What about the people of Voonatron 3? I hear they are very keen on games, and there's over 100 billion of them. Still, not infinite, but if the Universe is infinite, then surely the number of gamers is, too?
simply because a dvd/cd you can leave it in the case for three years and if it hasn't been used then it will work fine first time.
I wouldn't count on it, not unless you are using expensive gold media. The cheap crap that most people buy these days has an alarming failure rate. I've seen discs fail within a year, even when stored properly. I swear, the quality of optical media has dropped dramatically over the years, as people demand cheaper and cheaper media. So much that it is getting hard to find the good ones for a reasonable price.
Its not just about backing up - its about restoring as well. A friend of mine screwed up his partition table this weekend and can't boot from the hard drive to do a restore, so partition magic isn't going to work for him.
Meh. Just restart your Mac, and hold down "T" to boot it in Firewire disk mode, and run the restore from another machine. Why would you have to boot from the machine itself?
They call it Kleenex because it's clean, unlike the handkerchiefs that people used to use.
So, why don't they call it "Cleanex" instead? Your point is extremely hard to understand, because I don't think anybody actually thinks of Kleenex as meaning "clean" - it's just a made-up word, and that's how people see it.
Anyway, just because some wildly successful brand names have nothing to do with their products doesn't mean that they all don't. Along with Coca-Cola and Kleenex, another example of a popular descriptive brand name is Band-Aid. And I'm sure there are others.
OK, this is getting more and more insane. How does "Band-Aid" describe the product. It's a group of musicians that helps people?
It's not just that some brands aren;t descriptive. It's that 99.9% of successful brand names are NOT descriptive. It is an exception to have a descriptive brand-name.
"Coca-Cola (often abbreviated to "Coke") is a carbonated cola drink... The formula for Coke, whose status as a trade secret has been embellished by company lore, once contained trace amounts of cocaine
So, you're saying that the brand name is no longer descriptive? Thanks for repeating my point! People buy Coke for the caffeine and the sugar, neither of which is alluded to by the product name
Where did this turn into an argument that all successful brand names are descriptive? All I'm arguing is that a significant number of them are.
That would be a losing argument. A very insignificant number of successful brand names are descriptive.
They're extremely relevant. If you do something that turns them off, even if it doesn't do enough to dissuade them from buying your product, chances are you did something wrong.
There is very little evidence of this in the real world. Fans often get pissed about changes, but then the product goes on to even greater success with the changes that pissed off the rabid fans. For example: New Coke, and Apple's switch to Intel processors. Maybe even Google's commercial ventures and advertising.
Fans usually have very little idea about what is good for a company. They often have a marked lack of perspective and ability to see the "big picture" of a company. Seriously, if you let the hardcore fans run companies, they would go bankrupt very quickly. In other words, the customer isn't always right.
How the hell do you know what the reaction was outside the fanbase?
Because I've, er, talked to people?
That would be a most interesting conversation. Do you randomly go up to people who have no current awareness of a product and ask what they think about it? That must be popular. I bet it's a hit at parties.
Bullshit! Every time a bit of news came out of Nintendo all of the blogs grabbed onto it. Everybody went nuts when the Wiimote was revealed, which was, you remember, before the name change.
Well, if you're talking about blogs, then you may as well substitute "nobody" for "everybody," because that's about how much relevance that blogs have in the wider world. And I don't remember whether the "Wiimote" came out before the name change or after. But why would they call it "Wiimote" if the name of the console was still "Revolution"?
There's no way that people like that are going to see a system called "Wii" and think anything else but "DUMMEST NAME EVAR!!1
But who gives a shit? There is a much larger market out there, who can't stand those pubescent boys and their toys.
Of course, Nintendo's already got a horrible reputation among these types with its kiddie image.
That didn't stop Nintendo's success, and may have helped it. In this day and age, do you really want to associate your product with such a small and unappealing portion of the market? I don't think that most of the world's population is young males with masculinity/ego problems.
That's all true, but when you do surveys and market analyses you need to divide people into simple categories for statistical purposes.
Why?
With your vague approach there's no way to make estimates about how many sales you can expect for a given type of game.
How so? If you are doing a survey, ask customers "would you buy this game?" If they say yes, tick a box. Use this to make estimates on how many copies you will sell.
