If you're using 20% of their trunks for 19.95 a month, and they pay 1000 times as much... do the math.
Not my or anyones fault. If they sell a connections that is capable of using 20% of their trunks for $19.95 then it's their fault. If I ask you for $20, and you give it to me, can you justly be upset if I spend the whole $20? No that would be stupid. You gave it to me with no strings attached and I used it. Same here. If they sell me such bandwidth for such a price, then they need to know that I might use the entire bandwidth at the price orginally bargained for. If I do, and they find it too expensive, then they should have thought about that before agreeing to the price or service.
Conversely, if you feel that you are subsidizing my usage because you only do an email here and a webpage there for the same price, I recommend you go back to the bargaining table with your ISP, unless you like to pay for more than you actually use.
If they have to raise the price for the service they offer me, they are free to do so once the contract runs out. If they make an offer, and I take them up on it, they shouldn't get upset. I also have not taken away anything from you by doing so. Unless of course they really aren't prepared in their network to fulfill their offer, in which case your loss is their problem, not mine.
You're doing it wrong then. I have a four year old PC that I play Half-Life 2 on. AMD 1.2 GHz Athlon XP, 512 MB RAM, and ATI Radeon 9000. There are some games I can't play, yet, but for a four year old PC, that I could upgrade to play Doom 3 and Civ 4 for under $100, and have all the other functionality that PCs have over consoles, I'd say I did pretty well financially.
I like the name. Not until I read the comments on the original article did I even think of the jokes.
Nintendo has really set themselves apart. Whether people buy two or not, a lot of people are going to be buying the Wii. It will be the console to have and then people will have to decide which other one they get.
It's not surprising that MS would side with Nintendo. In fact, it's a good sign for Nintendo. Last round MS practically ignored Nintendo thinking they weren't a threat, when in reality Sony was so far ahead of them Nintendo was their only real competition, and they lost by a slight margin. Now they're recognizing that Nintendo is the big fish this time around and they have nothing. I don't see them saying, "After buying a 360, buy a Wii instead of a PS3." I see them saying, "After you've bought a Wii, think about a 360."
Speaking of the PS3, what is Kaz Hirai saying? Sure it's priced right for what it has, but the same would be true if it was just a PSX studded with diamonds. But few people are going to want to pay that much money for it. Then he says this:
"What we're presenting to consumers is future-proofed. It's not going to fall by the wayside."
And then goes on to say:
"The only difference is HDMI - and at this point, I don't think many people's TV's have that."
Way to make it so future proof that when peoples's TV's do have that, it won't be available to them without having to buy the console again, albeit cheaper by that time, but how much is any one's guess. Then this:
Some observers have questioned whether Blu-Ray movies will be playable on the PS3 once motion picture companies enable copy protection on the discs.
Hirai said it was "too early to speculate at this point" about such problems.
Naturally, those who have common sense don't need to go looking for it. Those without it need to find it. So it makes perfect sense that Washington needs to find it.
I'll let you in on the secret about Halo. It's the soundtrack. At least for me. I played it on my friend's xbox. It was fun because of co-op. I played it on the PC. I immediately went back to Unreal Tournament, Jedi Outcast and Half-Life. But everytime I hear the music I think, "That's pretty sweet music" and I get an itch to play it again. I should just buy the soundtrack.
Oh, I'm sure they are profiting off of it now, and probably have been for a long time. I'm just letting you know that there was a time, albeit it a short time, that they sold at a loss, albeit slight loss. Granted, their losses are still no where near comparable to what Sony and MS lose.
It's quite different. Let's review. GP said people are going to buy it simply because it is a playstation. You ask if that's different than buying a console because you can play games that you already know and love. One buys because of name, the other because of games. I fail to see how you don't see the difference.
Then you make the bold assertion that mature consumers buy products because of the product, not because of other people. While a good comment, it is unrelated to the conversation. Again, we will review for you. GP said he knows people who are buying it because it is a playstation, not because they like other people who are buying it. You asked if it was any better than buying a console because of available games, also no because of who else is buying it.
Nintendo on the otherhand has not sold a system for a loss in it's entire history
That is not true. I love Nintendo, and while they rarely sell at a loss, they still do occassionally. However, it's only in the single digits, and not for very long.
They have a researcher who came up with Quicksort. But then again, I don't think he was working for them at the time. And it's only slightly faster than merge sort. OK, your point is taken.
