Well, there's always GameTap for PC users, although their service requires a rental fee. Otherwise, Microsoft is offering several downloadable arcade games on the Xbox 360, and Nintendo is supposedly offering their entire back catalog on the Revolution. The problem with all these is the selection, as they're all limited to the games that third parties are willing to license and offer emulators for.
"It's also just good marketing, and K.K. is, after all, the offspring of a huge gaming juggernaut, developed behind layers of boardrooms and P.R. machines and demographic analyses. The initials "K.K." themselves are the equivalent of "Inc." or "Corp." in Japan, where Nintendo is based, which suggests that the company may have wryly co-opted the digital age's equivalent of the "Steal This Book" mantra, repackaged it as a puppy and inserted it into a happy video game village."
From what I understand, the initials K.K. were derived from the Japanese name of the character, Totokeke. It has also been suggested that they were a reference to Koji Kondo, a well-known composer at Nintendo and author of the Mario and Zelda themes. In fact, one of K.K.'s "secret tracks", K.K. Song, is believed to be a song composed by Koji Kondo, which was featured only as a hidden track in a few other games. Nobody even hinted at this corporation theory a few years ago, when the original Animal Crossing was released.
Also, even though K.K. is apparently supporting piracy, there's no in-game way for players to duplicate K.K. Slider's "airchecks" and share them with other players. Nor is there any indication that these "bootlegs" are pirated copies of published work. His songs are, for all intents and purposes, bound to their distribution media. Some people are reading way too much into this.;P
Why should a casual gamer spend $300-400 on a new Xbox 360 to play Bejeweled when their PC does this already? Microsoft isn't going to attract new customers unless they provide something better than what's already out there. Ports of free PC games aren't going to cut it, especially when most of them are better suited to a keyboard and mouse.
I'm not going to claim that MS can't earn any casual gamer support, but they've already dug themselves into a bit of a ditch. How are casual gamers going to learn about these games? Will they want to spend $300 on a new console? Will they want to spend $10 on a game they can play elsewhere for free? Will they even want to play their games on an Xbox controller? What are they going to do if they fill up their memory card with games and need to buy a $99 hard drive?
There are still a lot of barriers to entry for the casual gamer. Maybe once the 360 drops a bit in price and accumulates a larger library on the Marketplace things will change, but right now they're not looking too hot.
"Sitting down with Xbox's J Allard six months ago, at the 360's unveiling, two things became very quickly apparent. The first was that this was a machine built around a philosophy, not a set of tech specs."
It's this idea that makes me far more interested in the Xbox 360 than the PS3. Sony is clearly chasing the "set of tech specs" model of console design. At least Microsoft has a game plan, even if they don't follow through on it completely.
It's hard to tell if the 360 will ever live up to this philosophy. Xbox Live and the 360 Marketplace seem to be a big focal point, and I love what they're doing with retro downloadable games (although Nintendo will undoubtedly do it better).
But while Allard's "grand vision" of the Xbox 360 sounds amazing, it's hard for me to imagine Microsoft actually pulling it off. He claims that they're going to attract casual gamers, yet the launch lineup was aimed squarely at the same audience that bought the Xbox 1. He says that Microsoft can change their reputation through their actions, but their actions are only giving us PGR3, Halo 3, PDZ, and Kameo.
Nintendo was able to shift the DS's audience a bit by promoting first-party games like Nintendogs, Brain Training, and Electroplankton, which should open the door to third-party "non-games". But I really can't see Microsoft doing something like that. If Microsoft made a puppy simulator, their core fanbase would go nuts. The only non-games I can imagine MS promoting would be puzzle games and card games, both of which are readily available on the PC. The 360's price point isn't very non-gamer oriented, either. Microsoft can't win over non-gamers by considering them an afterthought.
Microsoft has good intentions, but it they're trying to cover two completely different markets in an attempt to compete with both Sony and Nintendo. Problem is, they can't do it all. One of those markets is being completely ignored, and the 360 will likely end up with the same core audience as the Xbox.
I won't try to claim that there isn't any bias in the moderation here; we're all only human. I agree with you that some of the pro-Nintendo posts are being unnecessarily modded up.