It's a lot less vague than the approach demonstrated here, which involves breaking people up into vague groups, which may or may not exist. There's much more margin for error in assuming that "My game appeals to Demographic X which contains 5 million people" - because Demographic X may not like your game, even as you assume your game fits that market. You are going to get much more precise results if you actually go directly to the people with a description of what your game actually is, rather than marketing mumbo-jumbo that customers don't care about.
Does anybody actually say to themselves "Hey, I'm a part of Demographic X and I love all that Demographic X stuff"?
Ok, I should have been more clear and should have made "communism-inclined" bold. My point was that it's completely unimportant to the story that this governement is comumnism-inclined, it's been democratically elected, so it shouldn't matter.
Even if they weren't democratically elected, why would it matter? It doesn't change the fact that yet another government is choosing open source. It would be rather fucked up if the news were only allowed to report on the activities of democratically elected governments.
Same as always. I'll use OOo. If that won't read the document, it probably isn't worth reading anyway.
Until you lose your job for not reading it, I guess you could consider it unimportant. Every day, things that are vital to people's livelihoods are saved in the most ridiculous formats one could imagine. It sucks, but that's reality. Which is more important - your own life, or software freedom and compatibility?
Because "I" is the first-person singular pronoun in English. Nintendo even put out a press release explaining all of this.
That doesn't make any sense to me. "I" as pronoun has nothing to do with the use of the vowel "i" within words. And an extreme minority of human beings read company press releases to describe the naming of a product.
But Nintendo obviously wants the name of this console to reflect its function, as both names were references to something that the console is intended to do.
And what does "Wii" refer to in terms of function? I don't know of any English word spelled "Wii" - so how would I know what it is meant to describe?
Because it's what people call your product. Seems pretty obvious to me.
But why would it matter to a company? All that matters is that they make money. If they would make more money calling it "Purple flying monkey butt thesaurus," then why would they not use that name?
Not in this case. The Wii has no legs to stand on if the controller is rejected.
Why not? I'm pretty sure that the Wii has more components than just a controller. Aside from the hardware, software is just as important, if not more important than the console itself.
True, but that's one of the reasons why this name, along with those of many other products, is relatively good.
Hmmm. From a product selling point-of-view, having a name that describes the product is usually not a very good name. It usually indicates that you are a generic brand. The pinnacle of branding is to have a popular name that has nothing at all to do with your product, and stands on its own. Like Xerox, or Kleenex, or Apple. Descriptive names are usually poison as far as marketing goes. So much so that I can hardly even remember descriptive product names.
Cola with cocaine in it. So, um, bad example for your point, a great one for mine.
Except that Coca-Cola is carbonated water, not a tropical African evergreen plant with reddish fragrant nutlike seeds, and it doesn't contain cocaine. So, apart from not describing the product at all, it describes it perfectly.
I don't see how this makes a point for your argument. The Nintendo machine is NOT a revolution - it is a game console. If they wanted a descriptive name, they would have used "Game playing thingy" - not "Revolution" which usually refers to either a political uprising, or the physical rotation of an object.
Also, I notice that you dropped the other brand names I cited, and deliberately singled out Coca Cola. Why? Did you have problems trying to refute my other examples?
Seriously? Without trying, I can think of a number of slogans that would work, for example: "Join the Revolution," "Bring on the Revolution," "The Revolution Will Be Televised," and so on.
Precisely. All you can think of are lame cliches. I don't think anyone is going to be influenced by such obvious shite.
The best thing I can think of for the Wii is "Now It's OK to Play with Your Wii."
That just demonstrates that you are very much lacking in creativity, and would never get a job in advertising. Is that really the best you can think of? It just shows that you are so juvenile that as soon as you hear a word that can possibly be construed as relating to genitals, that's all you can think of.
"Revolution" sounds much more infantile to me, like someone who needs to sound tough and big.
So does "XBox." Seems to have worked OK for Microsoft.
Funny how that sounds tough to you. Following your previous genital obsession, Xbox sounds like a vagina in a porn movie. In either case, it doesn't really matter. The fact that the Xbox is successful does not mean that the name is not infantile. How many people bought the Xbox because of the name?
