Any chance that this whole thing was just blown out of proportion? Look at all the other crap that Jack has pulled and all of the things he's said out of context or completely blown out of proportion.
From Article: 'The specifics of the torture with which Thompson was threatened are so grotesque that they cannot be properly placed in this news release," Thompson wrote in a mass e-mail addressed to news outlets, politicians, and industry groups. "The torture was to end with the shooting of Thompson, as in this teen's favorite games.'
So far, the only thing we really know is that Wacko Jacko said he did it, but doesn't really give us much for specifics. Considering all the other crap he's spouted off, I really wonder how much of this is the actual truth and how much of this is some kind of delusion that Jack has dreamt up.
If some kid was stupid enough to make death threats against Thompson, he probably deserves what he gets. Just because Jack is an asshole doesn't give anyone else the right to be one. Hopefully the kid will learn from this experience that you can't go firing off your mouth without thinking first. Hopefully Jack will get disbarred and learn the same.
If you will reread the first few lines of my post you will see that I said, " I don't think the video game industry is capable of a crash at this point, or even much of a shake-down."
I did read the article, but you really didn't read my post. Whether you want to call what happened a crash or a shakedown is moot, I merely covering both instances as there have been articles in the past year speculating whether or not the video game industry is in for another crash. This/. article was posted just a few days ago. You are probably right that people tend to overuse the term crash, but shakedown almost seems like too weak of a word.
You have to realize that companies in the video game industry are failing all the time. However, we're seeing more and more software companies go rather than the hardware makers. Sega is still selling games, Nokia is still making phones. Whoever makes the Gizmondo might drop out of the industry, but that's hardly enough for a shakedown. Over the past decade companies have gone out of business, been swallowed up by a larger company, been sold to another company, broken off into different companies, and just about every other conceivable possibility.
Companies are failing without any particular regard to anything. It doesn't take an off year for the industry for company X that makes crap games to go belly up. A bad year might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many companies, but to say that one time period is responsible doesn't quite fit well with me. The industry is always in a shakedown state. Companies that can't survive in it or adapt to the changes in it will always be falling out.
Smash Bros and its sequel hide gameplay gems behind the cutesy-looking characters. I'm really looking forward to this, because it's about time Nintendo stopped pumping out "Mario Parties" and started doing more MK and SSB stuff.
I'd like to see more SSB games as well, but I'm a little worried that if they start pumping them out, the series will run into the same problem as many others. The quality of the games will go down in order to keep putting them out on a schedule and people will start to get bored with the franchise. I'd much rather see a single solid release every 4 years than a new game every 2 years.
Just look at some other great series of games that are starting to get a little jaded because they're being overproduced and saturating the market. Sure, people would still buy the game, but it would take a lot a way from the series if sequels just kept cropping up. Among my all time favorite series of games are the Smash Bros. series and the Chrono series, both of which have only had two titles, which were spaced apart by a good amount of time.
I'm a fan of the Splinter Cell series, but just look how many games they've produced, especially considering they've made all of the games in the span between SSB:M and the upcomming one for the Revolution. For all any of us now, there will be a 4th game in the Splinter Cell game before the next SSB game comes out. I like SC a lot, but I can only play so much SC before I just get tired of it and want something else.
Instead of nuturing the series they're almost treating it like a cash cow. I think they should slow down a bit and take their time with the series. Like I said, people will still continue to buy it, but I really don't want any series that I enjoy to turn into another Tomb Raider.
I don't think the video game industry is capable of a crash at this point, or even much of a shake-down. Even if the next generation of game consoles and the games themselves are seriously underwhelming, the industry is at a point where it could weather the storm for a while.
First of all, Microsoft has billions of dollars that it makes from other business divisions, even if its games division takes a billion dollar shelling every year. Interestingly enough, this has already happened and they've said they're still staying in the game. The Xbox 360 would have to be a huge failure for them to get out of the game at this point. If the recent buzz about the system and the fact that someone can sell them on ebay for several thousand dollars is any indication, I don't think they've got much to worry about.
Next up is Sony which has made a lot of money on the PS2 and has the largest install and fan base. It might be slightly eroded this generation, but like Microsoft they have other company divisions that can prop up their games division if they're hit by hard times. However, of the big three, I'd put them in the worst position right now.
Finally, there's Nintendo. If I've learned anything about Nintendo it's that even if their sales are crap, they still manage to turn a healthy profit. The last few/. articles about the Gamecube have been about falling sales figures, but somehow Nintendo is still in the black. There are a lot of questions about if they'll survive for much longer, but they've been hanging on for a while now and building up a large bankroll. Their conservative attitude suggests that they won't be going under anytime soon.
The gaming industry is also a lot bigger than it used to be. Sure, companies are still packaging crap in cases that they try to pass for games, but when the user base is so much bigger than it used to be, you can manage to stay afloat with mediocraty. The industry might undergo a slump or slight depression, which I could easily forsee, but the same kind of "crash" or "shake-down" mentioned in the article? Nah...
Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else feel that there's a lot of unnecessary worry in the gaming community these days?
I'll admit it's scary that some big, bad men (or women) could take away the hobby that we enjoy, but I think that we've been blowing things out of proportion.
I don't speak for everyone here, but I live in the United States where we at least attempt to protect the freedom to express ourselves and say what we want. Granted that the issues of censoring games completely and selling games with mature themes to minors are very different issues, but we tend to like to blur them together and treat any legislation as an attack on first ammendment rights. In the case of legislation to prevent sales of M rated games to minors, I really don't care whether or not it passes. The hundreds of posts on the issue that I've read as this debate comes up almost weekly have presented compelling arguments for both sides. Such legislation passing wouldn't affect me because I'm over 18.
On the other hand, legislation that seeks to censor games and prohibit them from containing sexual or violent content violates our so called rights. Even assuming that such legislation were to pass, somewhere on the chain it would be overturned by the courts. Considering that America has become increasingly less conservative over the years, and that other attempts to censor music, books, and television have usually failed in the past, I don't see it as a major concern today.
It's a good thing that we're vocal about our concerns as gamers and I wouldn't suggest that you stop being political, but do we really need to get our feathers ruffled on a weekly basis about something that's not likely to happen?