But most of the posters criticizing Nintendo are trolling, pure and simple. Instead of adding some insightful criticisms of the Revolution strategy (and there are a few), they just parrot the same old Nintendo-bashing rants: the "kiddie" rant, the "gimmicky" rant, and the "weak hardware" rant. It's not that those arguments have no basis, it's that they're always presented in an exaggerated and derogatory manner.
The other thing is that it's hard to be too critical of the Revolution without looking fanboyish, at least not at this point in time. First of all, we don't know much about it. The launch lineup, the graphics, the backwards compatibility, the online system, and the price are all big question marks. They could turn out to be great, or they could turn out to be bland. Criticizing these things before they've been tested or announced is pointless, because they're so unproven.
Secondly, the Revolution is very obviously a "successor" to the Nintendo DS. Many of the complaints about the Revolution were applied to the DS before its launch (poor graphical capability, "gimmicky" controls, alienation of third-parties, not appealing enough to gamers), yet the DS has turned out to be a commercial success. The DS proved the media wrong in a lot of ways, and it's hard for someone to apply the same old arguments to the Revolution without looking at least slightly ignorant.
"Oh this is cute. Any pro-Nintendo comments instantly modded up, anti-Nintendo comments modded down."
No, trolls get modded down, and you're just contributing to the problem.
Provide some constructive criticism or don't reply at all. We've all heard the "Nintendo is kiddie" line before. It's not clever, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
Re:The Revo strategy makes more sense to me now
on
The Shadow of Kong
·
· Score: 1
"You're arguing that people are going to shun hidef technology -- that it won't catch on. It isn't happening.
No, I'm arguing that it hasn't caught on yet, and the government isn't going to "throw a switch" to make that happen. It's pretty obvious that HDTV is going to be the standard eventually. The problem is that it's not big yet, especially outside of the US. And even if a third of all Americans has an HDTV in 2006, they will still be watching SD videos and SD TV shows for a while. The lack of HD support certainly won't be a death sentence for the Revolution.
"I can't see how anyone can argue that it is an advantage to be selling a new console that doesn't support hidef when 1 in 3 possible customers could take advantage of it -- especially when your competition supports it."
I agree; the lack of HD support, in and of itself, is a marketing disadvantage. However, the direct results of that decision are big advantages, namely low price and easier development. A low price -- predictions are placing the Revolution at around $150 at launch -- is a huge advantage. Since the competition is selling at a higher price point than past consoles, a budget price will be very helpful. Developer support is a requirement for the Revolution's success. If the controller is ignored by key third parties, the Revolution will fail. Nintendo needs to make Revolution development as risk-free as possible, and encouraging low-budget games is a good way to do that.
Re:The Revo strategy makes more sense to me now
on
The Shadow of Kong
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"By the time 2007 rolls around, every TV sold in the US (by law) must be capable of receiving an hd signal."
But not every TV sold in the US will be capable of displaying that signal in HD, which is the important part. Also, ~90% of Americans still have SDTVs, and I'd be willing to bet that when the government cuts the analog signals, a lot of people would much rather buy a $30-40 set-top box for their current TV than a new HDTV for $1000+.
In addition, these consoles are marketed worldwide. The only country with a remotely significant HDTV acceptance ratio is the US, and even here it hasn't caught on as quickly as many have expected. The "HD era" is little more than a buzzword in Japan and Europe.
Riiiight. Like, for example, when journalists at IGN played preview copies of Geist and criticized it for three years straight. That didn't stop them from getting one of the first review copies (which, incidentally, they also rated poorly). The same situation happens with dozens of journalists and dozens of products. A lot of the media expressed disappointment with the PSP showings at the last two E3s. Did that stop Sony from giving them advance copies of GTA:LCS? Heck no.
You can hold your conspiracy theories if you'd like, but most game journalists aren't too afraid to tell people what they think. Sure, they might put a positive spin on a crappy product, possibly by saying, "The controller wasn't very precise or comfortable, but we're sure Nintendo will work it out before launch." But most of the game media (IGN and GameSpot especially) won't flat-out praise something purely out of fear.
And besides, Nintendo can't afford to lose the support of top sites like IGN, Gamespy, GameSpot, and EGM. If those sites don't mention the Revolution, many people won't even know it exists.