You are just proving that infantile names don't doom a product to failure.
BTW, I should remind you that Nintendo themselves were the ones making a big deal about how their console was going to be a revolution. "Tough and big" indeed. Moreover, the fanbase seemed to really enjoy the antics of Reggie Fils-Aime and his "Reggielution." The reaction to the name change has been rather defensive at best for most fans, on the other hand, and outright negative for people outside of the fanbase.
Again, I don't see your point. Fanbases are rather irrelevant. Most customers aren't fans, they are just people. Most people don't have a strong loyalty to products, and don't have juvenile reactions to product names. How the hell do you know what the reaction was outside the fanbase? Somebody outside the fanbase is unlikely to comment on the internet about their impression of the name. They would be at work, or cooking dinner or something.
As an example of bad decisions from the new Nintendo, I said that "Wii" was a bad name. Someone asked me why I thought it was a bad name, so I attacked it.
Ahh, but why do you care so much about the name as to attack it? And you didn't (in your original post) explain in what way it is bad. Even if it is "bad" in your opinion, does not mean it won't be a successful name.
Of course not, on either score. That doesn't suddenly make the
The name was designed with the English language in mind. It sounds like "We" and has two 'I's put together.
How do you know that? If it was tailored specifically for the English language, then why does it have two 'i's in a row? That is extremely rare in the English language.
The problem with that, besides what I've already noted, is that the focus of the Wii thus far hasn't been on social gaming; online is going to be pretty limited at first, for one thing. Instead, the focus has been on the "revolutionary" controller.
So, what does that have to do with the name? Names usually don't reflect function.
Says who? I'll agree that it was more popular to call things "revolutions" in the 90's, but I don't see how it's ever been popular to seriously refer to a game console as "piss." Unless it sucked, anyway.
Say who? Exactly. It's a matter of taste. Who says that the name of the console refers to "piss"? You do. I don't get the same connotation from it. The ide of "seriously" referring to the names of things is totally absurd. Most people don't take names literally. They are just sounds referring to objects. If your name is Robert, does that describe your purpose as Roberting? Or the iPod for example - how does that describe functionality? Does it mean that the iPod is some type of pea?
Then the Wii will be a footnote in gaming history and no one will care about its name. If the Wii doesn't succeed with its controller, then it will only do as well as the Gamecube did, at best.
Right. So tell me again why the name matters. If it is revolutionary, then people will use it - or not use it if that person is counter-revolutionary.
Of course, it is entirely possible for a product to be successful without being revolutionary, so your idea that if it is not revolutionary, then it will be a failure is also unwarranted. Again, see iPod as an example.
B. Coke and Pepsi have shown the original pesticide study to be flawed (this is not surprising, because it was run by an interest group that has repeatedly shown itself to have an anti-west slant).
So, because the group that did the study has anti-west tendencies (or so you say), then the results should be expected to be flawed?
And because Coca Cola and Pepsi defend their products, then they must be right?
I'm sorry, but this logic is completely flawed. Why would you trust Coca Cola or Pepsi's word on this matter? Why would a group being "anti-west" change the results of pesticide tests? Either the products in question have pesticides in them, or they do not. Do you have access to samples and tests that allow you to determine the answer to this question?
A poster upthread said that Coke and Pepsi said that the pesticide was there because of the local water. If this is true, then that means that pesticide is still present in the products, doesn't it? So that would mean the study is not flawed, if pesticide was found.
...but it will sure as hell not do very well. When seriously hardcore gamers, like the Penny Arcade guys, says that no way will they buy it at launch, you have a problem
I'd say it's more likely that those guys are full of shit. They have tried it yet, all they have is speculation. I think they will probably buy one within weeks of release, even if they keep that secret and claim they don't have one. After all, they are "hardcore gamers" who write commentary on gaming. On one level, someone who does that for an occupation would be irresponsible not to try all the options.
In any case, it is irrelevant, as "hardcore gamers" make a up a very tiny portion of the people who actually buy consoles. Many gamers have a total anti-console attitude, seeing PC gaming as where it's at. Meanwhile, the masses continue to buy consoles despite the opinions of hardcore gamers.
Does it? How so? Does the machine rotate on some kind of turntable? Will it cause a social uprising to overthrow the current political order?