The game industry is putting out the exact same games every year with a few minor tweaks, usually in graphics and added guns, items, levels, etc. It's cheaper for them to do this as they can reuse a lot of code that's in working order for the most part.
I don't really mind if they just rehash the same game and give it a face lift. If I want to play it, I'll buy it. However, don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me that you're doing something revolutionary when you really aren't. As the parent mentioned, it's just a borrowed idea applied to a different genre of game.
If you really wanted to be revolutionary, you'd develope it for Nintendo's next console and let players use the pointer control as their gun. Of course this really isn't all that revolutionary because it's been done arcade games for years and years now.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if developers just shut the hell up about how great their next game is and how the revolutionary features they've included in it are going to blow everyone away. All the hype they use to build their product up only leaves gamers disappointed when the game they're playing just can't live up to the crap that's been pitched for the last three months.
Sony will probably never release a firmware that let's you run emulators and homebrew apps/games. Considering that they're everyone's favorite sell-at-a-loss-and-make-it-up-with-game-sales business model, giving you the ability to get games for free off the internet is pretty counter productive when they need you to buy the games they liscense in order to make a profit.
There will always be a few people like you, who flat out refuse to upgrade no matter what because you can't run your homebrews on your PSP anymore.
Additionally, this new firmware will just patch any hacks in the previous version (if there were any) so is it really worth upgrading anyway, considering you really don't get much in return? Add in the obvious root kit remark (I can be funny too) and there's almost no point.
Unless some great killer App comes out that requires this firmware, I wouldn't upgrade either.
As for the second article... Have we missed the whole point of the gaming console? Gaming consoles have one purpose. It isn't the GUI (dvorak). It isn't for the graphics. It isn't for the startup music. It isn't for the cool factor. It's definately not for the weight. It's about games. I bought a PC for my PC needs. I bought a home theater for my multimedia needs. Why is my console going to be judged on the same criteria as the previous two?
I think a lot of it has to do with the growing trend for all-in-one electronic devices and an escalating pissing contest between companies. Consider, for example, the capabilities of the next generation consoles.
The Xbox 360 will be able to play games, play DVD movies, play CDs, stream movies, music, and photos from a PC, interface with other devices such as cameras and iPods, and have a host of other posibilities online through Xbox Live (Local Weather forcast, Stock information, News articles).
The PS3 will be able to play games, play DVD movies, play CDs, play Blu-Ray movies, function as a computer if you choose to run Linux on it (last I heard it was shipping on every HD), and probably do several other things similar to the Xbox 360.
The Revolution (or whatever it will be called) will play games and DVD movies if you get the special attachment.
Sony and Microsoft might be attempting to get additional customers based on the additional functionalities of the console. Sure it can play games, but look what else it can do! Nintendo has realized that they can't compete in such a market and have basically stated they're making a game machine and nothing else. But does the inclusion of all these features really surprise you in a cut-throat business (They are selling these consoles a loss after all) and a world where we've seen a cell phone with iPod functionality, a cell phone that's also a game machine, a hand held game machine that's also a movie viewer, and a PDA that attempts to do all of those?
It might be a dangerous line of thinking, but so far people have continued to purchase these machines even though they aren't just gaming consoles any more.
Personally I don't mind various gaming organs havings so called "fluff" crap. I'm freely able to skip over it and get right to the meat if I want to. Some of this content I might actually enjoy reading.
Assume that a video game magazine just published reviews of video games. It's a pretty good place for a video game magazine to start. However, another magazine starts in competition to this first one and decides to include previews as well as reviews. Now this second magazine has more to offer than the first. Some people might no care about previews, but if the company publishing the first magazine doens't start adding previews they might lose a good deal of business to their competitor. So they decide to include previews as well.
This process continues and the whole thing escalates to what we see today. Not only do game magazines, websites, or newsletters contain reviews, they also contain previews, editorials, letters from readers, fan art, comics, and loads of other stuff.
The base problem is that these publications are generally not created for gamers to get informed opinions, that's just a side product. The real reason these publications exist is to make money. It's a true fact, so just get used to it.
If you wanted to, you could start a "free" website that just reviews games. If you become popular you start getting more traffic which bumps up the bandwidth costs. You have a few options now, charge people to increase revenue, let people advertise on your site to increase revenue, or have a website that doesn't work well because it's constantly over its bandwidth limits.
You could probably make a lot of money with such a site from advertisement and paid for content. Hell, that's what IGN and other sites have been doing. Of course if people stop visiting your site you lose advertisers, people who'll pay for content, and a lot of the money you're making. Unless you're rich and doing this as a hobby you need to keep the people coming. Unfortunately this means adding the "fluff" content. You might not like such-and-such content, but there might be several thousand others that do, and might be willing to pay for it as well!
If they can't find what they want from your site, they'll most likely go somewhere else, taking their money somewhere else.
Is a minimalist site bad? No. Is it for everyone? No.
I'll agree with your main point, but I think you're looking at it in the wrong light. While it is true that the more we connect with the characters in the game, the more we become emotionally wrapped up with that game, I don't think it has a lot to do with graphics. Take the Final Fantasy series for instance. I absolutely enjoyed the sixth game in the series and cared about what happened to the characters and how their lives turned out even though they were nothing more than little sprites. Now consider FF X, where the characters look very rearlistic. I really didn't care about any of them and hoped that serious tragedy (such as permanent death) would befall at least two of them.
Good graphics don't really ensure that I'll like a character more because it looks more human. I need good characters that have personalities that don't suck, say interesting and meaningful things, have good voice acting, and don't come across as agnst filled teenagers.
Of course, not all games depend on or necessarily care if you form an emotional attachment to your character. Take racing games for example. Better graphics would most certainly lead to a better experience, provided that the gameplay was already solid. It really depends on the particular genre that's being dealt with.
Rag-doll physics and other modern techniques similar to it may not be the answer either. I really don't care how realistically a corpse falls to the ground after I shoot someone if the gameplay sucks, the main characters spouts off the same crap one-liners, and the story isn't very compelling.
A lot of the focus has shifted from good gameplay, characters, and story over to graphics, physics gimics, and other flashy things. They might make the game more realistic and emersive in some sense, but who really wants to be emersed in a piece of crap world no matter how realistic it looks? I'm sure eventually, some developer will take all of the fancy graphics, rag-doll physics, and other modern technologies and make a really good game out of them. Until then we just have to deal with whatever they throw at us.