No kidding. My entire Steam directory -- containing Half-Life 2, HL2 Deathmatch, CS Source, CS 1.6, and the Half-Life 1 games, plus the Source Engine SDK -- is far less than 9GB on my hard drive. And it's not like Half-Life 2 is short in the media department, either. The game is chock full of hi-res textures, detailed character models and animation sequences, dialog, and music.
Another nice quote: "In Nintendo games, women are often depicted as victims. The covers of Nintendo games show males striking a dominant pose."
For example... this game depicting males as the "breadwinner" of the household. Sick.
Or perhaps this one. Another classic example of a "dominant male pose". Will somebody think of the children?
Or what about thesethreegames, which blantantly reinforce the negative stereotype that males possess superior athletic ability to females?
And this horrid game. Another generic shooter about some steroid-addicted metallic dude saving a damsel in distress.
Don't even get me started on this one. How could anything be so offensive?
[/sarcasm]
This article is so ridiculous it's (almost) funny.
Well, the legality of the drawings may still be in question, but I think it's fairly obvious that these drawings are promotional material.
It's unlikely that a New York-based team would organize an effort to draw identical graffiti all over the nation. If they were really trying to make a point, surely they would have been creative enough to come up with more than three or four drawings. It's far more plausible for a company with a worldwide scope to organize such an event, and the characters seem to fit in very well with Sony's PSP ad campaign.
Also, if the artists are simply trying to make a statement about videogames, why would they use such a precisely drawn replica of a PSP? Wouldn't it be more effective to draw a generic game console, rather than increasing Sony's mindshare with an official-looking drawing?
Sorry, but the article I linked to earlier seems to have the facts pretty straight. It sounds like they've actually talked to some of the artists, as they have some specific information about the contract. Until some official word comes out (which is unlikely), I think it's safe to assume that Sony is behind this.
This article claims otherwise. (Scroll down a bit, it was posted Dec. 4 at 2:10 AM)
According to the article:
-The drawings are ads, not anti-Sony art.
-Tats Cru is in fact responsible for the ads on the East Coast, but they were hired by Sony to paint them.
-Tats Cru obtained the permission of the store owners before painting the ads.
This doesn't explain the ads in Chicago, Los Angeles, or San Francisco, so it's likely that Sony hired other local artists in those areas. It sounds like the whole setup is fairly legal, assuming that all local artists got permission to do this. Still, it's kind of deceitful on Sony's part... but I guess that's their specialty these days.
"Don't jump the gun. For all you know, the Revolution controller will function like a floaty, laggy air-joystick."
Like my sibling posts have already pointed out, hands-on impressions seem to imply otherwise.
A 1up editor said that "It always shot exactly where it felt like I was aiming, and was incredibly responsive to even slight wrist movements-I barely had to move my hand at all." IGN claims that "It was easy to get a feel for just how sensitive the device is -- it responded to all the movements quickly and smoothly. We did feel the need to use two hands, however, to steady it and improve accuracy, but that only lends to the idea of just how sensitive it is." Edge Online states that "...this new, precise control system could well be the first time that mouse and keyboard-style precision is brought to console gaming by a native controller." Gamespot's impressions didn't really delve into the accuracy of the controller, but they didn't have any complaints with the demos.
I suppose the controller could change before launch, and there's a chance that it may be prone to breaking or other reliability problems. But from the few hands-on impressions we have, all reports are that it works exactly the way that it's been described.
Sure, it won't teach you exactly how to shoot, but there's more to shooting than reloading and recoil. Video games can help "teach" someone to shoot by repeatedly nurturing their reflexes and thought processes during intense situations. Whether the player is physically acting out the motions or not, they're learning how to take cover strategically, aim for critical points on the body, respond more quickly than their attacker, etc. That's why the Army uses game-like simulations for training soldiers.
Another (non-violent) example is EA's Madden series. Pushing buttons on a controller is in no way similar to actually playing football. But my brother plays Madden all the time, and it's helped him to understand different plays, come up with strategies, and respond appropriately to certain situations in the game. Of course his real-life skill in football isn't solely dependent on the video game, but the game has definitely affected his thought process when playing or watching a real game of football.