A good name does not necessarily describe the product. In fact, very few good product names do that. Coca-Cola. What does that mean? McDonalds? Apple? Would you argue that those would be better named "Sugary bubbly water company" or "Greasy overrated burgers" or "Shiny Computers, Inc"?
Because even an idiot could've designed successful ad campaigns around it.
Are you sure of that? I can't think of any reason that name would make a marketing campaign successful. Similar names have been used on many failed products and campaigns. I think you underestimate how difficult it is to create a marketing buzz that translates into sales.
Besides the penis and urination jokes? Well, it just sounds childish. That's a reputation that Nintendo of all companies definitely should want to get away from.
"Revolution" sounds much more infantile to me, like someone who needs to sound tough and big. Most people on this planet would love to get back to their childhood days. Cute, "childish" names are actually very popular. Most people don't take it too seriously. If you are too embarrassed to say "Wii" - then that probably indicates more about you than the product name.
After all, childishness is in the eye of the beholder. Many people will have a different impression than yourself. Many people speak different languages, where "Wii" might mean something entirely different.
I wonder how many people would defend this name if Sony or Microsoft came up with it?
Who really cares? I'm not defending the name. What I don't understand is who would attack the name? After all, it's just a product name - there are many more important things to get upset about. People who are offended by product names make up such an insignificant portion of humanity, that it is not worth a manufacturer's concern.
If the Wii was the greatest product ever, would you refuse to buy it because of urination jokes? If the Revolution was the biggest rip-off ever, would you still buy it because the name makes you feel big?
It should be pretty obvious from all of the penis and urination jokes made about it since it was revealed.
So, what's bad about penis and urination jokes? Sure they are juvenile, but it creates publicity. Aside from that, there are many people who don't immediately think "urination" when they hear the word. To a Scottish person, Wee means "small." In many languages, it might not mean anything at all.
Even with urination overtones, Wii has cuteness in spades. The name is much more inline with current trends and fashion than "Revolution" which is incredibly dated and lame. You may as well call it "World's most awesome product that makes your penis bigger" or "Socialist Revolution that Brings Utopia." People are a little more sophisticated these days than to be impressed by such grandiose names. What if it turns out not to be a revolution that changes gaming forever? Then the name will be a joke that is much more painful and biting than a few urination jokes.
But they still make bad decisions, such as calling the console "Wii."
Why was that a bad decision? It's a far better name than "Revolution" - which is so dated it sounds like a Pepsi commercial from the 1990s. They may as well have called it "Nintendo X-treme" with several exclamation points. What's wrong with the name "Wii"?
- there is another group of people who send very few work-related emails, but who send interesting and/or funny emails to the entire company now and then.
Sorry, but there is nothing funny or interesting about those emails. In fact, they create a sucking hole of anti-funny, which theatens destroy all joy on this world and throughout the multiverse.
I don't understand how anyone could think in terms something so limited as "two markets" or "six markets." There is an infinite variety of potential customers. This story implies that it is conventional wisdom that there are just two game "markets." I've never heard that before.
Who are these people, and how do they get jobs commenting on such things, when their whole approach to analysis is flawed from the start? What is the benefit to such analysis? Thinking in terms of two markets or six markets can only achive one outcome - limiting innovation and ways of thinking about how to produce games/products.
In reality, customers buy what they want to buy, and try to meet their own needs or desires. Real human beings (you know, the ones who actually buy things) do not think of themselves as "markets."
I think that the author of this story's title may be somewhat ignorant of the real world. The "smoke filled room" contains people in power, who most of the time get anything they want, and can get away with crimes, murder, extortion - at the same time as having women throw themselves at their feet, and countless people to do their bidding, while swimming in pools of champagne.
On the other hand, you have bloggers. The name alone says enough about their power, prestige and effectiveness.
I'd say the scores are more like: Bloggers 1, Smoke-filled room 9,000,000,000.
If you want value and performance custom built is the way to go, not prebuilt crap.
You built your own Mac Pro Dual-dual-core Xeon Woodcrest machine, or Xserve RAID unit? I don't think many home builders have machines that come close to these. Being prebuilt does not mean that something is crap. It also means that you have a more limited choice in Operating Systems that you can run.
