Who modded this troll? It's a perfectly legitimate point. He's not insulting the OP, it's a viable suggestion. While you could argue over whether its insightful, informative, or funny (given the comment on Lynx), this is by far not a troll comment.
I was fortunate enough to have two college grad parents, one well versed in the sciences and mathematics and the other in the arts and linguistics. Between the two of them I received a very good pre-college education.
Some things got handed off to the local high school when my parents decided having hazardous chemicals lying around the house for teaching chemistry was a bad idea. After being homeschooled for so long following being taken out of elementary school due to the stagnation and being an outcast, high school was beyond mind numbing. In an hour of teaching I felt I had learned 5 minutes worth of material. At first I dutifully did homework, but eventually that became so boring and pointless I stopped, save in classes where it was graded. Even in the AP courses I took homework was rarely done, classes were given minimal attention, and I wondered why we couldn't be given a brief lecture, assignments, and then stay only as long as necessary to complete them. That way, all the talented or diligent kids would be able to leave and flew their brain cells rather than fall asleep in class, while all those who remained could receive the help and attention they needed.
Four years of highschool that I'm certain could have been done in two, not accounting for time intensive hands on work for a class such as Physics. Did we really have to start Spanish 2 by spending the first semester covering Spanish 1?
This isn't to say homeschooling is perfect, but you hardly need to be perfect when you're capable of bringing a kid through both fifth and sixth grade in one year enjoying it the entire time. It's not for everyone, but if you're capable of it I highly recommend it (and finding a local support group for socialization purposes).
I'm not sure that's necessarily the best scenario in all cases. I've beaten about half the games in my vast collection, the other half of which remain undefeated as they ended up being too long.
If there are enough interesting new abilities, concepts, challenges (as in Ninja Gaiden) it's extremely easy for me to get sucked into even a very long or punishing game and keep playing. However, if for any reason the game slows down (Windwaker) I lose interest and stop playing, even very near the end of games.
As long as the additional length isn't at the cost of fun, I'm all for it. But if it creates grinds, slow, or boring phases screw it.
The post you're replying to pointed out a reviewer's opinion of the controller, nothing more and nothing less. You're posting as though wild conclusions were drawn about the entire system being cheap and flimsy, which they weren't.
As an AC has pointed out, the original point remains.
There's a reason people piss and moan, and it isn't because Blu-Ray sucks. Blu-Ray isn't bad, but that doesn't make it desirable. DVDs have only very recently become truly ubiquitous, and many people have just finished assembling DVD collections. The idea of buying all of that again without any immediate benefit save "Someday when I get an HDTV this will benefit me" isn't very compelling. Even less so because of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray confusion.
I have an HDTV, and I'm sticking with regular DVDs until there's a clear winner for the next format and maybe even afterwards. The look great, maybe not fantastic, but good enough that rebuying my movie collection isn't appealing.
There isn't any irony in saying we don't need a new technology when we don't.
They're still looking forward to the Xbox 360? I knew the launch in Japan was underwhelming, but it wasn't THAT bad.
The poll is important, but to say that it will reflect real world numbers is a difficult position to defend, especially when Japan is getting a meagre 100k PS3 systems compared to around 1m Wii systems. Even if those numbers are accurate and 50-60% of the Japanese gaming population wants a PS3 and is willing to spend the money for one, what amounts to somewhere between 3-5% will actually be able to grab one.
There's very little doubt that all 100k PS3s in Japan will sell out as quickly if not moreso than the preorders did here. However, the PS3 can only claim as much marketshare as console are manufactured. Eventually their process will ramp up and they'll fill out demand, but eventually is a big risk. That not only gives time for Nintendo and maybe Microsoft to gain marketshare, but also allows reviewers and gamers to state their opinions comparing the consoles. These may be favorable, but if they are anything less than favorable (from it's just as good as the others to other options suck as it sucks) it could really take the wind out of Sony's sails.
Increasingly the internet is becoming our OS. Programming teams are moving away from using Word or Appleworks for documentation and are using wikis. Videos and music are played as often in browsers as they are in Windows Media Player or iTunes. The rise of web applications is threatening the idea that one must be locked to a single OS.
This isn't happening overnight, but by the time I'm a 50 year old industry guru we'll be looking back on this period of time and laughing at the idea of software confined to a particular OS. Certainly there are enough legacy programs at the moment to keep Microsoft and Windows afloat. Still we're fast approaching a moment such as the one that generated C where the benefits of using a language which, while slower, is highly portable will outweigh the performance issues. Why do you think Microsoft despised Java at its conception?
Microsoft has no presence on the internet. The majority of people do not think "Internet Explorer" or "Safari" or "Opera" or "Firefox". They think "Internet" and click the pretty little icon that brings that to them. For a large number of these people the opening page is going to read "Google" in large letters with a little box for them to type Martha Stewart or Oprah into. If it doesn't, they're likely to type "www.google.com" and end up there anyway.
Ultimately how many copies of Vista Microsoft sells doesn't matter to Google, it's irrelevant. So long as all OSs out there have a web browser they will all be irrelevant to Google. That is Google's greatest strength. Were Apple to suddenly take over in marketshare, Google wouldn't be fazed in the least. Were UNIX to suddenly receive a mandate from heaven and replace Windows, Google still would remain as it is. So long as there is the internet the OS wars are a sideshow for them.