I might be using the term genre a little loosely. After all, given enough abstraction, even War and Peace could be made to seem the same basic story as the Andy Griffith Show.
...innovation even in the waning genre...
This is mostly what I was referring to. Here you say they have innovation within the same genre. I agree. It is completely possible to be innovative in a genre/niche/field/etc. But the guy I was replying to orignally seemed to be saying that because a company was coming out with a "sequel" to a game that there is no innovation in the games industry. Whereas I disagree. Just like the amount of innovation between Wolfenstein and Return to Castle Wolfenstein is huge.
Innovation needs to continue in every industry if it is to stay around. But what is innovation? Does it have to be a new genre? Does it have to be radically different? How unique does something have to be in order for it to be innovative? I tend to think it has to be an improvement. It sounds like a lot of people want innovation to come in the form of radical changes. They want to look at the Wolfenstein --> Half-Life 2 changes and say it should be like that all the time, not considering the number of innovations that came between the two to make those changes possible.
To take that idea further, that's why I think many feel that there was more innovation in the past. We can look back at Wolfenstein 3D and say that was innovation. Wolfenstein was not the first FPS, but the other games that were aren't rememberable by most people and they forget that it was really just an incremental step. Half-Life was not the first game to have an interactive world, but people forget that. I suspect in 10 years, we may forget some FPS-sequels now but say that X was so innovative, when today we say it isn't because Y and Z were doing the same things, just not as memorably.
I am impressed. I had always ignored Dvoraks rantings. I decided to read that one. I can't understand why nobody likes reading him. I mean, don't we all like to watch someone make a complete fool of oneself? Isn't that why reality TV is so popular? Because we like to watch idiots make themselves look like complete tools? Wow, he can really make himself sound more stupid than the average bear.
Maybe part of the problem is in your definition of sequel. Half-Life -> Half-Life 2 was a sequel with some enhancements to the experience. Super Mario Brothers -> Super Mario World was not a sequel. It was the same genre but that hardly counts as it being a sequel. Otherwise, Life and Monopoly are the same thing because they are both board games in the same genre.
With that said, LucasArts could very well make a really good Indiana Jones game that is in the same genre but is still innovative. But that is difficult since they have to work in the Indiana Jones universe.
I think the games industry has reached a point where they know what is successful. Much like the movie industry, and the music industry and the book industry, and the theater industry, and the comic book industry, and the board games industry, and the card game industry, and the.... ad infinitum. A new industry pops up, finds out what is successful and sticks with that, all the while making improvements. I say improvements because the original Doom in nothing like UT2k4 despite being in the same genre. The gravity gun in Half-Life 2 is nothing like any other weapon previous (I assume because I had never played with anything like it before, but I allow that maybe someone else was first).
I play games for fun and I'm sure you do to. My definition of fun isn't solely based on whether or not something is totally new or even innovative. I enjoyed Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. I even found UT2k4 to be fun despite already having lots of fun with UT2k3, and that despite enjoying the original UT. I thought WarCraft III was fun despite finding StarCraft fun, as well as the old Dune II and some of the older Red Alert games.
They all had minor improvements, and some were original, others were just original ways of incorporating existing ideas into one product, while others were just enhancements. How innovative do you want? Something totally unique that's never ever been tried before? I'm not going to say that there won't ever be a new genre again, or that it's impossible for it to happen, but those kinds of things are rare. People have been telling stories for thousands of years, yet Sci-fi and Fantasy are only relatively recent additions to the genre base. When a new medium arrives, genres pop up quickly. Maybe we've just got to the point where story telling has been for a long time, yet nobody is complaining that there is no innovation in Story telling.
I'll agree, saying that there isn't any innovation in the games industry does sound like a broken record. I'm beginning to believe that there are two types of people saying it though; those who truly believe it, and those who are just saying it because it is chic to say it recently. Maybe people are saying it because they looked at how many new genres appeared during the 90s alone and now aren't seeing that anymore. That is mainly who the above paragraphs are directed toward.
Re:Igor international?
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Or for another view:
The very fact that a simple name is generating this much discussion is proof enough that marketing-wise, the name has succeeded in getting everyone to recognize it and ingrained in their minds.