And where do you get case and motherboard designs that can compare to something like a Mac Pro?
But when I want to do it manually, I want to be able to drag and drop like I can on Winamp. I have my songs named right consistently, I know where to find them, I know what ones I want on the player, let me handle it. Creating a library and queries and playlists are just hoops I have to go through to get the songs I want on the player. But this is the only option with iTunes.
This is incorrect. Choose the file(s) you want to manually add to your iPod. Drag said files to the iPod icon. You are done. You can do this from the desktop, as well as from within your iTunes library. Why is it that people complain about "missing features" on the iPod, without knowing the first thing about them?
What is the basis for your statement that playlists are the only option for transferring music to an iPod?
I think AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of the telcos are perfectly capable of hiring a PR firm and buying some TV time. Nothing about that implies the involvement of the MPAA.
And you don't think that part of the reason for doing this is scoring points with the MPAA, so they can make a deal for future services?
I don't think the MPAA has weighed in on the net neutrality debate yet. I fail to see your point. You seem to have lumped all the companies that you don't like into one big pile.
Have you completely ignored the astroturfing campaign, including TV ads, that attacked Net Neutrality in specious ways? Do you really believe the MPAA did not have anything to do with that?
Slashdot Mirror
What about the people of Voonatron 3? I hear they are very keen on games, and there's over 100 billion of them. Still, not infinite, but if the Universe is infinite, then surely the number of gamers is, too?
I wouldn't count on it, not unless you are using expensive gold media. The cheap crap that most people buy these days has an alarming failure rate. I've seen discs fail within a year, even when stored properly. I swear, the quality of optical media has dropped dramatically over the years, as people demand cheaper and cheaper media. So much that it is getting hard to find the good ones for a reasonable price.
Meh. Just restart your Mac, and hold down "T" to boot it in Firewire disk mode, and run the restore from another machine. Why would you have to boot from the machine itself?
So, why don't they call it "Cleanex" instead? Your point is extremely hard to understand, because I don't think anybody actually thinks of Kleenex as meaning "clean" - it's just a made-up word, and that's how people see it.
Anyway, just because some wildly successful brand names have nothing to do with their products doesn't mean that they all don't. Along with Coca-Cola and Kleenex, another example of a popular descriptive brand name is Band-Aid. And I'm sure there are others.
OK, this is getting more and more insane. How does "Band-Aid" describe the product. It's a group of musicians that helps people?
It's not just that some brands aren;t descriptive. It's that 99.9% of successful brand names are NOT descriptive. It is an exception to have a descriptive brand-name.
"Coca-Cola (often abbreviated to "Coke") is a carbonated cola drink ... The formula for Coke, whose status as a trade secret has been embellished by company lore, once contained trace amounts of cocaine
So, you're saying that the brand name is no longer descriptive? Thanks for repeating my point! People buy Coke for the caffeine and the sugar, neither of which is alluded to by the product name
Where did this turn into an argument that all successful brand names are descriptive? All I'm arguing is that a significant number of them are.
That would be a losing argument. A very insignificant number of successful brand names are descriptive.
They're extremely relevant. If you do something that turns them off, even if it doesn't do enough to dissuade them from buying your product, chances are you did something wrong.
There is very little evidence of this in the real world. Fans often get pissed about changes, but then the product goes on to even greater success with the changes that pissed off the rabid fans. For example: New Coke, and Apple's switch to Intel processors. Maybe even Google's commercial ventures and advertising.
Fans usually have very little idea about what is good for a company. They often have a marked lack of perspective and ability to see the "big picture" of a company. Seriously, if you let the hardcore fans run companies, they would go bankrupt very quickly. In other words, the customer isn't always right.
How the hell do you know what the reaction was outside the fanbase? Because I've, er, talked to people?
That would be a most interesting conversation. Do you randomly go up to people who have no current awareness of a product and ask what they think about it? That must be popular. I bet it's a hit at parties.
Bullshit! Every time a bit of news came out of Nintendo all of the blogs grabbed onto it. Everybody went nuts when the Wiimote was revealed, which was, you remember, before the name change.
Well, if you're talking about blogs, then you may as well substitute "nobody" for "everybody," because that's about how much relevance that blogs have in the wider world. And I don't remember whether the "Wiimote" came out before the name change or after. But why would they call it "Wiimote" if the name of the console was still "Revolution"?