That's not to say that FPSs will make kids into killers; that's a different argument entirely. But to suggest that video games are incapable of influencing real-world skill is fairly shortsighted.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I've heard that Sony counts replacement and demo kiosk units as "shipped". Only the consoles that are actually purchased by a consumer would be considered "sold". In that case, if little Billy sends his PS2 in for repair (even if it's still under warranty), Sony would count that as another "shipped" console.
Does anyone know if this theory is true? I was skeptical at first, but the 100 million figure does seem a little high. I know that the PS2 is leading in sales, but from my personal experience, it sure doesn't seem to have sold five times as many units as the GameCube or Xbox.
No kidding. Even if every Halo 2 player buys an Xbox 360 (which isn't a sure bet), Microsoft will still need to sell about 15 times more than that to break even with the PS2. GTA: San Andreas stomped Halo 2 in worldwide sales, yet Sony would never dream of competing with only that one game. Halo 3 will undoubtedly sell a few consoles, but it's not going to win the console war on its own.
"But it was better than the original (Through plot, graphics, gameplay, etc), and sold much better, so it is a success. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a success in the market."
It may have been a financial success, but it was quite the disappointment among my circle of friends. We had spent countless hours playing Halo LAN matches, so a lot of people were really hyped up for Halo 2, expecting that it would surpass the original in every way. But it didn't live up to its hype. The same people that owned Halo 1 bought Halo 2, and most of them played it for a few weeks, but the rest of us grew tired of it quickly. I haven't seen it played around our dorm since the first week or two after its release.
Was it a success among my friends, sales-wise? Of course... it sold just as many copies as the original did, and it sold a few Xbox Live subscriptions, too. But it also reinforced the point of this article: a lot of people were let down by the hype, and they've been alienated by a sub-par sequel. (Not to say that the game itself was bad; it just didn't live up to the standards set by its massive hype or by its predecessor.) I don't think Halo 3 will have quite the selling power that the first two did, mostly for this reason.
I understand that this is purely anecdotal, but I've heard similar responses from quite a few people.
"The price I payed for the game, Blizzard should give my characters guarantee of existance for the rest of all eternity. Instead Blizzard deletes them if you go 6 Months without subscribing. Mine will be deleted next month. Why? They hope to scare me and get me to take up the subscription again so that I can keep my precious characters."
If your characters are fairly high level, you should try selling your account on eBay before they delete it. My friend stopped playing WoW a few months ago and sold his account with two level 60s on it for over $200. It seems ridiculous to me that people will pay that much for a game that's already been completed, but hey, it's their loss. If you don't mind taking advantage of some rich addicted fool, it's a great way to recoup some of the cost of the game.;)
On second thought, is that kind of thing against Blizzard's Terms of Service?
Enjoyment can't be quantified. Your comment is true, as long as we assume that all activities (movies, drinking, video games, hanging out with friends) have the same "fun per hour" value. Personally, I'd much rather pay five bucks for a movie (or even better, go see a month-old movie at the dollar theater) than play an MMORPG for any length of time. To me, an MMORPG feels like a chore, and any amount of money spent on it is too much. Heck, I could hang out at a friend's house for (essentially) free, and it would be more enjoyable to me than an MMOG.
So if you really enjoy MMORPGs, then $15 probably is a pretty good deal, at least to other games. But once the game starts to feel tedious -- as it did for most of my friends that played WoW -- it's probably not worth the price.
They also ran a bundle with Tetris Worlds/Star Wars: Clone Wars on the same disc. I'm sure Microsoft jumped at that chance to count two more game sales, even though many buyers never even touched the game disc. My roommate last year was unfortunate enough to pick up that one, which had quite possibly the worst software selection for a bundle in recent years.
The OP's quote was in response to a comment by Bill Gates that "In the first 24 hours we'll have an opening that's [more] popular than any motion picture has ever had in history." Popularity implies total number of sales, not total earnings. 1up (taking a cue from Microsoft, most likely) completely misinterpreted that statistic, claiming that Halo 2's 2.4 million game sales were more impressive than Spider-man's "paltry" tens of millions ticket sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's always GameTap for PC users, although their service requires a rental fee. Otherwise, Microsoft is offering several downloadable arcade games on the Xbox 360, and Nintendo is supposedly offering their entire back catalog on the Revolution. The problem with all these is the selection, as they're all limited to the games that third parties are willing to license and offer emulators for.