1) It's free. I don't mind paying a low monthly fee for online gaming if the service is good, but for the most part, my experience with online console gaming is limited to Xbox Live. It's not terrible for $50 a year, but the community occasionally leaves something to be desired. The DS isn't exactly a console though, so it would be hard to say the same rules apply for a console and a portable. Until we see Nintendo's online plan for the revolution, I don't know how much comparison is allowable. In any event, free is always good.
2) 3rd Party devices can be used. I've already got a Linksys wireless G router, so I won't need to get a Nintendo one. I'm glad that they aren't forcing me to buy an extra piece of hardware. Would I buy one if they required it though? Possibly. But there are probably a lot of people who wouldn't. I'm not sure what similar devices would normally cost, but the price doesn't seem too bad.
3) Free Nintendo supported hot spots. It's nice that they're making a few free hotspots for DS gamers to gather and play online. Once again free is good.
I'm a little disappointed that there won't be voice chat, but then again after some of the things you hear on Live (excessive cursing, yelling, people playing music into the mic) I'm not really so sure this is such a bad thing. Then again, that's not really the fault of Xbox Live, merely that of some of those who use it.
All in all, it's nice to see a company offering free service that you doesn't require first party hardware. I wish that more companies were like this, or at least wouldn't price gouge on the required hardware.
For everyone out there who's worried about Nintendo somehow making a lemon with the Revolution and that the controller will be terrible consider that Nintendo has been responsible for a lot of controller innovations that other companies have "borrowed" later on.
The D-pad was pretty popular. I've seen one on just about every major console controller since the NES. The same goes with shoulder buttons that were added on the SNES controller. And then they reinvented the analog stick for the N64. That one also seems popular now days.
Consider this part from the article: Nintendo had long shrouded the controller for its upcoming Nintendo 64 hardware in secrecy. Developers working on games told stories of having to put the controller
As is now widely known, the controller that Nintendo revealed at its Japanese trade show featured an analog thumbstick. After the failure of the Atari 5200 controller, analog joysticks were basically taboo in the video game industry. But Nintendo's thumbstick differed from previous designs in two important ways. First, it wasn't actually analog. Analog joysticks like the 5200's had too many moving parts and were prone to breaking. Nintendo's stick was digital, but provided enough levels of sensitivity that the distinction was moot. Second, Nintendo's stick worked just like a D-pad: you weren't gripping the handle but pushing it with your thumb.
And by showing off the new controller with a polished (but not complete) version of Mario 64, Nintendo showed the killer app that made the thumbstick more than a gimmick. Sony and Sega saw the writing on the wall: next generation meant 3D, and 3D meant analog. They immediately set out to create analog joysticks for their consoles. Sega actually moved so quickly on their design that they beat Nintendo to market in the US (though not worldwide).
Perhaps now you'll get over the paranoia that Nintendo has been displaying towards their controller. While the controller for the Xbox 360 is more or less set in stone, Sony might still have enough time between now and the launch of the PS3 to "borrow" Nintendo's designs.
Nintendo has been doing a lot of innovation with respect to controllers. So far they really haven't let me down. I'll trust whatever it is they're doing with the Revolution controller given the past record they've had.
I have to agree with you here. This can only really be a positive thing for the industry as a whole. Perhaps if 14 year olds aren't playing Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto, people will get off the backs of the industry. There will still probably be groups that like to complain about the content of video games, but at least the industry will be able to say, "Obviously this is not content for young children and there are laws preventing them from buying this game. So the only way the could acquire it is through a parent buying it or an adult purchasing it for them. I think you should take some innitiative as a parent and make sure that you don't buy them violent video games or that you should keep an eye on what they're playing in case someone else has purchased it for them."
I think there's plenty of room in the market for video games featuring more adult oriented content. Video games aren't just for children any more, and at some point (if not already) the number of adult gamers will surpass the number of children gamers. These people need more contend than Mickey's Counting Adventure.
To those who would suggest banning games or at least violent, aldult-oriented games I would like to point out that there are similar movies that are made, books written. Not to mention pornography, alcohol, and cigarettes. Some of these obviously aren't for small children, but the society has somehow managed to survive even though these "evils" are widely available. People usually don't go around giving their kids beer, cigarettes, and violent movies, so why should games be any different?
Preventing minors from buying certain games might cut into the sales figures a little, but let's face it, if a minor really wants to play that game, they'll get a hold of it somehow. Much the same way that minors get beer, smokes, porn, or just about anything else they really want like illegal drugs.
Such a law is really a step forward, but like many other laws to protect minors from certain things, it won't be completely effective. The only real way to stop people from having access to content that might not be appropriate for them is to make sure that content is not produced. However, if you think that I'm going to give up GTA and other M rated games just so the 1% of the popultion that thinks such things are absolutely evil can be satisfied, then you have another thing coming.
I'm willing to meet these people half-way and agree with them that not all games are appropriate for children or should be able to be purchased by these children. However, they should also meet the rest of the world half way and realize that we have the freedom to produce and buy such things. Until then, there will always be some sort of a squable over "objectionable content" in video games.
I know you're just joking around and that it would be possible for Legend of Zelda characters to appear in games like this. After all, Link, Zelda, and a few others are already in the Smash Bros. games. I could see cameos from the characters of the series in Nintendo made games based around popular sports.
However, I don't think we'd outright see any games like that ever, even if there is a Mario Kart and Mario Golf. Instead I think there are a few different angles that Nintendo might be thinking of taking.
First up is the traditional RPG. Nintendo really hasn't had many of these on their console in the last few generations. The GameCube was an improvement over the N64, but considering the massive amounts of RPGs on the SNES and other current generation consoles like the PS2, Nintendo has fallen quite short of the mark in providing a plethora of worthwhile RPGs.
The Legend of Zelda universe would translate pretty well into an RPG. Turn based battles could be considered a real drag after the live action we're used to, but there are always the real time battles as found in the Star Ocean series and Tales of Symphonia. If anyone could make those feel perfect, I think it is Nintendo.
Another possibility is that the series really isn't undergoing a radical gameplay change or redesign but is instead changing other things around. The themes and characters may become more mature and feature voice acting that the other games in the series have lacked. I'm sure there are a lot of gamers out there who would appreciate a more mature based Legend of Zelda game with all the elements that other modern games have in them.