I would like to see you do some marketing. Apparently, when people are talking a lot about your product, you consider that to be a failure. Everyone was talking about the name so much that they want Nintendo to say more about it. That's marketing genius right there. Nintendo has everyone in the palm of their hands. Usually people might talk about a name and come up with all sorts of rumors on why it is named the way it is. But now people are going directly to Nintendo, who while explaining the name, now also has a chance to throw in another word or two for the system. My bets are that if MS could have people coming to them asking "Why 360?" they would love it too. But no one cares. And we all know why Sony chose PS3. Ooh, it's the PS2+1. That's a name that will have familiarity but nothing more. Nintendo still has familiarity (Nintendo wii) but now they also have something unique but easy to remember (Nintendo wii)
I don't fully follow what you are trying to say about UT. How is Epic any different than id. See how Q3, and Doom 3 were made for Linux. That Quake 4 runs on it was not id's doing. Sure, one could say that id made the Doom 3 engine run on Linux, but it was Raven that made Quake 4. Raven has made several games that couldn't be run on Linux even though the id engine they were based off of could (most notably the Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy games, which were based off the Quake 3 engine). Also, Doom 3 was "developed primarily to be licenced." There's not much different from id and Epic in that regard, so who cares that id does it for philosophical reasons? I personally couldn't care less that id made Doom 3 run on Linux for philosophical reasons and Epic did it for monetary reasons. I'd still buy both games and run them on Linux. The companies purpose behind it is irrelevant because they're both good games. Personally I like Unreal slightly more, but that's only because I know how to map with UnrealEd.
I would love to see more games on Linux as well. I haven't spent a whole lot of time on it but I've never been able to get Wine or Cedega to work all that well for me. I keep Windows around solely for that reason. I like to map and Hammer and UnrealEd are only available on Windows.
Curious. If they are people who don't vote does that mean the "intellectually curious" do vote? And if so, why are you complaining about George Bush? Wouldn't that mean the "intellectually curious" are the ones that voted him into office? At least one of those two things are wrong.
You can't constantly come up with new things, at least not ones that are actually better than what you have come up with before. If you could then we wouldn't have the word 'progress' because everything would have been done by now.
To finagle your own words, "If you could [constantly come up with new things]...everything would have been done by now." But doesn't that mean that you couldn't constantly come up with new things?
Extend as you please: "PEPSI" has been advertising "DRAIN-O" for some time. I have not bought into it yet, but my friends tell me "DRUNKEST" and "SILLIEST". In contrast, "SAM'S CHOICE" "LIQUID PLUMR" is "YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES" and "Vous bummes, il y a un poison dans bibliotheque". What does the community think? Is "DRAIN-O" going to change the world forever?
I make it a policy never to buy any electronic equipment from any store that cannot properly configure a high-definition TV to display correctly. I have walked out of countless stores simply after seeing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not my or anyones fault. If they sell a connections that is capable of using 20% of their trunks for $19.95 then it's their fault. If I ask you for $20, and you give it to me, can you justly be upset if I spend the whole $20? No that would be stupid. You gave it to me with no strings attached and I used it. Same here. If they sell me such bandwidth for such a price, then they need to know that I might use the entire bandwidth at the price orginally bargained for. If I do, and they find it too expensive, then they should have thought about that before agreeing to the price or service.
Conversely, if you feel that you are subsidizing my usage because you only do an email here and a webpage there for the same price, I recommend you go back to the bargaining table with your ISP, unless you like to pay for more than you actually use.
If they have to raise the price for the service they offer me, they are free to do so once the contract runs out. If they make an offer, and I take them up on it, they shouldn't get upset. I also have not taken away anything from you by doing so. Unless of course they really aren't prepared in their network to fulfill their offer, in which case your loss is their problem, not mine.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. Reference
You're doing it wrong then. I have a four year old PC that I play Half-Life 2 on. AMD 1.2 GHz Athlon XP, 512 MB RAM, and ATI Radeon 9000. There are some games I can't play, yet, but for a four year old PC, that I could upgrade to play Doom 3 and Civ 4 for under $100, and have all the other functionality that PCs have over consoles, I'd say I did pretty well financially.
Nintendo has really set themselves apart. Whether people buy two or not, a lot of people are going to be buying the Wii. It will be the console to have and then people will have to decide which other one they get.