Also, even though K.K. is apparently supporting piracy, there's no in-game way for players to duplicate K.K. Slider's "airchecks" and share them with other players. Nor is there any indication that these "bootlegs" are pirated copies of published work. His songs are, for all intents and purposes, bound to their distribution media. Some people are reading way too much into this.
Why should a casual gamer spend $300-400 on a new Xbox 360 to play Bejeweled when their PC does this already? Microsoft isn't going to attract new customers unless they provide something better than what's already out there. Ports of free PC games aren't going to cut it, especially when most of them are better suited to a keyboard and mouse.
I'm not going to claim that MS can't earn any casual gamer support, but they've already dug themselves into a bit of a ditch. How are casual gamers going to learn about these games? Will they want to spend $300 on a new console? Will they want to spend $10 on a game they can play elsewhere for free? Will they even want to play their games on an Xbox controller? What are they going to do if they fill up their memory card with games and need to buy a $99 hard drive?
There are still a lot of barriers to entry for the casual gamer. Maybe once the 360 drops a bit in price and accumulates a larger library on the Marketplace things will change, but right now they're not looking too hot.
It's hard to tell if the 360 will ever live up to this philosophy. Xbox Live and the 360 Marketplace seem to be a big focal point, and I love what they're doing with retro downloadable games (although Nintendo will undoubtedly do it better).
But while Allard's "grand vision" of the Xbox 360 sounds amazing, it's hard for me to imagine Microsoft actually pulling it off. He claims that they're going to attract casual gamers, yet the launch lineup was aimed squarely at the same audience that bought the Xbox 1. He says that Microsoft can change their reputation through their actions, but their actions are only giving us PGR3, Halo 3, PDZ, and Kameo.
Nintendo was able to shift the DS's audience a bit by promoting first-party games like Nintendogs, Brain Training, and Electroplankton, which should open the door to third-party "non-games". But I really can't see Microsoft doing something like that. If Microsoft made a puppy simulator, their core fanbase would go nuts. The only non-games I can imagine MS promoting would be puzzle games and card games, both of which are readily available on the PC. The 360's price point isn't very non-gamer oriented, either. Microsoft can't win over non-gamers by considering them an afterthought.
Microsoft has good intentions, but it they're trying to cover two completely different markets in an attempt to compete with both Sony and Nintendo. Problem is, they can't do it all. One of those markets is being completely ignored, and the 360 will likely end up with the same core audience as the Xbox.
Keep quiet, buddy. We're supposed to be convincing them that video games aren't toys. Don't ruin it for everyone. ;)
I won't try to claim that there isn't any bias in the moderation here; we're all only human. I agree with you that some of the pro-Nintendo posts are being unnecessarily modded up.
But most of the posters criticizing Nintendo are trolling, pure and simple. Instead of adding some insightful criticisms of the Revolution strategy (and there are a few), they just parrot the same old Nintendo-bashing rants: the "kiddie" rant, the "gimmicky" rant, and the "weak hardware" rant. It's not that those arguments have no basis, it's that they're always presented in an exaggerated and derogatory manner.
The other thing is that it's hard to be too critical of the Revolution without looking fanboyish, at least not at this point in time. First of all, we don't know much about it. The launch lineup, the graphics, the backwards compatibility, the online system, and the price are all big question marks. They could turn out to be great, or they could turn out to be bland. Criticizing these things before they've been tested or announced is pointless, because they're so unproven.
Secondly, the Revolution is very obviously a "successor" to the Nintendo DS. Many of the complaints about the Revolution were applied to the DS before its launch (poor graphical capability, "gimmicky" controls, alienation of third-parties, not appealing enough to gamers), yet the DS has turned out to be a commercial success. The DS proved the media wrong in a lot of ways, and it's hard for someone to apply the same old arguments to the Revolution without looking at least slightly ignorant.
Provide some constructive criticism or don't reply at all. We've all heard the "Nintendo is kiddie" line before. It's not clever, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
I agree; the lack of HD support, in and of itself, is a marketing disadvantage. However, the direct results of that decision are big advantages, namely low price and easier development. A low price -- predictions are placing the Revolution at around $150 at launch -- is a huge advantage. Since the competition is selling at a higher price point than past consoles, a budget price will be very helpful. Developer support is a requirement for the Revolution's success. If the controller is ignored by key third parties, the Revolution will fail. Nintendo needs to make Revolution development as risk-free as possible, and encouraging low-budget games is a good way to do that.