This could be conceived as radical and revolutionary because it's a complete departure from the "kiddy" style that Nintendo is often tagged with. Maybe it's just me but I don't think the main Zelda demographic is young children anymore. I think the game mechanics make it a little too complicated for anyone that young. The top down games of the past were pretty easy, but the 3D worlds of today require slightly more mastery.
Then again this could be a lot of talk to get the community stirred up about Nintendo and Zelda. Drop a line that a game a lot of people have grown up with and loved and the masses will go ballistic. This does seem a lot like a Nintendo PR grab. They tend to come out and talk about how they're going to revolutionize something or how radically different something is going to be instead of tossing out numbers on their console or how it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
There're a lot of other possibilities, but my money is that the games will take on a much more mature (or at least a lot less childish) nature, transition into more of an RPG, or that this is just a PR media attention grab from Nintendo while they work out the details of what they're going to do later.
Second, from TFA:
Nintendogs Selling Outta Control
Who knew so many were too lazy to raise real pets?
My sentiments exactly.
I lived on a farm for a lot of my life or in a small town and was able to have pets if I wanted to. However, there are a lot of people who just aren't able to have pets. If you live in a big city in an apartment, chances are you won't be able to have a cat or a dog. If you're still living with your parents there's nothing you can do about it. A 14 year old can't just got out an get a place of their own and have a pet.
Additionally, pets can be very expensive and time consuming. You can generally get one for low costs from an animal shelter, but a specific breed is going to cost you some money. After thise you need to continually buy food which varies in price depending how much your dog or cat can eat.
Next there are vet expenses associated with keepign the animal healthy. A dog might need to be fixed so you don't end up with puppies. Shots and vaccinations are always a good idea as well.
Now add in some of your time. It's going to take time to feed, water, and care for the pet. Add in time to teach it to behave and house break it and that adds up.
You could easily spend thousands of dollars in food, care, and time taking care of a real pet, assuming you can even have one in the first place. Or you can go out and buy a DS for $130 and the game for another $35 or so and play it at your leisure. Is it the same as having a real pet? Of coruse not. But it might be a good thing for some people who've wanted pets but are unable to keep them or afford them.
On the issue of cooling - Satchell said he thought the system had three fans (he said he wasn't sure but thought it was three, so we'd open to correction on that one), and we couldn't hear them at all as he spoke. When you play a DVD, it powers down to just one fan. It's "a lot" better than the "wind tunnel" alpha kits, he said.
I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that the Xbox 360 used water cooling. Given that they're using some varient of a PowerPC chip, of which the latest versions run to hot to make it into a laptop, and have the clock speed cranked up as well, I wouldn't be surprised if they were using a water cooling system. Can anyone verify this?
DVDs can be played even if you don't have the remote control, unlike Xbox 1.
I'm guessing that this is the reason for the increased price in the controllers. According to the price lists on the major sites, wireless controllers were $50, and wired were $40. I'm guessing that price hike is mostly due to royalty fees necessary to include DVD functionality since MS doesn't hold the patent. That's why the Xbox couldn't play DVDs out of the box. It looks like they've given the controllers the necessary functionality to play DVDs as well, driving up the cost slightly. I'm wondering if it wouldn't have just been better to build the technology into the console though? Maybe I'm off the mark on this one and MS is just raising prices to make more money.
iPods are detected by default, as are PSPs, and by our watch it took about 2 or 3 seconds for the Xbox 360 to notice they were there. With an iPod plugged in you can play music direct through the Dashboard software, with visualisations, or you can play a slideshow of photographs.
That's a pretty nice feature, although you can just plug an iPod directly into a TV for a slideshow. I don't know if running through the Xbox 360 to a HD TV will result in better visuals or not though. I'm also interested in what interaction the Xbox 360 will be able to have with the PSP beyond what is listed.
Xbox Live will allow you to play in various Zones - there will be causal, pro, family, and underground (where "anything goes") and perhaps more - and these will allow you to go for whatever kind of experience you like.
I'm pretty big on this feature. I just got Xbox Live a short while ago so I could play with my friends online. I've noticed there are a lot of assholes on Live and would like to avoid them if possible. The current Halo 2 scene on there is generally not something for young children. It is funny to hear someone yell, "I'm going to skull rape your mother!" to someone and blast them with a shotgun, but it's probably not something I'd want any of my children to hear or repeat.
The wireless networking adapter plugs into the USB 2.0 port on the back of the console and is "like a small pack of cigarettes" in terms of size.
I'd like to know if third party wireless network adapters will be able to work. Right now I've got my Xbox on the wireless network in my apartment. I could probably just use the current setup and run a cord from ethernet jack to the wireless adapter, but it can get a little laggy at times, especially with the poor internet service. But at $99, the adapter from MS seems a little expensive.
You can plug in a keyboard but this is for text input only - including in massively-multiplayer games. You can't use it to play games and that was a design choice.
Probably a good choice. If you could get a mouse and keyboard to play an FPS, you'd probably have an edge over gamers using controllers. Point and click sniping is a lot easier than manipulating analog sticks in my opinion. It might be nice to give people the option of playing with a keyboard and mouse though. This would open up the console to more traditional PC games like RTS and other FPS games. Just don't allow keyboard//mouse users to play against controller users.
Likewise, the System blade allows greater control over family settings. Micros
It's no longer feasible for a company to bother producing a 3.5" HD smaller than 40GB any more. At a certain point, it doens't get any cheaper to make a hard drive regardless of the amount of memory you put on it. A company could probably produce a 8 MB HD if they really wanted to, but it really wouldn't be much cheaper for them to do than a 40 GB hard drive.
In fact, it would almost certainly cost more if they tried to make a hard drive that had exactly 8 MB of space and no more because the parts for it are no longer mass produced. The easiest way would be to make a 40 GB hard drive and seal off everything after the first 8 MB. Of course who in the hell wants a 8 MB hard drive anyhow?
If you're an Apple person, then you're already likely seeing 120 GB drives as standard if you own an iMac or one of their other top tier computers. The same is probably true if you buy a gaming rig from Alienware or some other company that specializes in high performance computers.