There's no way that people like that are going to see a system called "Wii" and think anything else but "DUMMEST NAME EVAR!!1
But who gives a shit? There is a much larger market out there, who can't stand those pubescent boys and their toys.
Of course, Nintendo's already got a horrible reputation among these types with its kiddie image.
That didn't stop Nintendo's success, and may have helped it. In this day and age, do you really want to associate your product with such a small and unappealing portion of the market? I don't think that most of the world's population is young males with masculinity/ego problems.
You sound somewhat like Dvorak w
Why?
With your vague approach there's no way to make estimates about how many sales you can expect for a given type of game.
How so? If you are doing a survey, ask customers "would you buy this game?" If they say yes, tick a box. Use this to make estimates on how many copies you will sell.
It's a lot less vague than the approach demonstrated here, which involves breaking people up into vague groups, which may or may not exist. There's much more margin for error in assuming that "My game appeals to Demographic X which contains 5 million people" - because Demographic X may not like your game, even as you assume your game fits that market. You are going to get much more precise results if you actually go directly to the people with a description of what your game actually is, rather than marketing mumbo-jumbo that customers don't care about.
Does anybody actually say to themselves "Hey, I'm a part of Demographic X and I love all that Demographic X stuff"?
Even if they weren't democratically elected, why would it matter? It doesn't change the fact that yet another government is choosing open source. It would be rather fucked up if the news were only allowed to report on the activities of democratically elected governments.
Until you lose your job for not reading it, I guess you could consider it unimportant. Every day, things that are vital to people's livelihoods are saved in the most ridiculous formats one could imagine. It sucks, but that's reality. Which is more important - your own life, or software freedom and compatibility?
That doesn't make any sense to me. "I" as pronoun has nothing to do with the use of the vowel "i" within words. And an extreme minority of human beings read company press releases to describe the naming of a product.
But Nintendo obviously wants the name of this console to reflect its function, as both names were references to something that the console is intended to do.
And what does "Wii" refer to in terms of function? I don't know of any English word spelled "Wii" - so how would I know what it is meant to describe?
Because it's what people call your product. Seems pretty obvious to me.
But why would it matter to a company? All that matters is that they make money. If they would make more money calling it "Purple flying monkey butt thesaurus," then why would they not use that name?
Not in this case. The Wii has no legs to stand on if the controller is rejected.
Why not? I'm pretty sure that the Wii has more components than just a controller. Aside from the hardware, software is just as important, if not more important than the console itself.
Hmmm. From a product selling point-of-view, having a name that describes the product is usually not a very good name. It usually indicates that you are a generic brand. The pinnacle of branding is to have a popular name that has nothing at all to do with your product, and stands on its own. Like Xerox, or Kleenex, or Apple. Descriptive names are usually poison as far as marketing goes. So much so that I can hardly even remember descriptive product names.
Cola with cocaine in it. So, um, bad example for your point, a great one for mine.
Except that Coca-Cola is carbonated water, not a tropical African evergreen plant with reddish fragrant nutlike seeds, and it doesn't contain cocaine. So, apart from not describing the product at all, it describes it perfectly.
I don't see how this makes a point for your argument. The Nintendo machine is NOT a revolution - it is a game console. If they wanted a descriptive name, they would have used "Game playing thingy" - not "Revolution" which usually refers to either a political uprising, or the physical rotation of an object.
Also, I notice that you dropped the other brand names I cited, and deliberately singled out Coca Cola. Why? Did you have problems trying to refute my other examples?
Seriously? Without trying, I can think of a number of slogans that would work, for example: "Join the Revolution," "Bring on the Revolution," "The Revolution Will Be Televised," and so on.
Precisely. All you can think of are lame cliches. I don't think anyone is going to be influenced by such obvious shite.
The best thing I can think of for the Wii is "Now It's OK to Play with Your Wii."
That just demonstrates that you are very much lacking in creativity, and would never get a job in advertising. Is that really the best you can think of? It just shows that you are so juvenile that as soon as you hear a word that can possibly be construed as relating to genitals, that's all you can think of.