The only thing that does matter is when there is the potential for someone to compete with Google on their own turf. If Microsoft suddenly owned Youtube they would have pulled the internet video equivalent of buying out Nintendo in the video games industry. It would have been an instant buy-in to the market, and instant trouble for Google. Instead of having a premade beachhead availible for its competitors, there is now the requirement for Microsoft or Yahoo to either develop their own service and struggle to make it popular or find a premade, largely unknown service, buy it out and try and market it. Both options will take time to even potentially compete with Google on that front.
Google is tenacious. They have huge mindshare in e-mail, search engines, direction finding, and video. Without selling anything they have become a juggernaut in the industry, and are nigh impervious to the conventional methods of corperate attack common today.
I won't go so far as to claim that Microsoft is irrelevant, but they are steadily losing. Their OS grows in size every version, never shrinking or throwing off any old baggage that might weigh it down. This model won't reach critical mass with Vista, but in due time it will reach the point where Microsoft has to start from scratch. When the time comes for them to kill all backward compatibility in the name of starting fresh, there will be no legacy programs restricting companies to the continued use of the Windows OS. There will be nothing but the merits of the system by which to judge it. When that time comes Microsoft has to have their act together or they'll disappear. If the new OS is as bug riddled, cumbersome, resource eating and unintuitive as Windows has been thus far it won't float.
The point being made is that it is possible to be the largest market player and even dominant but not be the "market leader". The point is that Microsoft hasn't done any leading in years, and has been following. They followed Netscape to the internet, followed Apple to the Mp3 player, and even are following Novell and other security companies to that market as well. There is very little that Microsoft does that isn't an imitiation of someone else.
To harp entirely on the semantic, there is probably a near zero number of gamers who "need" HDTV. These people should be found and given treatment for their unhealthy obsession.
For the rest of us, we'll either make do without and enjoy looking like a nutcase swingling an oblong white doohickey around or we'll get 57.352" wide screen dilithium concentrate HD TVs and enjoy killing zombies in glorious resolutions.
It would, but last reports showed Sony's controller costing $42 compared to Nintendo's $40 (not including the Nunchuck). This is technology defenders of Sony claim they patented years before the controller's debut, compared to Nintendo's very recent innovation, yet it costs $2 more?
Are they removing it to make it more affordable or to make more money?
There have been arguments concerning the "Sony just threw this together" controller stating that Sony had a patent for the tilting technology in the controller many, many years ago. The argument is that Sony couldn't have just copied Nintendo because they had the technology for the controller so long in advance and the functions of the two companies' controllers are vastly different.
For a while, I was willing to accept that argument. I didn't agree with it, my own feeling from watching the Sony E3 conference being that Sony was trying to take some wind out of Nintendo's sails, but I didn't consider it worthwhile to argue against.
However, the shenanigans involving the rumble feature suit and its sudden removal shortly thereafter, while circumstancial, only reinforce the perception that Sony's version of events isn't what they say it is.
I'm not compelled to believe that Sony actually had planned the Sixaxis controller well in advance when it unnecessarily removed a previous key feature, and seemingly mimicked Nintendo's controller. It doesn't help that Sony waffled about what online service they'd have, giving the perception they were only doing it to be able to say, "We have internet gaming too" at Microsoft. It really doesn't help that after ridiculing Microsoft's two separate packages Sony did the same thing. They say they "Don't care" about Microsoft and Nintendo, but all of the circumstances and coincidences tell a different story.
I'm not against the Sixaxis controller and I know a lot of people who dislike rumble anyway. What I am against is being treated like an idiot (regardless of whether I am or not), as most self-respecting people are. The whole deal feels like Sony is trying to pull a fast one, and that's a bad feeling. Were it just a couple of things that felt this way I wouldn't care so much. However, when everything that comes straight from the horse's mouth breathes of contempt for me and my intelligence, and only smells of greed for my dollars...
I wish Sony well, I just wish they could do something to restore my faith that they're honest.
Actually, I doubt Nintendo regretted jumping ship but more regretted not paying attention to their stupid lawyers.
The whole thing with Sony and later Phillips came long before the term "Intellectual Property" was coined. Nintendo's lawyers didn't seem to have the understanding that Mario, Link, Samus and crew were important and valuable assests that shouldn't be thrown around. The contracts they drew up (both times no less) would have granted Sony complete control over everything released on the new systems, relegating Nintendo from "partner" to "third party developer". It wasn't until Yamauchi himself read the contract with Sony three years after its conception that the mistake was discovered.
I'm sure that Nintendo does not regret jumping ship on deals that would have ultimately lead them to play second (or even third) fiddle to other companies. What they do regret is not hiring better lawyers.
"They won't have all this Anti-Sony momentum when they walk into Gamestop, they'll just have money and choices."
I didn't say every Joe and Jill Gamer is going to buy a PS3. I said they aren't going to make their decision based on all the bad hype we the internet crowd have been subjected to.
They may walk into a Gamestop, see the $500 price tag or the $600 price tag and turn to the cheaper options. They may simply walk away dejected. Or they may shell out the cash and grab one. All three of these are possibilities and all three of them are going to happen. Having worked in retail, I know there are people who will buy the PS3 just because it is more expensive. I know there are people who will but the PS3 just because it's a playstation and Junior will throw a fit if it's anything but one. There are also people, possibly more people, who will spend their cash in different ways.
I'm not arguing that Sony's going to take over the world, the whole point of my post is that the rosy visions of Sony's ascendance or demise are inaccurate.