As technology progresses to the point where it's easy and cheap to cram 120 GB into a hard drive then they will become more standard as we pave way towards bigger and bigger drives. Do most people really need 120 GB hard drive? Not really, in my opinion, but it'll be nice for the Google's of the world who want to give us 2 GB of inbox space.
Of course, people will continue to become more tech savvy and start to put more digital photographs and eventually videos on their computers. 40 GB can hold a lot of pictures, but 120 GB is better suited for having a lot of video content stored on your hard drive.
In 10 years we'll likely be measuring drive sizes in TB instead of GB, laughing about the days when computers only came with 40 GB HDs and single core processors, kind of like how we laugh about how computers from the 80's had HDs that measured in MBs and RAM that measued in KB!
Although it will help them take in a little bit more money to finance any plans that they might have to expand the business, in the end I think it really just hurts them more.
After all, the people who buy into Google really don't give a shit what it does or how it does it as long as it makes money and pays good dividends. I don't know exactly what portion of Google will be in "public hands" after this, but if they've sold off enough of the company they could just wind up like almost every other company in the business.
Maybe I'm sounding a little paranoid, but I really think that going public and giving partial ownership of your company to people who don't share your creative vision is just a bad idea. I don't invest in the market myself, so I can't speak for everyone, but isn't the point to make money? Eventually a unique company like Google that's been pushing new and innovative technology and forcing competitors to work just as hard to keep up, will eventually stagnate and become more of a conservative business that would rather rest on its laurels and make money rather than strike out an pioneer new grounds in the industry.
Would a company all about the money offer 2GB email inbox sizes, a wonderful and easy to use online mapping service, and a great search service? Personally I think they'd turn out a little more like Microsoft, spending more time talking about all the innovative things they're doing rather than actually doing them and settling into a state of mediocrity.
Any idea if Microsoft will be using regular HDs, or if they're going to have some sort of proprietary type that you can't just buy in a store?
For $100 I can get a 200GB HD that really could turn an Xbox 360 into a media center. 20 GB just isn't going to do it for me.
A hard drive actually has a lot more value to me than the rest of the stuff. Don't want to bother with batteries or charge times for a wireless controller. Don't need an ethernet cable since I already have some, can get them cheaper elsewhere, or make one if I really have to. I hope the remote control isn't required for DVD playback, which just gives me more reason to hack the sucker, but if it is I'll just use a DVD player. The wireless headset doesn't really do much for me either since if I mod/hack the box I probably won't be able to play Live.
On the other hand they could just as easily use some type of HD that I can't just go out and buy. Which means I'll probably be stuck paying $50 (or more!) for a hard drive that's maybe worth $20. If this is the case I don't forsee myself getting an Xbox 360 until there are some major price cuts.
I know I don't speak for all of us, but for some of us, the HD is probably the least useless part of the package.
I don't think Nintendo really has to have a console product to push out the door this holiday season. Focusing more on the DS and ensuring that the retain their market share and keep Sony out seems more important to me at this point. If they can get their online play running smoothly, release at least one game worth paying $35 for on a monthly basis, and provide a method for getting audio and video content onto the DS like the PSP has, there's no reason why they won't be able to overwhelm it. I'd actually like to see them focus a lot more on the DS rather than trying to get more life out of the GameCube.
While having LoZ:TP out in time for the Xbox 360 launch could steal away some of the Xbox 360's thunder and possibly change a few minds, I don't think it would do anything drastic. Slashing prices on the GameCube and offering bundles with the best games on the system already might be a better option.
If this article has any truth to it, Sony might be gearing up to drastically cut prices on the PS2. If Sony can do this, what's stopping Nintendo from lowering the price of a GameCube to $80 or less. I don't know what production costs are for one right now, but I think they could do it while remaining profitable if it suited their interests. Parents looking for a nice Christmas present for their children would be more willing to drop $80 - $100 than $300.
A great game on an old system isn't likely to push too many more sales or take away sales from competitors, but slashing the hell out of your price might do just that. Considering that Microsoft probably doens't want to lower the price of the current Xbox, firstly because it would cost them even more since they've been selling it at a loss already (it might be getting close to break even though), and secondly because the lower price would just cause more competition with their next generation console, which they might have a harder time selling than expected with all of the FUD from Sony.
Nintendo probably has some rough months ahead, but they've managed to stay out of the red quite well despite lackluster sales. Not to mention the mounds of money they've been accumulating from all the profitable times they've had for the past two decades.
I see no harm in using that data to show ads that are relevant to the genre of programming I'm watching. To me, it seems better to advertise athletic gear and sports drinks during a football game than tampons and depends undergarments.
You probably won't be seeing too many advertisements for tampons, but once they figure out you're male based on your viewing habits, I can easily see every other commercial being for Girls Gone Wild like they used to on late night Comedy Central (haven't watched in a while, for all I know they still do it).
Additionally, who decides which demographic you fall into? If you decide that men aged x to y watch this programming and tailor the advertising to suit men aged x to y, what happens if it's a woman or someone not in that demographic?
Of course there will also be multiple users in some households. The Father might enjoy sporting events, the mother likes nature shows, one of the younger children watches cartoons, and one of the older children likes sitcoms. Given the mixture the thing decides that sports get watched the most so it plasters beer and girls gone wild ads while the 4 year old is watching cartoons.
Keep in mind that you're still completely at the whim of whatever the company gets paid to advertise. Of course you can always just switch the channle or go do something else while the commercials are on.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really.
Somehow I manage to own a PS2, Gamecube, and an Xbox.
Buying an Xbox does not somehow magically prohibit you from buying a Gamecube or a PS2.
I find that this is further proof that man did not evolve from any species of ape or monkey. We deevolved.
Any chance that this whole thing was just blown out of proportion? Look at all the other crap that Jack has pulled and all of the things he's said out of context or completely blown out of proportion.
From Article: 'The specifics of the torture with which Thompson was threatened are so grotesque that they cannot be properly placed in this news release," Thompson wrote in a mass e-mail addressed to news outlets, politicians, and industry groups. "The torture was to end with the shooting of Thompson, as in this teen's favorite games.'
So far, the only thing we really know is that Wacko Jacko said he did it, but doesn't really give us much for specifics. Considering all the other crap he's spouted off, I really wonder how much of this is the actual truth and how much of this is some kind of delusion that Jack has dreamt up.