In addition, these consoles are marketed worldwide. The only country with a remotely significant HDTV acceptance ratio is the US, and even here it hasn't caught on as quickly as many have expected. The "HD era" is little more than a buzzword in Japan and Europe.
Riiiight. Like, for example, when journalists at IGN played preview copies of Geist and criticized it for three years straight. That didn't stop them from getting one of the first review copies (which, incidentally, they also rated poorly). The same situation happens with dozens of journalists and dozens of products. A lot of the media expressed disappointment with the PSP showings at the last two E3s. Did that stop Sony from giving them advance copies of GTA:LCS? Heck no.
You can hold your conspiracy theories if you'd like, but most game journalists aren't too afraid to tell people what they think. Sure, they might put a positive spin on a crappy product, possibly by saying, "The controller wasn't very precise or comfortable, but we're sure Nintendo will work it out before launch." But most of the game media (IGN and GameSpot especially) won't flat-out praise something purely out of fear.
And besides, Nintendo can't afford to lose the support of top sites like IGN, Gamespy, GameSpot, and EGM. If those sites don't mention the Revolution, many people won't even know it exists.
No kidding. My entire Steam directory -- containing Half-Life 2, HL2 Deathmatch, CS Source, CS 1.6, and the Half-Life 1 games, plus the Source Engine SDK -- is far less than 9GB on my hard drive. And it's not like Half-Life 2 is short in the media department, either. The game is chock full of hi-res textures, detailed character models and animation sequences, dialog, and music.
Something's not right here...
Another nice quote:
"In Nintendo games, women are often depicted as victims. The covers of Nintendo games show males striking a dominant pose."
For example... this game depicting males as the "breadwinner" of the household. Sick.
Or perhaps this one. Another classic example of a "dominant male pose". Will somebody think of the children?
Or what about these three games, which blantantly reinforce the negative stereotype that males possess superior athletic ability to females?
And this horrid game. Another generic shooter about some steroid-addicted metallic dude saving a damsel in distress.
Don't even get me started on this one. How could anything be so offensive?
[/sarcasm]
This article is so ridiculous it's (almost) funny.
Well, the legality of the drawings may still be in question, but I think it's fairly obvious that these drawings are promotional material.
It's unlikely that a New York-based team would organize an effort to draw identical graffiti all over the nation. If they were really trying to make a point, surely they would have been creative enough to come up with more than three or four drawings. It's far more plausible for a company with a worldwide scope to organize such an event, and the characters seem to fit in very well with Sony's PSP ad campaign.
Also, if the artists are simply trying to make a statement about videogames, why would they use such a precisely drawn replica of a PSP? Wouldn't it be more effective to draw a generic game console, rather than increasing Sony's mindshare with an official-looking drawing?
Sorry, but the article I linked to earlier seems to have the facts pretty straight. It sounds like they've actually talked to some of the artists, as they have some specific information about the contract. Until some official word comes out (which is unlikely), I think it's safe to assume that Sony is behind this.
This article claims otherwise. (Scroll down a bit, it was posted Dec. 4 at 2:10 AM)
According to the article:
-The drawings are ads, not anti-Sony art.
-Tats Cru is in fact responsible for the ads on the East Coast, but they were hired by Sony to paint them.
-Tats Cru obtained the permission of the store owners before painting the ads.
This doesn't explain the ads in Chicago, Los Angeles, or San Francisco, so it's likely that Sony hired other local artists in those areas. It sounds like the whole setup is fairly legal, assuming that all local artists got permission to do this. Still, it's kind of deceitful on Sony's part... but I guess that's their specialty these days.
A 1up editor said that "It always shot exactly where it felt like I was aiming, and was incredibly responsive to even slight wrist movements-I barely had to move my hand at all."
IGN claims that "It was easy to get a feel for just how sensitive the device is -- it responded to all the movements quickly and smoothly. We did feel the need to use two hands, however, to steady it and improve accuracy, but that only lends to the idea of just how sensitive it is."
Edge Online states that "...this new, precise control system could well be the first time that mouse and keyboard-style precision is brought to console gaming by a native controller."