You may dislike them, know people who dislike them, and know all the sordid details about how they're screwing this launch up. Unfortunately, your bias doesn't change the facts. I don't think it's impossible to believe, given the Sony Fanboyism that can be found despite the tsunami of negatives against Sony, that there are at least 10 million people worldwide who want a PS3. Given that the Xbox 360 has sold 6 million units (around one third of the Xbox's worldwide shipments last generation) already, is it unthinkable that the PS3 (whose predecessor which shipped over 100 million PS2s) won't even sell 1/10th of that?
Maybe your memory is shorter than mine, but there were just as many predictions of Microsoft's departure from the market last year. The Xbox 360 was too expensive, the core package was too gimped, the cost to manufacture was too high, there weren't going to be any worthwhile games at launch, the shareholders would throw a hissy fit, everyone was going to want/wait for the other consoles or a price drop.... all this and more was heard. Microsoft's now sitting on a user base of 6 million or more, and is certainly going nowhere, and that's with the complete disaster that was the Japanese launch (I was there, it was really pathetic).
Normally I'm considerate enough about the instability of predicting the future to accept that everyone else's prognostications are as likely as my own. However, when it comes to the complete desolation or domination portrayed on behalf of Sony I have to call it like I see it. Sony may do very well, they may do very poorly, but they aren't going to usher in a third era of dominance or go the way of Atari.
$600 will be tough sell, and it will cost them sales. $70 games will be a tough sell, and it will cost them sales. Blu-ray will be a non factor for average people. The list goes on but ultimately all it will do is bleed Sony, not kill them. They'll bleed out marketshare which Nintendo and Microsoft will feast upon, but it won't kill Sony. Microsoft's been hemmoraghing cash since they launched the Xbox, and they're still here. It seems unlikely that Sony, who made mountains of cash last generation, is going to fall over and die at the drop of a hat.
You can call me stupid, but ultimately you're wrong. Historical precedent shows Sony's going to lose their huge advantage in market share, but it also shows they aren't going to die. I know plenty of people who want a PS3 despite the price just as I know plenty who threw their hands up in the air and gave up on it. Your arguments don't show that Sony is ripe for the chopping block, just the weak launch Sony's set themselves up for.
So give up dreaming about Sony being history. They'll stick around longer than you think. They won't be top dog; there may not even be a top dog. It's going to be an interesting generation to be a gamer, probably the most interesting since the days of SNES vs Genesis. Believing in a Boolean outcome for Sony only oversimplifies what is going to be an exciting and complicated console war.
I'm a classic case of a person who can't focus. Although through persistance I've managed to beat about half the games in my collection.
That of course means the other half remain undefeated. In some cases, the game just stopped appealing to me (Goblin Commander), others hit a boring section, (Windwaker) and then there are the ones that got dropped for some reason you can't remember but you never bothered to pick them up.
It's my experience that, barring extremely punishing games like Ninja Gaiden and F-Zero GX, it isn't that hard for me to sit down and resume a game even months after I dropped it. It's all a matter if I want to or not.
This is all coming from the guy with one level 46 main in WoW and 19 alts ranging from level 5 to 38.
2 parter, read both or skip to the one that applies to you (if it does).
Doom a Gloomers about the PS3, you're wrong. Sony's arrogant, sure. Sony's PR is equatable to trying to talk kindly about Bill Gates in the 90s. The steps and mistakes they've been making are well documented here on Slashdot, and they are doing a whole lot of sucking. However, here's a revelation for you......the PS3 will still be a major player this coming generation.
You can throw your prophecies of doom left and right, but it's pointless. We may not like Sony and their shenanigans, but barring you personally tracking down and proselytizing every Joe and Jill Gamer it's not going to make a difference. They won't have all this Anti-Sony momentum when they walk into Gamestop, they'll just have money and choices.
Nintendo screwed up a lot of things with the Nintendo 64. They were arrogant, they didn't have many games, and they lost almost all the third party support there was. They still captured a large amount of market share. Sony's in a similar boat. Sure their price is insane, sure they're down to shooting the bloody stumps they have for legs with their PR, sure there'll only be 500000 consoles at launch, but ultimately they're still going to capture a significant amount of market share. It's not going to be like this past generation where it was ubiquitous, but you're not going to see PS3s lying around in stores this Christmas.
In short, you're wrong. Sony isn't about to collapse. Microsoft and Nintendo can't have victory parties yet.
To those of you already celebrating Sony's eminent victory, prepare yourselves for a fall because you're wrong too. Sony isn't going to dominate this generation like they did the last two. It's just not happening. People are primed about the Wii, people are still buying Xbox 360s, and Sony is making an ass of themselves. There's very little they're doing that is conducive to remaining dominant.
You can cite induction all you like, but that's a silly argument for Sony continuing to dominate. Atari cited it back when the video game industry completely collapsed. Nintendo cited it before they lost the majority of their market share to Sony, and now Sony and you are citing it in the face of the toughest competition yet, with the worst showing they've ever offered.
Whether you like it or not, the Xbox 360 has already sold 6 million consoles. That's about a fourth to a third of what they sold the entire past generation, and that's without Halo. They've got their foothold this generation and they're not going anywhere. When you talk to your hardcore gamer friends, the Wii may be laughed at, but talk to Joe Gamer and you'd be surprised. These people have been waving their controllers around since the 80s (and perhaps haven't since then), and are looking forward to doing it again and actually having it WORK!