If some kid was stupid enough to make death threats against Thompson, he probably deserves what he gets. Just because Jack is an asshole doesn't give anyone else the right to be one. Hopefully the kid will learn from this experience that you can't go firing off your mouth without thinking first. Hopefully Jack will get disbarred and learn the same.
If you will reread the first few lines of my post you will see that I said, " I don't think the video game industry is capable of a crash at this point, or even much of a shake-down."
/. article was posted just a few days ago. You are probably right that people tend to overuse the term crash, but shakedown almost seems like too weak of a word.
I did read the article, but you really didn't read my post. Whether you want to call what happened a crash or a shakedown is moot, I merely covering both instances as there have been articles in the past year speculating whether or not the video game industry is in for another crash. This
You have to realize that companies in the video game industry are failing all the time. However, we're seeing more and more software companies go rather than the hardware makers. Sega is still selling games, Nokia is still making phones. Whoever makes the Gizmondo might drop out of the industry, but that's hardly enough for a shakedown. Over the past decade companies have gone out of business, been swallowed up by a larger company, been sold to another company, broken off into different companies, and just about every other conceivable possibility.
Companies are failing without any particular regard to anything. It doesn't take an off year for the industry for company X that makes crap games to go belly up. A bad year might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many companies, but to say that one time period is responsible doesn't quite fit well with me. The industry is always in a shakedown state. Companies that can't survive in it or adapt to the changes in it will always be falling out.
Smash Bros and its sequel hide gameplay gems behind the cutesy-looking characters. I'm really looking forward to this, because it's about time Nintendo stopped pumping out "Mario Parties" and started doing more MK and SSB stuff.
I'd like to see more SSB games as well, but I'm a little worried that if they start pumping them out, the series will run into the same problem as many others. The quality of the games will go down in order to keep putting them out on a schedule and people will start to get bored with the franchise. I'd much rather see a single solid release every 4 years than a new game every 2 years.
Just look at some other great series of games that are starting to get a little jaded because they're being overproduced and saturating the market. Sure, people would still buy the game, but it would take a lot a way from the series if sequels just kept cropping up. Among my all time favorite series of games are the Smash Bros. series and the Chrono series, both of which have only had two titles, which were spaced apart by a good amount of time.
I'm a fan of the Splinter Cell series, but just look how many games they've produced, especially considering they've made all of the games in the span between SSB:M and the upcomming one for the Revolution. For all any of us now, there will be a 4th game in the Splinter Cell game before the next SSB game comes out. I like SC a lot, but I can only play so much SC before I just get tired of it and want something else.
Instead of nuturing the series they're almost treating it like a cash cow. I think they should slow down a bit and take their time with the series. Like I said, people will still continue to buy it, but I really don't want any series that I enjoy to turn into another Tomb Raider.
I don't think the video game industry is capable of a crash at this point, or even much of a shake-down. Even if the next generation of game consoles and the games themselves are seriously underwhelming, the industry is at a point where it could weather the storm for a while.
/. articles about the Gamecube have been about falling sales figures, but somehow Nintendo is still in the black. There are a lot of questions about if they'll survive for much longer, but they've been hanging on for a while now and building up a large bankroll. Their conservative attitude suggests that they won't be going under anytime soon.
First of all, Microsoft has billions of dollars that it makes from other business divisions, even if its games division takes a billion dollar shelling every year. Interestingly enough, this has already happened and they've said they're still staying in the game. The Xbox 360 would have to be a huge failure for them to get out of the game at this point. If the recent buzz about the system and the fact that someone can sell them on ebay for several thousand dollars is any indication, I don't think they've got much to worry about.
Next up is Sony which has made a lot of money on the PS2 and has the largest install and fan base. It might be slightly eroded this generation, but like Microsoft they have other company divisions that can prop up their games division if they're hit by hard times. However, of the big three, I'd put them in the worst position right now.
Finally, there's Nintendo. If I've learned anything about Nintendo it's that even if their sales are crap, they still manage to turn a healthy profit. The last few
The gaming industry is also a lot bigger than it used to be. Sure, companies are still packaging crap in cases that they try to pass for games, but when the user base is so much bigger than it used to be, you can manage to stay afloat with mediocraty. The industry might undergo a slump or slight depression, which I could easily forsee, but the same kind of "crash" or "shake-down" mentioned in the article? Nah...
Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else feel that there's a lot of unnecessary worry in the gaming community these days?
I'll admit it's scary that some big, bad men (or women) could take away the hobby that we enjoy, but I think that we've been blowing things out of proportion.
I don't speak for everyone here, but I live in the United States where we at least attempt to protect the freedom to express ourselves and say what we want. Granted that the issues of censoring games completely and selling games with mature themes to minors are very different issues, but we tend to like to blur them together and treat any legislation as an attack on first ammendment rights. In the case of legislation to prevent sales of M rated games to minors, I really don't care whether or not it passes. The hundreds of posts on the issue that I've read as this debate comes up almost weekly have presented compelling arguments for both sides. Such legislation passing wouldn't affect me because I'm over 18.
On the other hand, legislation that seeks to censor games and prohibit them from containing sexual or violent content violates our so called rights. Even assuming that such legislation were to pass, somewhere on the chain it would be overturned by the courts. Considering that America has become increasingly less conservative over the years, and that other attempts to censor music, books, and television have usually failed in the past, I don't see it as a major concern today.
It's a good thing that we're vocal about our concerns as gamers and I wouldn't suggest that you stop being political, but do we really need to get our feathers ruffled on a weekly basis about something that's not likely to happen?
Revolutionary? Not anywhere near it.
The game industry is putting out the exact same games every year with a few minor tweaks, usually in graphics and added guns, items, levels, etc. It's cheaper for them to do this as they can reuse a lot of code that's in working order for the most part.
I don't really mind if they just rehash the same game and give it a face lift. If I want to play it, I'll buy it. However, don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me that you're doing something revolutionary when you really aren't. As the parent mentioned, it's just a borrowed idea applied to a different genre of game.
If you really wanted to be revolutionary, you'd develope it for Nintendo's next console and let players use the pointer control as their gun. Of course this really isn't all that revolutionary because it's been done arcade games for years and years now.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if developers just shut the hell up about how great their next game is and how the revolutionary features they've included in it are going to blow everyone away. All the hype they use to build their product up only leaves gamers disappointed when the game they're playing just can't live up to the crap that's been pitched for the last three months.