It's not surprising that MS would side with Nintendo. In fact, it's a good sign for Nintendo. Last round MS practically ignored Nintendo thinking they weren't a threat, when in reality Sony was so far ahead of them Nintendo was their only real competition, and they lost by a slight margin. Now they're recognizing that Nintendo is the big fish this time around and they have nothing. I don't see them saying, "After buying a 360, buy a Wii instead of a PS3." I see them saying, "After you've bought a Wii, think about a 360."
Speaking of the PS3, what is Kaz Hirai saying? Sure it's priced right for what it has, but the same would be true if it was just a PSX studded with diamonds. But few people are going to want to pay that much money for it. Then he says this:
"What we're presenting to consumers is future-proofed. It's not going to fall by the wayside."
And then goes on to say:
"The only difference is HDMI - and at this point, I don't think many people's TV's have that."
Way to make it so future proof that when peoples's TV's do have that, it won't be available to them without having to buy the console again, albeit cheaper by that time, but how much is any one's guess. Then this:
Some observers have questioned whether Blu-Ray movies will be playable on the PS3 once motion picture companies enable copy protection on the discs.
Hirai said it was "too early to speculate at this point" about such problems.
Even more future proofing.
Please do. I have a test coming up real soon and that might delay it enough for me to study some more.
/Shakes fist at Hammer
Naturally, those who have common sense don't need to go looking for it. Those without it need to find it. So it makes perfect sense that Washington needs to find it.
It's OK. Neither did Bungie.
I'll let you in on the secret about Halo. It's the soundtrack. At least for me. I played it on my friend's xbox. It was fun because of co-op. I played it on the PC. I immediately went back to Unreal Tournament, Jedi Outcast and Half-Life. But everytime I hear the music I think, "That's pretty sweet music" and I get an itch to play it again. I should just buy the soundtrack.
Even Utah can do it.
Oh, I'm sure they are profiting off of it now, and probably have been for a long time. I'm just letting you know that there was a time, albeit it a short time, that they sold at a loss, albeit slight loss. Granted, their losses are still no where near comparable to what Sony and MS lose.
Then you make the bold assertion that mature consumers buy products because of the product, not because of other people. While a good comment, it is unrelated to the conversation. Again, we will review for you. GP said he knows people who are buying it because it is a playstation, not because they like other people who are buying it. You asked if it was any better than buying a console because of available games, also no because of who else is buying it.
Your post == nonsense.
That is not true. I love Nintendo, and while they rarely sell at a loss, they still do occassionally. However, it's only in the single digits, and not for very long.
'/o0z 4r3 t3h 5uxxorzz. 3n9lihs w1l 4l\/\/4jz b3 t3h 54|\/|ezz!!!one! E|\|9l15h 9r4m|\/|3rrz FTW!!!1!!onehundredeleven!
They have a researcher who came up with Quicksort. But then again, I don't think he was working for them at the time. And it's only slightly faster than merge sort. OK, your point is taken.
This is mostly what I was referring to. Here you say they have innovation within the same genre. I agree. It is completely possible to be innovative in a genre/niche/field/etc. But the guy I was replying to orignally seemed to be saying that because a company was coming out with a "sequel" to a game that there is no innovation in the games industry. Whereas I disagree. Just like the amount of innovation between Wolfenstein and Return to Castle Wolfenstein is huge.
Innovation needs to continue in every industry if it is to stay around. But what is innovation? Does it have to be a new genre? Does it have to be radically different? How unique does something have to be in order for it to be innovative? I tend to think it has to be an improvement. It sounds like a lot of people want innovation to come in the form of radical changes. They want to look at the Wolfenstein --> Half-Life 2 changes and say it should be like that all the time, not considering the number of innovations that came between the two to make those changes possible.
To take that idea further, that's why I think many feel that there was more innovation in the past. We can look back at Wolfenstein 3D and say that was innovation. Wolfenstein was not the first FPS, but the other games that were aren't rememberable by most people and they forget that it was really just an incremental step. Half-Life was not the first game to have an interactive world, but people forget that. I suspect in 10 years, we may forget some FPS-sequels now but say that X was so innovative, when today we say it isn't because Y and Z were doing the same things, just not as memorably.
I hope that makes sense.
I am impressed. I had always ignored Dvoraks rantings. I decided to read that one. I can't understand why nobody likes reading him. I mean, don't we all like to watch someone make a complete fool of oneself? Isn't that why reality TV is so popular? Because we like to watch idiots make themselves look like complete tools? Wow, he can really make himself sound more stupid than the average bear.