In short, you're not going to have 100% marketshare. In fact, you'll be lucky if you grab 50% market share. The whole deal is such that this may be the first three way tie the video game industry will see. If you're not ready to accept that each console has merit, you're in for a rude awakening.
To summarize both, Sony is neither ascending to heaven or descending into hell this generation.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with you for not having a girlfriend or being 24. I don't have a girlfriend and I'm 22, so if the combination of the two was a crime or a black mark I'd be a hypocrit.
There are reasons why those come up. The age comes up because one would expect at such an age there would be more maturity than he shows. The girlfriend comes up because of the reasons for why he doesn't have one. There's an assumption that he doesn't have a girlfriend because he's an immature and abrasive cheater.
If all of these conferences thrive it will only help developers. Instead of dreading May each year and going crazy trying to come up with some deliverable to have gamers "Ooh" and "Aah" over, they can pick and choose approximately the month they want to let info get out. It doesn't even have to be the same each year.
One year, Rockstar announces "Rockstar Games Presents: Pinball" during PAX, another year they release more details at GDC. It'll make their schedules more flexible.
He said he was in the article. He could have been lying, but I personally believe his stupidity is funnier and more humorous if he's actually as old as he says he is.
I went with 24 just because if it was true it made him even more of a sad, depressing shell of man than being a run of the mill 15 year old whiny kid would be.
It's possible he said much of what he did to get a reaction, but that possibility seems less plausible the more cheaters you find who make the same arguments. I've known a few myself (back when I was 15), and this all falls into the same faulty logic and rationalization I've seen before.
That response interests me greatly because it didn't feel like an excuse so much as a sad truth. There wasn't the feeling that you were covering up a more selfish reason for twinking.
Anyway, I've done extensive PvP as every single class in the 10-19 bracket and a significant amount in the 20-29, 30-39 and some in 40-49. These are my observations.
1) Getting one shotted isn't fun.
2) Every class has something they can do, at the very least, to neutralize an enemy or their actions. Not kill, but remove or negate from combat such that other players do not need to worry about them. Rogues can sap, Mages can polymorph or hold in place, Priests can heal and shield (and even fear), Warlocks can fear and throw supporting DoTs, Paladins can heal and shirk death, Warriors can hamstring, Hunters can trap and slow, Shamans have earthbind totems and heals etc.
Admittedly, these are not functions that are as fun for most people as running around bonking heads. However, as a level 10 mage in all greys I've managed to completely negate a level 19 dual crusader enchant rogue for the duration of a skirmish (usually at the cost of my life). The twink spent hundreds of gold to deck out, and spent the entire battle sheeped, frozen in place, slowed, and sheeped some more. While often this is an effort in futility (if your team loses the skirmish), it can at very least grant your teammates the chance to live longer. Ideally, you wouldn't have to fight twinks, but there are things you can do if you encounter them. It wasn't very long before the entire set of enemy twinks would target my mage first because of how dangerous my ability to keep them from fighting was. The same has been true of my other characters (some moreso than others, warriors have very little to do aside from charge, hamstring, demoralizing shout, and then die painfully).
3) Most twinks lack skill. Not all, but I've actually killed twinks in 1v1 combat before because they were A) predictable B) rarely using more than a couple skills and C) very easy to run circles around. It took a lot of work, some close calls, and some cooldowns but it is a great feeling to take down a blue, super-enchanted twink on your own.
I've seen twinks do such foolish things as continually attack a Paladin behind a bubble, vanish with DoTs on them (and not to sneak a Cheapshot or Garotte in between ticks), run straight into Earthbind totems, polymorph flag carriers at low health, attack polymorphed units etc. At the very least they have the same distribution of skilled vs unskilled as the rest of the game.
4) Working as a group still counts, a lot. There is no substitute for a group working together. Twinks that run off and do their own thing may last longer than your normal nutcase, but they still fail to accomplish much. A JaG of non-twinks will beat a PuG of twinks the majority of the time.
I think I die a little inside whenever I see people say that only levels and equipment matter. That's probably why I play so many BGs at low levels like 10, 20, and 30, to prove them wrong. When a level 21 rogue and a level 22 warrior can take out a 29 mage and a 26 shaman and successfully hold the stables numerous times, I think there's something to be said for skill and teamwork.
The people who most often proclaim the supremecy of equipment and levels are most often the people who will run off, do their own thing, and then complain when no one was there to help them fight the five enemies they ran headlong into. Not always, but quite often.
I eagerly await BC for it's equipment based matchups. The heuristics will obviously not be perfect, but it will prevent casual players who are just trying out WSG at level 12 from having to face level 19 Godzilla twinkers. More interesting to me is the effect it will have on twinking. Great numbers of twinks claim they do it because they'd be fighting twinks anyway or specifically because they like the dynamics involved with fighting other twinks. Given the many times I've seen twinks afk out of battles that would be long and drawn out due to the heavy twinking on both sides or similar actions which belie their claims, I'm curious to see how many people still twink when it no longer affords you the ability to walk over a great number of players.
"Dominant" implies top dog status. While the Xbox pushed Microsoft from nothing to a key player in the console market, it's hardly dominant when it was second or third in terms of market share (depending on who you talked to).
Slashdot Mirror
Who modded this troll? It's a perfectly legitimate point. He's not insulting the OP, it's a viable suggestion. While you could argue over whether its insightful, informative, or funny (given the comment on Lynx), this is by far not a troll comment.
I was fortunate enough to have two college grad parents, one well versed in the sciences and mathematics and the other in the arts and linguistics. Between the two of them I received a very good pre-college education.
