to complete the product. I'm also not worried about a lack of variety, as it's in Nintendo's best interest to produce a vast array of games to ensure that they keep selling product, and keep making money.
PS2's largest appeal was the library of games available. The console was neither the most powerful, nor necessarily the most affordable, but people wanted to get it because of the vast selection of games they could choose from. Sony appears to have tossed all that out the window by making a console that is (reportedly) significantly more difficult to program for, thus creating a much greater barrier to entry for new titles. Nintendo, on the other hand, appears to be saying "Here is a relatively easy console to develop for with a brand new opportunity for interface, develop what you will". They did something similar with the DS, and look at it's market share in comparison to the PSP.
The thing that has impressed me the most about Nintendo is that they've figured out the "right" changes to make. When they came out with the DS as their next gen gameboy, the vast consensus was WTF? But they still managed to change the way we play handheld games, and the gaming community is better for it. They're doing the exact same thing with the Wii, everyone let out a collective WTF, but it seems like more and more people feel that Nintendo just gets it. Count me in.
I think the real factor that will affect the starting price is the availability of the console. If the manufacturing yield is as high as might be expected, the might be able to have a boat load of these available at launch. Rather than try to ride the early adopter wave at a higher price point, I think Nintendo would be better off making the Wii something everyone wants to buy. A $200 price point with a good catalogue of launch titles could easily cattapult the Wii into the lead for market share, especially if it launches early enough before the holidays. The sooner they grab more marketshare, the sooner 3rd parties get excited about the console and ramp up their development schedule.
An additional item to think about is the back catalogue of games available. I have no idea what kind of pricing scheme they're going to be using, but that's another revenue stream that is entirely dependent on the amount of consoles out there.
IMHO, the only reason I see the Wii launching at $250 or above is if they're going to be in short supply. Since they won't be making the initial revenue in volume, they'll have to compensate by increasing their margins until their production capacity catches up. Either way, Nintendo won't be using the same loss-leader formula as MS and SONY, so they have a little room to adjust their pricing options (which I'm sure is why they haven't even started talking about price yet).
Bah, while I like on-line multiplayer for many games (especially FPS games like HALO), I don't think on-line is a necessity for SSB. It's probably one of the most successful games for the GC, and that's because the real fun comes from crouding around the TV with three of your friends and beating the living crap out of eachother. Any kind of lag would be an all out buzz kill, due to the frenetic nature of the game. Hell, this is a game that has been designed around the idea of everyone being in the same room, why would you want to screw that up by making it more accessible for on-line play.
If they can add on-line play wihtout futzing up the core gameplay, be my guest. But I'm not really going to complain if on-line functionality isn't really there. Judging from Nintendo's general strategy and the images in their advertising campaign, they too are more focused on making the games fun for people to play as a group (together in person), as opposed to worrying exclusively about on-line functionality.
Dear god, please let this not be the case. While I understand some peoples prima facie tendency to lump the PS3's crippled motion detection in with the Wii's, I hope developers don't make this mistake. I want them to focus on games that use all of the functionality of the Wii-mote, not just a muddled down port of a PS3 game. I'm sure this might be Sony's goal in including motion detection, but this would be the worst thing that could happen to our gaming future (killing the potential of the Wiimote if the majority of 3rd party developers take this route).
Nintendo has given everyone a couple bright spots in what is otherwise a 'same as it ever was' gaming future. I want developers to reject the Sony move as the sham that it is, and stick with a solution that keeps things fresh.
But if there is one motion most lazy people are used to, it's pointing. "Hey, bring me that!" "Put that over there!" "Bring me the thing, and put it right here"
Most people who are going to enjoy themselves will be gesturing all over the place, but the sensitivity on the controller should be high enough that the lazier people should be able to do the same with minimal adjustment.
Sony is planning on producing a Cuisinart killer by including a blender peripheral for the PS3. Jack of all trades, master of none.
I don't see this being a very functional home entertainment device. There's no easy way to keep track of individual players (anyone can touch the table) so cheating, especially amongst younger players, would be a frustratingly frequent behavior.
That being said, I could see a significant potential for usage as a bar surface. An entire bar surface created with these things (assuming waterproof models exist) could create some interesting dynamics. It could easily fill the role of almost any of the exisiting touch screens you find so often at bars, would work as several independent televisions, and could even be used to make the service of drinks more interactive. Patrons could place orders using the bar surface, rather than having to flag down the bartender. The bar itself could serve for an almost unlimited number of interactive drinking games. Sure it would be a huge initial investment, but the sheer novelty of it could be a great customer draw.
I work for a large Japanese corporation, and this is often used as a method to funnel money back to Japan. For example we need to buy manufacturing piece of equipment X. There might be 10 different domestic suppliers who would sell it to us, but our head office (Japanese) "decides" that we will buy it from our company's engineering division for three to four times the price of the domestic suppliers.
I'd be interested to see if Sony America does anything similar.
No, I really do believe what I said. The physical activities involved in playing a videogame are entirely different from those required to perform those same activites in real life (although certain human interface devices do try to maximize the 'reality' of the experience). All activities, while they might be carried out inside a virtual 3d world, are actually happening on a 2D plane (the TV/Monitor Screen). You don't move your head to turn your point of view, you don't lift or lower your entire arm to raise or lower your gun. Your 'inanimate object and trigger' is a gross oversimplification of the actual actions required.