But just think if he sells them all on ebay for $800 each.
Sony will probably never release a firmware that let's you run emulators and homebrew apps/games. Considering that they're everyone's favorite sell-at-a-loss-and-make-it-up-with-game-sales business model, giving you the ability to get games for free off the internet is pretty counter productive when they need you to buy the games they liscense in order to make a profit.
There will always be a few people like you, who flat out refuse to upgrade no matter what because you can't run your homebrews on your PSP anymore.
Additionally, this new firmware will just patch any hacks in the previous version (if there were any) so is it really worth upgrading anyway, considering you really don't get much in return? Add in the obvious root kit remark (I can be funny too) and there's almost no point.
Unless some great killer App comes out that requires this firmware, I wouldn't upgrade either.
As for the second article... Have we missed the whole point of the gaming console? Gaming consoles have one purpose. It isn't the GUI (dvorak). It isn't for the graphics. It isn't for the startup music. It isn't for the cool factor. It's definately not for the weight. It's about games. I bought a PC for my PC needs. I bought a home theater for my multimedia needs. Why is my console going to be judged on the same criteria as the previous two?
I think a lot of it has to do with the growing trend for all-in-one electronic devices and an escalating pissing contest between companies. Consider, for example, the capabilities of the next generation consoles.
The Xbox 360 will be able to play games, play DVD movies, play CDs, stream movies, music, and photos from a PC, interface with other devices such as cameras and iPods, and have a host of other posibilities online through Xbox Live (Local Weather forcast, Stock information, News articles).
The PS3 will be able to play games, play DVD movies, play CDs, play Blu-Ray movies, function as a computer if you choose to run Linux on it (last I heard it was shipping on every HD), and probably do several other things similar to the Xbox 360.
The Revolution (or whatever it will be called) will play games and DVD movies if you get the special attachment.
Sony and Microsoft might be attempting to get additional customers based on the additional functionalities of the console. Sure it can play games, but look what else it can do! Nintendo has realized that they can't compete in such a market and have basically stated they're making a game machine and nothing else. But does the inclusion of all these features really surprise you in a cut-throat business (They are selling these consoles a loss after all) and a world where we've seen a cell phone with iPod functionality, a cell phone that's also a game machine, a hand held game machine that's also a movie viewer, and a PDA that attempts to do all of those?
It might be a dangerous line of thinking, but so far people have continued to purchase these machines even though they aren't just gaming consoles any more.
Assume that a video game magazine just published reviews of video games. It's a pretty good place for a video game magazine to start. However, another magazine starts in competition to this first one and decides to include previews as well as reviews. Now this second magazine has more to offer than the first. Some people might no care about previews, but if the company publishing the first magazine doens't start adding previews they might lose a good deal of business to their competitor. So they decide to include previews as well.
This process continues and the whole thing escalates to what we see today. Not only do game magazines, websites, or newsletters contain reviews, they also contain previews, editorials, letters from readers, fan art, comics, and loads of other stuff.
The base problem is that these publications are generally not created for gamers to get informed opinions, that's just a side product. The real reason these publications exist is to make money. It's a true fact, so just get used to it.
If you wanted to, you could start a "free" website that just reviews games. If you become popular you start getting more traffic which bumps up the bandwidth costs. You have a few options now, charge people to increase revenue, let people advertise on your site to increase revenue, or have a website that doesn't work well because it's constantly over its bandwidth limits.
You could probably make a lot of money with such a site from advertisement and paid for content. Hell, that's what IGN and other sites have been doing. Of course if people stop visiting your site you lose advertisers, people who'll pay for content, and a lot of the money you're making. Unless you're rich and doing this as a hobby you need to keep the people coming. Unfortunately this means adding the "fluff" content. You might not like such-and-such content, but there might be several thousand others that do, and might be willing to pay for it as well!
If they can't find what they want from your site, they'll most likely go somewhere else, taking their money somewhere else.
Is a minimalist site bad? No. Is it for everyone? No.
Good graphics don't really ensure that I'll like a character more because it looks more human. I need good characters that have personalities that don't suck, say interesting and meaningful things, have good voice acting, and don't come across as agnst filled teenagers.
Of course, not all games depend on or necessarily care if you form an emotional attachment to your character. Take racing games for example. Better graphics would most certainly lead to a better experience, provided that the gameplay was already solid. It really depends on the particular genre that's being dealt with.
Rag-doll physics and other modern techniques similar to it may not be the answer either. I really don't care how realistically a corpse falls to the ground after I shoot someone if the gameplay sucks, the main characters spouts off the same crap one-liners, and the story isn't very compelling.
A lot of the focus has shifted from good gameplay, characters, and story over to graphics, physics gimics, and other flashy things. They might make the game more realistic and emersive in some sense, but who really wants to be emersed in a piece of crap world no matter how realistic it looks? I'm sure eventually, some developer will take all of the fancy graphics, rag-doll physics, and other modern technologies and make a really good game out of them. Until then we just have to deal with whatever they throw at us.
Even though it's Microsoft that's getting sued, I think that we all have to admit that things are getting a little out of hand.
At least this one's not over a software patent.
2) 3rd Party devices can be used. I've already got a Linksys wireless G router, so I won't need to get a Nintendo one. I'm glad that they aren't forcing me to buy an extra piece of hardware. Would I buy one if they required it though? Possibly. But there are probably a lot of people who wouldn't. I'm not sure what similar devices would normally cost, but the price doesn't seem too bad.
3) Free Nintendo supported hot spots. It's nice that they're making a few free hotspots for DS gamers to gather and play online. Once again free is good.
I'm a little disappointed that there won't be voice chat, but then again after some of the things you hear on Live (excessive cursing, yelling, people playing music into the mic) I'm not really so sure this is such a bad thing. Then again, that's not really the fault of Xbox Live, merely that of some of those who use it.
All in all, it's nice to see a company offering free service that you doesn't require first party hardware. I wish that more companies were like this, or at least wouldn't price gouge on the required hardware.
The D-pad was pretty popular. I've seen one on just about every major console controller since the NES. The same goes with shoulder buttons that were added on the SNES controller. And then they reinvented the analog stick for the N64. That one also seems popular now days.