Gamespot's impressions didn't really delve into the accuracy of the controller, but they didn't have any complaints with the demos.
I suppose the controller could change before launch, and there's a chance that it may be prone to breaking or other reliability problems. But from the few hands-on impressions we have, all reports are that it works exactly the way that it's been described.
You sure they're not just faking their enjoyment of The Sims? ;)
Sure, it won't teach you exactly how to shoot, but there's more to shooting than reloading and recoil. Video games can help "teach" someone to shoot by repeatedly nurturing their reflexes and thought processes during intense situations. Whether the player is physically acting out the motions or not, they're learning how to take cover strategically, aim for critical points on the body, respond more quickly than their attacker, etc. That's why the Army uses game-like simulations for training soldiers.
Another (non-violent) example is EA's Madden series. Pushing buttons on a controller is in no way similar to actually playing football. But my brother plays Madden all the time, and it's helped him to understand different plays, come up with strategies, and respond appropriately to certain situations in the game. Of course his real-life skill in football isn't solely dependent on the video game, but the game has definitely affected his thought process when playing or watching a real game of football.
That's not to say that FPSs will make kids into killers; that's a different argument entirely. But to suggest that video games are incapable of influencing real-world skill is fairly shortsighted.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I've heard that Sony counts replacement and demo kiosk units as "shipped". Only the consoles that are actually purchased by a consumer would be considered "sold". In that case, if little Billy sends his PS2 in for repair (even if it's still under warranty), Sony would count that as another "shipped" console.
Does anyone know if this theory is true? I was skeptical at first, but the 100 million figure does seem a little high. I know that the PS2 is leading in sales, but from my personal experience, it sure doesn't seem to have sold five times as many units as the GameCube or Xbox.
No kidding. Even if every Halo 2 player buys an Xbox 360 (which isn't a sure bet), Microsoft will still need to sell about 15 times more than that to break even with the PS2. GTA: San Andreas stomped Halo 2 in worldwide sales, yet Sony would never dream of competing with only that one game. Halo 3 will undoubtedly sell a few consoles, but it's not going to win the console war on its own.
Was it a success among my friends, sales-wise? Of course... it sold just as many copies as the original did, and it sold a few Xbox Live subscriptions, too. But it also reinforced the point of this article: a lot of people were let down by the hype, and they've been alienated by a sub-par sequel. (Not to say that the game itself was bad; it just didn't live up to the standards set by its massive hype or by its predecessor.) I don't think Halo 3 will have quite the selling power that the first two did, mostly for this reason.
I understand that this is purely anecdotal, but I've heard similar responses from quite a few people.
On second thought, is that kind of thing against Blizzard's Terms of Service?
Enjoyment can't be quantified. Your comment is true, as long as we assume that all activities (movies, drinking, video games, hanging out with friends) have the same "fun per hour" value. Personally, I'd much rather pay five bucks for a movie (or even better, go see a month-old movie at the dollar theater) than play an MMORPG for any length of time. To me, an MMORPG feels like a chore, and any amount of money spent on it is too much. Heck, I could hang out at a friend's house for (essentially) free, and it would be more enjoyable to me than an MMOG.
So if you really enjoy MMORPGs, then $15 probably is a pretty good deal, at least to other games. But once the game starts to feel tedious -- as it did for most of my friends that played WoW -- it's probably not worth the price.
They also ran a bundle with Tetris Worlds/Star Wars: Clone Wars on the same disc. I'm sure Microsoft jumped at that chance to count two more game sales, even though many buyers never even touched the game disc. My roommate last year was unfortunate enough to pick up that one, which had quite possibly the worst software selection for a bundle in recent years.
The OP's quote was in response to a comment by Bill Gates that "In the first 24 hours we'll have an opening that's [more] popular than any motion picture has ever had in history."
Popularity implies total number of sales, not total earnings. 1up (taking a cue from Microsoft, most likely) completely misinterpreted that statistic, claiming that Halo 2's 2.4 million game sales were more impressive than Spider-man's "paltry" tens of millions ticket sales.
Here's a comparison pic posted on GAF: http://ga-forum.com/showpost.php?p=1967028&postcou nt=97
To me, it looks a tad bit brighter than the PSP, though it could just be the color palette. It's almost too close to tell, though.