For a more obvious example, try playing halo, then head to the arcade and play a game of House of the Dead. Both involve shooting, but the physical interaction (and many of the skills required) are entirely different.
I entirely disagree with you. The fact that games are more interactive is what makes them less harmful than movies or books. With the exception of light gun games, carrying out any kind of violent act in a video game requires an input entirely dissasociated with the act itself. Moving an analog stick and pressing a button does not generally emulate what would actually need to be done to carry out an act of violence.
Conversely, books and especially movies provide no interactive context for their viewer. Therefore, if something looks 'cool' on the TV, emulating it often involves carrying out the specific activity.
Videogames provide a nonviolent way to act out a violent activity, movies don't provide the same level of catharsis.
Back in the day when her "husband" was president, her supposed top priority was reforming health care to ensure that every American had some sort of reasonable coverage for if they were sick or injured. Now she's more worried about protecting our youth from potential images of sex or violence.
It seems to me that government in general lately has been more concerned with legislation that protects "morality" (e.g. media content, gay marriages, etc.) than with doing anything that tangibly affects people such as health care. It's like going back to the days of the Puritans and all of their 'blue laws' (many of which still exist in New England).
The issue with monthly fees as well as box price (the $$ you initially put down to purchase the game) is that many of these arguments have been emperically denied. Pretty much every generation of MMO games has experienced the same kind of discussion: "The market is saturated, how on earth do we expand?". At each of these junctures, it was argued that publishers should lower the purchase price, and lower the monthly fees. Yet one merely has to glance and the profit and subscription numbers for WoW to realise that neither of these is a huge barrier.
Companies don't need to lower their prices, they merely need to make sure that people feel that they're getting something back in value that matches what they paid. Many have said that they feel Bilzzard's $15/month fee is exhorbitant, but there's obviously a large number of people out there who disagree, and they're putting their money where their mouth is. Anyone who says "I would play if they would only meet conditions X, Y, and Z", Blizzard is obviously not targeting you.
MMO's are not a necessity, they don't have the same kind of pricing leverage that exists with something like gas or food. The only leverage they have is (A) the quality of their product relative to everyone elses, and (B) their ability to foster a large community to maintain interest in their product (no one wants to play on an empty server). If they can't provide the proper experience, people will simply walk away or go somewhere else where they find the conditions more agreeable. Certainly I can't imagine anyone complaining if they drop the prices, but I'd love to see gas drop back down below $1/gallon and there's no chance I'm going to make that happen.
One of the interesting things about packaging in general is that, when it comes to manufacturing, there are numerous products our there where the packaging is more expensive than what it contains. I work in the food packaging industry and I can tell you that the packaging Frito uses for their bags is more expensive than the chips (crisps) they are putting in them. Judging from the Halo2 boxes, I would expect the same to be true (speaking strictly manufacturing costs)
If MS truly did violate the NDA and take a proprietary box design to a comptetitor, that translates to a significant amount of money (especially when you look at Halo2's sales numbers). If someone were to do something similar in the food packaging industry (e.g. take the plastic film design from one supplier and provide the information to a competitor to have them produce the film more cheaply) the affected company would have their asses in court in a hurry.
Regardless of the complexity of the item in question, if an NDA was voilated then there should be some sort of reprimand. What's the point of an NDA if it's not enforcable? Corporations would stop any kind of cooperation pretty quickly if they knew any secrets they shared would be readily given to their competitors.
Maybe it's just me, but isn't this just adding more encouragement to those who (like me) have been waiting to buy the DS until there are more AAA titles available? What are the odds that the price on the DS is going to drop between now and when these games are released (especially MP:Hunters)?
It will be real interesting to see if the two recent releases (Advance Wars and Nintendogs) are going to push hardware sales enough for Nintendo to lay off any cost cutting measures. Certainly there are going to be some pressures from Sony around the holidays, and I don't know if the DS lineup is strong enough to carry the system without a price cut. Will Nintendo try to lo-ball Sony with their older (and arguably inferior) but significantly cheaper system?
What's the point in being a grammar and spelling Nazi?
Poor grammar or spelling makes you look less intelligent, thereby reducing the perceived validity of your point.
Has anyone in the history of the MTV Movie Awards ever decided to view a movie based solely on the fact that it won an award from MTV? The award itself is merely an excuse to provide programming that allows MTV to parade a bunch of celebrities and fill up about a weeks worth of programming with reruns. I can't really imagine a "Winner of MTV Movie Award for Best Video Game" sticker really adding much selling power to a product, whether you're an avid gamer or a member of the "general public".
IMHO, Spiderman 2 and Butcher Bay are both pretty good games, but I think they're the exception rather than the rule. Ultimately, however, I don't think MTV really cares about what the quality of the games are that they nominate for the award. It's just another gimmick award, like "best kiss" meant to differentiate the MTV awards from traditional awards and make them more "hip".
. . . it has me seeing red.
Seriously, it's only a matter of time before some dumbass starts a Rogue-only guild that's something along the lines of "The Rouge Army". Then they'll have to play the spin game and say they meant it as a reference to The Red Army.