"Revolution" sounds much more infantile to me, like someone who needs to sound tough and big. So does "XBox." Seems to have worked OK for Microsoft.
Funny how that sounds tough to you. Following your previous genital obsession, Xbox sounds like a vagina in a porn movie. In either case, it doesn't really matter. The fact that the Xbox is successful does not mean that the name is not infantile. How many people bought the Xbox because of the name?
You are just proving that infantile names don't doom a product to failure.
BTW, I should remind you that Nintendo themselves were the ones making a big deal about how their console was going to be a revolution. "Tough and big" indeed. Moreover, the fanbase seemed to really enjoy the antics of Reggie Fils-Aime and his "Reggielution." The reaction to the name change has been rather defensive at best for most fans, on the other hand, and outright negative for people outside of the fanbase.
Again, I don't see your point. Fanbases are rather irrelevant. Most customers aren't fans, they are just people. Most people don't have a strong loyalty to products, and don't have juvenile reactions to product names. How the hell do you know what the reaction was outside the fanbase? Somebody outside the fanbase is unlikely to comment on the internet about their impression of the name. They would be at work, or cooking dinner or something.
As an example of bad decisions from the new Nintendo, I said that "Wii" was a bad name. Someone asked me why I thought it was a bad name, so I attacked it.
Ahh, but why do you care so much about the name as to attack it? And you didn't (in your original post) explain in what way it is bad. Even if it is "bad" in your opinion, does not mean it won't be a successful name.
Of course not, on either score. That doesn't suddenly make the
How do you know that? If it was tailored specifically for the English language, then why does it have two 'i's in a row? That is extremely rare in the English language.
The problem with that, besides what I've already noted, is that the focus of the Wii thus far hasn't been on social gaming; online is going to be pretty limited at first, for one thing. Instead, the focus has been on the "revolutionary" controller.
So, what does that have to do with the name? Names usually don't reflect function.
Says who? I'll agree that it was more popular to call things "revolutions" in the 90's, but I don't see how it's ever been popular to seriously refer to a game console as "piss." Unless it sucked, anyway.
Say who? Exactly. It's a matter of taste. Who says that the name of the console refers to "piss"? You do. I don't get the same connotation from it. The ide of "seriously" referring to the names of things is totally absurd. Most people don't take names literally. They are just sounds referring to objects. If your name is Robert, does that describe your purpose as Roberting? Or the iPod for example - how does that describe functionality? Does it mean that the iPod is some type of pea?
Then the Wii will be a footnote in gaming history and no one will care about its name. If the Wii doesn't succeed with its controller, then it will only do as well as the Gamecube did, at best.
Right. So tell me again why the name matters. If it is revolutionary, then people will use it - or not use it if that person is counter-revolutionary.
Of course, it is entirely possible for a product to be successful without being revolutionary, so your idea that if it is not revolutionary, then it will be a failure is also unwarranted. Again, see iPod as an example.
So, because the group that did the study has anti-west tendencies (or so you say), then the results should be expected to be flawed?
And because Coca Cola and Pepsi defend their products, then they must be right?
I'm sorry, but this logic is completely flawed. Why would you trust Coca Cola or Pepsi's word on this matter? Why would a group being "anti-west" change the results of pesticide tests? Either the products in question have pesticides in them, or they do not. Do you have access to samples and tests that allow you to determine the answer to this question?
A poster upthread said that Coke and Pepsi said that the pesticide was there because of the local water. If this is true, then that means that pesticide is still present in the products, doesn't it? So that would mean the study is not flawed, if pesticide was found.
I'd say it's more likely that those guys are full of shit. They have tried it yet, all they have is speculation. I think they will probably buy one within weeks of release, even if they keep that secret and claim they don't have one. After all, they are "hardcore gamers" who write commentary on gaming. On one level, someone who does that for an occupation would be irresponsible not to try all the options.
In any case, it is irrelevant, as "hardcore gamers" make a up a very tiny portion of the people who actually buy consoles. Many gamers have a total anti-console attitude, seeing PC gaming as where it's at. Meanwhile, the masses continue to buy consoles despite the opinions of hardcore gamers.
Does it? How so? Does the machine rotate on some kind of turntable? Will it cause a social uprising to overthrow the current political order?