Some things got handed off to the local high school when my parents decided having hazardous chemicals lying around the house for teaching chemistry was a bad idea. After being homeschooled for so long following being taken out of elementary school due to the stagnation and being an outcast, high school was beyond mind numbing. In an hour of teaching I felt I had learned 5 minutes worth of material. At first I dutifully did homework, but eventually that became so boring and pointless I stopped, save in classes where it was graded. Even in the AP courses I took homework was rarely done, classes were given minimal attention, and I wondered why we couldn't be given a brief lecture, assignments, and then stay only as long as necessary to complete them. That way, all the talented or diligent kids would be able to leave and flew their brain cells rather than fall asleep in class, while all those who remained could receive the help and attention they needed.
Four years of highschool that I'm certain could have been done in two, not accounting for time intensive hands on work for a class such as Physics. Did we really have to start Spanish 2 by spending the first semester covering Spanish 1?
This isn't to say homeschooling is perfect, but you hardly need to be perfect when you're capable of bringing a kid through both fifth and sixth grade in one year enjoying it the entire time. It's not for everyone, but if you're capable of it I highly recommend it (and finding a local support group for socialization purposes).
I'm not sure that's necessarily the best scenario in all cases. I've beaten about half the games in my vast collection, the other half of which remain undefeated as they ended up being too long.
If there are enough interesting new abilities, concepts, challenges (as in Ninja Gaiden) it's extremely easy for me to get sucked into even a very long or punishing game and keep playing. However, if for any reason the game slows down (Windwaker) I lose interest and stop playing, even very near the end of games.
As long as the additional length isn't at the cost of fun, I'm all for it. But if it creates grinds, slow, or boring phases screw it.
I'm still trying to figure out how the DS intends on playing good music with just one G flat.
I'm confused, what was your point?
The post you're replying to pointed out a reviewer's opinion of the controller, nothing more and nothing less. You're posting as though wild conclusions were drawn about the entire system being cheap and flimsy, which they weren't.
As an AC has pointed out, the original point remains.
There's a reason people piss and moan, and it isn't because Blu-Ray sucks. Blu-Ray isn't bad, but that doesn't make it desirable. DVDs have only very recently become truly ubiquitous, and many people have just finished assembling DVD collections. The idea of buying all of that again without any immediate benefit save "Someday when I get an HDTV this will benefit me" isn't very compelling. Even less so because of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray confusion.
I have an HDTV, and I'm sticking with regular DVDs until there's a clear winner for the next format and maybe even afterwards. The look great, maybe not fantastic, but good enough that rebuying my movie collection isn't appealing.
There isn't any irony in saying we don't need a new technology when we don't.
They're still looking forward to the Xbox 360? I knew the launch in Japan was underwhelming, but it wasn't THAT bad.
The poll is important, but to say that it will reflect real world numbers is a difficult position to defend, especially when Japan is getting a meagre 100k PS3 systems compared to around 1m Wii systems. Even if those numbers are accurate and 50-60% of the Japanese gaming population wants a PS3 and is willing to spend the money for one, what amounts to somewhere between 3-5% will actually be able to grab one.
There's very little doubt that all 100k PS3s in Japan will sell out as quickly if not moreso than the preorders did here. However, the PS3 can only claim as much marketshare as console are manufactured. Eventually their process will ramp up and they'll fill out demand, but eventually is a big risk. That not only gives time for Nintendo and maybe Microsoft to gain marketshare, but also allows reviewers and gamers to state their opinions comparing the consoles. These may be favorable, but if they are anything less than favorable (from it's just as good as the others to other options suck as it sucks) it could really take the wind out of Sony's sails.
FUD or not, the man has some valid points.
Increasingly the internet is becoming our OS. Programming teams are moving away from using Word or Appleworks for documentation and are using wikis. Videos and music are played as often in browsers as they are in Windows Media Player or iTunes. The rise of web applications is threatening the idea that one must be locked to a single OS.
This isn't happening overnight, but by the time I'm a 50 year old industry guru we'll be looking back on this period of time and laughing at the idea of software confined to a particular OS. Certainly there are enough legacy programs at the moment to keep Microsoft and Windows afloat. Still we're fast approaching a moment such as the one that generated C where the benefits of using a language which, while slower, is highly portable will outweigh the performance issues. Why do you think Microsoft despised Java at its conception?
Microsoft has no presence on the internet. The majority of people do not think "Internet Explorer" or "Safari" or "Opera" or "Firefox". They think "Internet" and click the pretty little icon that brings that to them. For a large number of these people the opening page is going to read "Google" in large letters with a little box for them to type Martha Stewart or Oprah into. If it doesn't, they're likely to type "www.google.com" and end up there anyway.
Ultimately how many copies of Vista Microsoft sells doesn't matter to Google, it's irrelevant. So long as all OSs out there have a web browser they will all be irrelevant to Google. That is Google's greatest strength. Were Apple to suddenly take over in marketshare, Google wouldn't be fazed in the least. Were UNIX to suddenly receive a mandate from heaven and replace Windows, Google still would remain as it is. So long as there is the internet the OS wars are a sideshow for them.
The only thing that does matter is when there is the potential for someone to compete with Google on their own turf. If Microsoft suddenly owned Youtube they would have pulled the internet video equivalent of buying out Nintendo in the video games industry. It would have been an instant buy-in to the market, and instant trouble for Google. Instead of having a premade beachhead availible for its competitors, there is now the requirement for Microsoft or Yahoo to either develop their own service and struggle to make it popular or find a premade, largely unknown service, buy it out and try and market it. Both options will take time to even potentially compete with Google on that front.