With that said, LucasArts could very well make a really good Indiana Jones game that is in the same genre but is still innovative. But that is difficult since they have to work in the Indiana Jones universe.
I think the games industry has reached a point where they know what is successful. Much like the movie industry, and the music industry and the book industry, and the theater industry, and the comic book industry, and the board games industry, and the card game industry, and the .... ad infinitum. A new industry pops up, finds out what is successful and sticks with that, all the while making improvements. I say improvements because the original Doom in nothing like UT2k4 despite being in the same genre. The gravity gun in Half-Life 2 is nothing like any other weapon previous (I assume because I had never played with anything like it before, but I allow that maybe someone else was first).
I play games for fun and I'm sure you do to. My definition of fun isn't solely based on whether or not something is totally new or even innovative. I enjoyed Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. I even found UT2k4 to be fun despite already having lots of fun with UT2k3, and that despite enjoying the original UT. I thought WarCraft III was fun despite finding StarCraft fun, as well as the old Dune II and some of the older Red Alert games.
They all had minor improvements, and some were original, others were just original ways of incorporating existing ideas into one product, while others were just enhancements. How innovative do you want? Something totally unique that's never ever been tried before? I'm not going to say that there won't ever be a new genre again, or that it's impossible for it to happen, but those kinds of things are rare. People have been telling stories for thousands of years, yet Sci-fi and Fantasy are only relatively recent additions to the genre base. When a new medium arrives, genres pop up quickly. Maybe we've just got to the point where story telling has been for a long time, yet nobody is complaining that there is no innovation in Story telling.
I'll agree, saying that there isn't any innovation in the games industry does sound like a broken record. I'm beginning to believe that there are two types of people saying it though; those who truly believe it, and those who are just saying it because it is chic to say it recently. Maybe people are saying it because they looked at how many new genres appeared during the 90s alone and now aren't seeing that anymore. That is mainly who the above paragraphs are directed toward.
The very fact that a simple name is generating this much discussion is proof enough that marketing-wise, the name has succeeded in getting everyone to recognize it and ingrained in their minds.
I would like to see you do some marketing. Apparently, when people are talking a lot about your product, you consider that to be a failure. Everyone was talking about the name so much that they want Nintendo to say more about it. That's marketing genius right there. Nintendo has everyone in the palm of their hands. Usually people might talk about a name and come up with all sorts of rumors on why it is named the way it is. But now people are going directly to Nintendo, who while explaining the name, now also has a chance to throw in another word or two for the system. My bets are that if MS could have people coming to them asking "Why 360?" they would love it too. But no one cares. And we all know why Sony chose PS3. Ooh, it's the PS2+1. That's a name that will have familiarity but nothing more. Nintendo still has familiarity (Nintendo wii) but now they also have something unique but easy to remember (Nintendo wii)
I would love to see more games on Linux as well. I haven't spent a whole lot of time on it but I've never been able to get Wine or Cedega to work all that well for me. I keep Windows around solely for that reason. I like to map and Hammer and UnrealEd are only available on Windows.
What is it with the Germans and they're complete lack of taste in music? First David Hasselhoff and now Madonna. What is wrong with those people?
Curious. If they are people who don't vote does that mean the "intellectually curious" do vote? And if so, why are you complaining about George Bush? Wouldn't that mean the "intellectually curious" are the ones that voted him into office? At least one of those two things are wrong.
Hey, I use coaxial you insensitive clod!
And my TV was made in 1983.
And it's only 19".
But I only paid $25 for it.
/cries
To finagle your own words, "If you could [constantly come up with new things]...everything would have been done by now." But doesn't that mean that you couldn't constantly come up with new things?
I think my head is starting to asplode.
Extend as you please: "PEPSI" has been advertising "DRAIN-O" for some time. I have not bought into it yet, but my friends tell me "DRUNKEST" and "SILLIEST". In contrast, "SAM'S CHOICE" "LIQUID PLUMR" is "YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES" and "Vous bummes, il y a un poison dans bibliotheque". What does the community think? Is "DRAIN-O" going to change the world forever?
I make it a policy never to buy any electronic equipment from any store that cannot properly configure a high-definition TV to display correctly. I have walked out of countless stores simply after seeing that.