A good name does not necessarily describe the product. In fact, very few good product names do that. Coca-Cola. What does that mean? McDonalds? Apple? Would you argue that those would be better named "Sugary bubbly water company" or "Greasy overrated burgers" or "Shiny Computers, Inc"?
Because even an idiot could've designed successful ad campaigns around it.
Are you sure of that? I can't think of any reason that name would make a marketing campaign successful. Similar names have been used on many failed products and campaigns. I think you underestimate how difficult it is to create a marketing buzz that translates into sales.
Besides the penis and urination jokes? Well, it just sounds childish. That's a reputation that Nintendo of all companies definitely should want to get away from.
"Revolution" sounds much more infantile to me, like someone who needs to sound tough and big. Most people on this planet would love to get back to their childhood days. Cute, "childish" names are actually very popular. Most people don't take it too seriously. If you are too embarrassed to say "Wii" - then that probably indicates more about you than the product name.
After all, childishness is in the eye of the beholder. Many people will have a different impression than yourself. Many people speak different languages, where "Wii" might mean something entirely different.
I wonder how many people would defend this name if Sony or Microsoft came up with it?
Who really cares? I'm not defending the name. What I don't understand is who would attack the name? After all, it's just a product name - there are many more important things to get upset about. People who are offended by product names make up such an insignificant portion of humanity, that it is not worth a manufacturer's concern.
If the Wii was the greatest product ever, would you refuse to buy it because of urination jokes? If the Revolution was the biggest rip-off ever, would you still buy it because the name makes you feel big?
So, what's bad about penis and urination jokes? Sure they are juvenile, but it creates publicity. Aside from that, there are many people who don't immediately think "urination" when they hear the word. To a Scottish person, Wee means "small." In many languages, it might not mean anything at all.
Even with urination overtones, Wii has cuteness in spades. The name is much more inline with current trends and fashion than "Revolution" which is incredibly dated and lame. You may as well call it "World's most awesome product that makes your penis bigger" or "Socialist Revolution that Brings Utopia." People are a little more sophisticated these days than to be impressed by such grandiose names. What if it turns out not to be a revolution that changes gaming forever? Then the name will be a joke that is much more painful and biting than a few urination jokes.
I think you misspelled "bong hits."
Why is "Revolution" a better name? And why is "Wii" offensively bad to you?
Why was that a bad decision? It's a far better name than "Revolution" - which is so dated it sounds like a Pepsi commercial from the 1990s. They may as well have called it "Nintendo X-treme" with several exclamation points. What's wrong with the name "Wii"?
Sorry, but there is nothing funny or interesting about those emails. In fact, they create a sucking hole of anti-funny, which theatens destroy all joy on this world and throughout the multiverse.
Who are these people, and how do they get jobs commenting on such things, when their whole approach to analysis is flawed from the start? What is the benefit to such analysis? Thinking in terms of two markets or six markets can only achive one outcome - limiting innovation and ways of thinking about how to produce games/products.
In reality, customers buy what they want to buy, and try to meet their own needs or desires. Real human beings (you know, the ones who actually buy things) do not think of themselves as "markets."
On the other hand, you have bloggers. The name alone says enough about their power, prestige and effectiveness.
I'd say the scores are more like: Bloggers 1, Smoke-filled room 9,000,000,000.
You built your own Mac Pro Dual-dual-core Xeon Woodcrest machine, or Xserve RAID unit? I don't think many home builders have machines that come close to these. Being prebuilt does not mean that something is crap. It also means that you have a more limited choice in Operating Systems that you can run.
And where do you get case and motherboard designs that can compare to something like a Mac Pro?
Isn't that what YouTube is for??
This is incorrect. Choose the file(s) you want to manually add to your iPod. Drag said files to the iPod icon. You are done. You can do this from the desktop, as well as from within your iTunes library. Why is it that people complain about "missing features" on the iPod, without knowing the first thing about them?
What is the basis for your statement that playlists are the only option for transferring music to an iPod?
And you don't think that part of the reason for doing this is scoring points with the MPAA, so they can make a deal for future services?
Have you completely ignored the astroturfing campaign, including TV ads, that attacked Net Neutrality in specious ways? Do you really believe the MPAA did not have anything to do with that?