Google is tenacious. They have huge mindshare in e-mail, search engines, direction finding, and video. Without selling anything they have become a juggernaut in the industry, and are nigh impervious to the conventional methods of corperate attack common today.
I won't go so far as to claim that Microsoft is irrelevant, but they are steadily losing. Their OS grows in size every version, never shrinking or throwing off any old baggage that might weigh it down. This model won't reach critical mass with Vista, but in due time it will reach the point where Microsoft has to start from scratch. When the time comes for them to kill all backward compatibility in the name of starting fresh, there will be no legacy programs restricting companies to the continued use of the Windows OS. There will be nothing but the merits of the system by which to judge it. When that time comes Microsoft has to have their act together or they'll disappear. If the new OS is as bug riddled, cumbersome, resource eating and unintuitive as Windows has been thus far it won't float.
End rant.
For what it's worth, I understood you.
The point being made is that it is possible to be the largest market player and even dominant but not be the "market leader". The point is that Microsoft hasn't done any leading in years, and has been following. They followed Netscape to the internet, followed Apple to the Mp3 player, and even are following Novell and other security companies to that market as well. There is very little that Microsoft does that isn't an imitiation of someone else.
Dominate they do, but lead they do not.
To harp entirely on the semantic, there is probably a near zero number of gamers who "need" HDTV. These people should be found and given treatment for their unhealthy obsession.
For the rest of us, we'll either make do without and enjoy looking like a nutcase swingling an oblong white doohickey around or we'll get 57.352" wide screen dilithium concentrate HD TVs and enjoy killing zombies in glorious resolutions.
Either way I'm stoked.
It would, but last reports showed Sony's controller costing $42 compared to Nintendo's $40 (not including the Nunchuck). This is technology defenders of Sony claim they patented years before the controller's debut, compared to Nintendo's very recent innovation, yet it costs $2 more?
Are they removing it to make it more affordable or to make more money?
There have been arguments concerning the "Sony just threw this together" controller stating that Sony had a patent for the tilting technology in the controller many, many years ago. The argument is that Sony couldn't have just copied Nintendo because they had the technology for the controller so long in advance and the functions of the two companies' controllers are vastly different.
For a while, I was willing to accept that argument. I didn't agree with it, my own feeling from watching the Sony E3 conference being that Sony was trying to take some wind out of Nintendo's sails, but I didn't consider it worthwhile to argue against.
However, the shenanigans involving the rumble feature suit and its sudden removal shortly thereafter, while circumstancial, only reinforce the perception that Sony's version of events isn't what they say it is.
I'm not compelled to believe that Sony actually had planned the Sixaxis controller well in advance when it unnecessarily removed a previous key feature, and seemingly mimicked Nintendo's controller. It doesn't help that Sony waffled about what online service they'd have, giving the perception they were only doing it to be able to say, "We have internet gaming too" at Microsoft. It really doesn't help that after ridiculing Microsoft's two separate packages Sony did the same thing. They say they "Don't care" about Microsoft and Nintendo, but all of the circumstances and coincidences tell a different story.
I'm not against the Sixaxis controller and I know a lot of people who dislike rumble anyway. What I am against is being treated like an idiot (regardless of whether I am or not), as most self-respecting people are. The whole deal feels like Sony is trying to pull a fast one, and that's a bad feeling. Were it just a couple of things that felt this way I wouldn't care so much. However, when everything that comes straight from the horse's mouth breathes of contempt for me and my intelligence, and only smells of greed for my dollars...
I wish Sony well, I just wish they could do something to restore my faith that they're honest.
Actually, I doubt Nintendo regretted jumping ship but more regretted not paying attention to their stupid lawyers.
The whole thing with Sony and later Phillips came long before the term "Intellectual Property" was coined. Nintendo's lawyers didn't seem to have the understanding that Mario, Link, Samus and crew were important and valuable assests that shouldn't be thrown around. The contracts they drew up (both times no less) would have granted Sony complete control over everything released on the new systems, relegating Nintendo from "partner" to "third party developer". It wasn't until Yamauchi himself read the contract with Sony three years after its conception that the mistake was discovered.
I'm sure that Nintendo does not regret jumping ship on deals that would have ultimately lead them to play second (or even third) fiddle to other companies. What they do regret is not hiring better lawyers.
I laughed, I cried, I bought the DVD, the UMD, the HD-DVD and the Blu-ray.
Mod parent up Funny please.
Hah! Thanks to Steam's preload button, I already bought and downloaded the game last night!
Couldn't play it though because it wasn't released at that point.
This is true, I failed to correct that before I posted.
May I emphasize the following from my statement.
"They won't have all this Anti-Sony momentum when they walk into Gamestop, they'll just have money and choices."
I didn't say every Joe and Jill Gamer is going to buy a PS3. I said they aren't going to make their decision based on all the bad hype we the internet crowd have been subjected to.
They may walk into a Gamestop, see the $500 price tag or the $600 price tag and turn to the cheaper options. They may simply walk away dejected. Or they may shell out the cash and grab one. All three of these are possibilities and all three of them are going to happen. Having worked in retail, I know there are people who will buy the PS3 just because it is more expensive. I know there are people who will but the PS3 just because it's a playstation and Junior will throw a fit if it's anything but one. There are also people, possibly more people, who will spend their cash in different ways.
I'm not arguing that Sony's going to take over the world, the whole point of my post is that the rosy visions of Sony's ascendance or demise are inaccurate.
You may dislike them, know people who dislike them, and know all the sordid details about how they're screwing this launch up. Unfortunately, your bias doesn't change the facts. I don't think it's impossible to believe, given the Sony Fanboyism that can be found despite the tsunami of negatives against Sony, that there are at least 10 million people worldwide who want a PS3. Given that the Xbox 360 has sold 6 million units (around one third of the Xbox's worldwide shipments last generation) already, is it unthinkable that the PS3 (whose predecessor which shipped over 100 million PS2s) won't even sell 1/10th of that?
Maybe your memory is shorter than mine, but there were just as many predictions of Microsoft's departure from the market last year. The Xbox 360 was too expensive, the core package was too gimped, the cost to manufacture was too high, there weren't going to be any worthwhile games at launch, the shareholders would throw a hissy fit, everyone was going to want/wait for the other consoles or a price drop.... all this and more was heard. Microsoft's now sitting on a user base of 6 million or more, and is certainly going nowhere, and that's with the complete disaster that was the Japanese launch (I was there, it was really pathetic).
Normally I'm considerate enough about the instability of predicting the future to accept that everyone else's prognostications are as likely as my own. However, when it comes to the complete desolation or domination portrayed on behalf of Sony I have to call it like I see it. Sony may do very well, they may do very poorly, but they aren't going to usher in a third era of dominance or go the way of Atari.
$600 will be tough sell, and it will cost them sales. $70 games will be a tough sell, and it will cost them sales. Blu-ray will be a non factor for average people. The list goes on but ultimately all it will do is bleed Sony, not kill them. They'll bleed out marketshare which Nintendo and Microsoft will feast upon, but it won't kill Sony. Microsoft's been hemmoraghing cash since they launched the Xbox, and they're still here. It seems unlikely that Sony, who made mountains of cash last generation, is going to fall over and die at the drop of a hat.
You can call me stupid, but ultimately you're wrong. Historical precedent shows Sony's going to lose their huge advantage in market share, but it also shows they aren't going to die. I know plenty of people who want a PS3 despite the price just as I know plenty who threw their hands up in the air and gave up on it. Your arguments don't show that Sony is ripe for the chopping block, just the weak launch Sony's set themselves up for.
So give up dreaming about Sony being history. They'll stick around longer than you think. They won't be top dog; there may not even be a top dog. It's going to be an interesting generation to be a gamer, probably the most interesting since the days of SNES vs Genesis. Believing in a Boolean outcome for Sony only oversimplifies what is going to be an exciting and complicated console war.
I'm a classic case of a person who can't focus. Although through persistance I've managed to beat about half the games in my collection.
That of course means the other half remain undefeated. In some cases, the game just stopped appealing to me (Goblin Commander), others hit a boring section, (Windwaker) and then there are the ones that got dropped for some reason you can't remember but you never bothered to pick them up.
It's my experience that, barring extremely punishing games like Ninja Gaiden and F-Zero GX, it isn't that hard for me to sit down and resume a game even months after I dropped it. It's all a matter if I want to or not.
This is all coming from the guy with one level 46 main in WoW and 19 alts ranging from level 5 to 38.
2 parter, read both or skip to the one that applies to you (if it does).
...the PS3 will still be a major player this coming generation.
Doom a Gloomers about the PS3, you're wrong. Sony's arrogant, sure. Sony's PR is equatable to trying to talk kindly about Bill Gates in the 90s. The steps and mistakes they've been making are well documented here on Slashdot, and they are doing a whole lot of sucking. However, here's a revelation for you...
You can throw your prophecies of doom left and right, but it's pointless. We may not like Sony and their shenanigans, but barring you personally tracking down and proselytizing every Joe and Jill Gamer it's not going to make a difference. They won't have all this Anti-Sony momentum when they walk into Gamestop, they'll just have money and choices.
Nintendo screwed up a lot of things with the Nintendo 64. They were arrogant, they didn't have many games, and they lost almost all the third party support there was. They still captured a large amount of market share. Sony's in a similar boat. Sure their price is insane, sure they're down to shooting the bloody stumps they have for legs with their PR, sure there'll only be 500000 consoles at launch, but ultimately they're still going to capture a significant amount of market share. It's not going to be like this past generation where it was ubiquitous, but you're not going to see PS3s lying around in stores this Christmas.
In short, you're wrong. Sony isn't about to collapse. Microsoft and Nintendo can't have victory parties yet.
To those of you already celebrating Sony's eminent victory, prepare yourselves for a fall because you're wrong too. Sony isn't going to dominate this generation like they did the last two. It's just not happening. People are primed about the Wii, people are still buying Xbox 360s, and Sony is making an ass of themselves. There's very little they're doing that is conducive to remaining dominant.
You can cite induction all you like, but that's a silly argument for Sony continuing to dominate. Atari cited it back when the video game industry completely collapsed. Nintendo cited it before they lost the majority of their market share to Sony, and now Sony and you are citing it in the face of the toughest competition yet, with the worst showing they've ever offered.
Whether you like it or not, the Xbox 360 has already sold 6 million consoles. That's about a fourth to a third of what they sold the entire past generation, and that's without Halo. They've got their foothold this generation and they're not going anywhere. When you talk to your hardcore gamer friends, the Wii may be laughed at, but talk to Joe Gamer and you'd be surprised. These people have been waving their controllers around since the 80s (and perhaps haven't since then), and are looking forward to doing it again and actually having it WORK!
In short, you're not going to have 100% marketshare. In fact, you'll be lucky if you grab 50% market share. The whole deal is such that this may be the first three way tie the video game industry will see. If you're not ready to accept that each console has merit, you're in for a rude awakening.
To summarize both, Sony is neither ascending to heaven or descending into hell this generation.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with you for not having a girlfriend or being 24. I don't have a girlfriend and I'm 22, so if the combination of the two was a crime or a black mark I'd be a hypocrit.
There are reasons why those come up. The age comes up because one would expect at such an age there would be more maturity than he shows. The girlfriend comes up because of the reasons for why he doesn't have one. There's an assumption that he doesn't have a girlfriend because he's an immature and abrasive cheater.
Straws on the camel's back really.
If all of these conferences thrive it will only help developers. Instead of dreading May each year and going crazy trying to come up with some deliverable to have gamers "Ooh" and "Aah" over, they can pick and choose approximately the month they want to let info get out. It doesn't even have to be the same each year.
One year, Rockstar announces "Rockstar Games Presents: Pinball" during PAX, another year they release more details at GDC. It'll make their schedules more flexible.
He said he was in the article. He could have been lying, but I personally believe his stupidity is funnier and more humorous if he's actually as old as he says he is.
I went with 24 just because if it was true it made him even more of a sad, depressing shell of man than being a run of the mill 15 year old whiny kid would be.
It's possible he said much of what he did to get a reaction, but that possibility seems less plausible the more cheaters you find who make the same arguments. I've known a few myself (back when I was 15), and this all falls into the same faulty logic and rationalization I've seen before.
That response interests me greatly because it didn't feel like an excuse so much as a sad truth. There wasn't the feeling that you were covering up a more selfish reason for twinking.
Anyway, I've done extensive PvP as every single class in the 10-19 bracket and a significant amount in the 20-29, 30-39 and some in 40-49. These are my observations.
1) Getting one shotted isn't fun.
2) Every class has something they can do, at the very least, to neutralize an enemy or their actions. Not kill, but remove or negate from combat such that other players do not need to worry about them. Rogues can sap, Mages can polymorph or hold in place, Priests can heal and shield (and even fear), Warlocks can fear and throw supporting DoTs, Paladins can heal and shirk death, Warriors can hamstring, Hunters can trap and slow, Shamans have earthbind totems and heals etc.
Admittedly, these are not functions that are as fun for most people as running around bonking heads. However, as a level 10 mage in all greys I've managed to completely negate a level 19 dual crusader enchant rogue for the duration of a skirmish (usually at the cost of my life). The twink spent hundreds of gold to deck out, and spent the entire battle sheeped, frozen in place, slowed, and sheeped some more. While often this is an effort in futility (if your team loses the skirmish), it can at very least grant your teammates the chance to live longer. Ideally, you wouldn't have to fight twinks, but there are things you can do if you encounter them. It wasn't very long before the entire set of enemy twinks would target my mage first because of how dangerous my ability to keep them from fighting was. The same has been true of my other characters (some moreso than others, warriors have very little to do aside from charge, hamstring, demoralizing shout, and then die painfully).
3) Most twinks lack skill. Not all, but I've actually killed twinks in 1v1 combat before because they were A) predictable B) rarely using more than a couple skills and C) very easy to run circles around. It took a lot of work, some close calls, and some cooldowns but it is a great feeling to take down a blue, super-enchanted twink on your own.
I've seen twinks do such foolish things as continually attack a Paladin behind a bubble, vanish with DoTs on them (and not to sneak a Cheapshot or Garotte in between ticks), run straight into Earthbind totems, polymorph flag carriers at low health, attack polymorphed units etc. At the very least they have the same distribution of skilled vs unskilled as the rest of the game.
4) Working as a group still counts, a lot. There is no substitute for a group working together. Twinks that run off and do their own thing may last longer than your normal nutcase, but they still fail to accomplish much. A JaG of non-twinks will beat a PuG of twinks the majority of the time.
I think I die a little inside whenever I see people say that only levels and equipment matter. That's probably why I play so many BGs at low levels like 10, 20, and 30, to prove them wrong. When a level 21 rogue and a level 22 warrior can take out a 29 mage and a 26 shaman and successfully hold the stables numerous times, I think there's something to be said for skill and teamwork.
The people who most often proclaim the supremecy of equipment and levels are most often the people who will run off, do their own thing, and then complain when no one was there to help them fight the five enemies they ran headlong into. Not always, but quite often.
I eagerly await BC for it's equipment based matchups. The heuristics will obviously not be perfect, but it will prevent casual players who are just trying out WSG at level 12 from having to face level 19 Godzilla twinkers. More interesting to me is the effect it will have on twinking. Great numbers of twinks claim they do it because they'd be fighting twinks anyway or specifically because they like the dynamics involved with fighting other twinks. Given the many times I've seen twinks afk out of battles that would be long and drawn out due to the heavy twinking on both sides or similar actions which belie their claims, I'm curious to see how many people still twink when it no longer affords you the ability to walk over a great number of players.
"Dominant" implies top dog status. While the Xbox pushed Microsoft from nothing to a key player in the console market, it's hardly dominant when it was second or third in terms of market share (depending on who you talked to).