Consider this part from the article: Nintendo had long shrouded the controller for its upcoming Nintendo 64 hardware in secrecy. Developers working on games told stories of having to put the controller
As is now widely known, the controller that Nintendo revealed at its Japanese trade show featured an analog thumbstick. After the failure of the Atari 5200 controller, analog joysticks were basically taboo in the video game industry. But Nintendo's thumbstick differed from previous designs in two important ways. First, it wasn't actually analog. Analog joysticks like the 5200's had too many moving parts and were prone to breaking. Nintendo's stick was digital, but provided enough levels of sensitivity that the distinction was moot. Second, Nintendo's stick worked just like a D-pad: you weren't gripping the handle but pushing it with your thumb.
And by showing off the new controller with a polished (but not complete) version of Mario 64, Nintendo showed the killer app that made the thumbstick more than a gimmick. Sony and Sega saw the writing on the wall: next generation meant 3D, and 3D meant analog. They immediately set out to create analog joysticks for their consoles. Sega actually moved so quickly on their design that they beat Nintendo to market in the US (though not worldwide).
Perhaps now you'll get over the paranoia that Nintendo has been displaying towards their controller. While the controller for the Xbox 360 is more or less set in stone, Sony might still have enough time between now and the launch of the PS3 to "borrow" Nintendo's designs.
Nintendo has been doing a lot of innovation with respect to controllers. So far they really haven't let me down. I'll trust whatever it is they're doing with the Revolution controller given the past record they've had.
I think there's plenty of room in the market for video games featuring more adult oriented content. Video games aren't just for children any more, and at some point (if not already) the number of adult gamers will surpass the number of children gamers. These people need more contend than Mickey's Counting Adventure.
To those who would suggest banning games or at least violent, aldult-oriented games I would like to point out that there are similar movies that are made, books written. Not to mention pornography, alcohol, and cigarettes. Some of these obviously aren't for small children, but the society has somehow managed to survive even though these "evils" are widely available. People usually don't go around giving their kids beer, cigarettes, and violent movies, so why should games be any different?
Preventing minors from buying certain games might cut into the sales figures a little, but let's face it, if a minor really wants to play that game, they'll get a hold of it somehow. Much the same way that minors get beer, smokes, porn, or just about anything else they really want like illegal drugs.
Such a law is really a step forward, but like many other laws to protect minors from certain things, it won't be completely effective. The only real way to stop people from having access to content that might not be appropriate for them is to make sure that content is not produced. However, if you think that I'm going to give up GTA and other M rated games just so the 1% of the popultion that thinks such things are absolutely evil can be satisfied, then you have another thing coming.
I'm willing to meet these people half-way and agree with them that not all games are appropriate for children or should be able to be purchased by these children. However, they should also meet the rest of the world half way and realize that we have the freedom to produce and buy such things. Until then, there will always be some sort of a squable over "objectionable content" in video games.
However, I don't think we'd outright see any games like that ever, even if there is a Mario Kart and Mario Golf. Instead I think there are a few different angles that Nintendo might be thinking of taking.
First up is the traditional RPG. Nintendo really hasn't had many of these on their console in the last few generations. The GameCube was an improvement over the N64, but considering the massive amounts of RPGs on the SNES and other current generation consoles like the PS2, Nintendo has fallen quite short of the mark in providing a plethora of worthwhile RPGs.
The Legend of Zelda universe would translate pretty well into an RPG. Turn based battles could be considered a real drag after the live action we're used to, but there are always the real time battles as found in the Star Ocean series and Tales of Symphonia. If anyone could make those feel perfect, I think it is Nintendo.
Another possibility is that the series really isn't undergoing a radical gameplay change or redesign but is instead changing other things around. The themes and characters may become more mature and feature voice acting that the other games in the series have lacked. I'm sure there are a lot of gamers out there who would appreciate a more mature based Legend of Zelda game with all the elements that other modern games have in them.
This could be conceived as radical and revolutionary because it's a complete departure from the "kiddy" style that Nintendo is often tagged with. Maybe it's just me but I don't think the main Zelda demographic is young children anymore. I think the game mechanics make it a little too complicated for anyone that young. The top down games of the past were pretty easy, but the 3D worlds of today require slightly more mastery.
Then again this could be a lot of talk to get the community stirred up about Nintendo and Zelda. Drop a line that a game a lot of people have grown up with and loved and the masses will go ballistic. This does seem a lot like a Nintendo PR grab. They tend to come out and talk about how they're going to revolutionize something or how radically different something is going to be instead of tossing out numbers on their console or how it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
There're a lot of other possibilities, but my money is that the games will take on a much more mature (or at least a lot less childish) nature, transition into more of an RPG, or that this is just a PR media attention grab from Nintendo while they work out the details of what they're going to do later.
I lived on a farm for a lot of my life or in a small town and was able to have pets if I wanted to. However, there are a lot of people who just aren't able to have pets. If you live in a big city in an apartment, chances are you won't be able to have a cat or a dog. If you're still living with your parents there's nothing you can do about it. A 14 year old can't just got out an get a place of their own and have a pet.
Additionally, pets can be very expensive and time consuming. You can generally get one for low costs from an animal shelter, but a specific breed is going to cost you some money. After thise you need to continually buy food which varies in price depending how much your dog or cat can eat.
Next there are vet expenses associated with keepign the animal healthy. A dog might need to be fixed so you don't end up with puppies. Shots and vaccinations are always a good idea as well.
Now add in some of your time. It's going to take time to feed, water, and care for the pet. Add in time to teach it to behave and house break it and that adds up.
You could easily spend thousands of dollars in food, care, and time taking care of a real pet, assuming you can even have one in the first place. Or you can go out and buy a DS for $130 and the game for another $35 or so and play it at your leisure. Is it the same as having a real pet? Of coruse not. But it might be a good thing for some people who've wanted pets but are unable to keep them or afford them.
I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that the Xbox 360 used water cooling. Given that they're using some varient of a PowerPC chip, of which the latest versions run to hot to make it into a laptop, and have the clock speed cranked up as well, I wouldn't be surprised if they were using a water cooling system. Can anyone verify this?
DVDs can be played even if you don't have the remote control, unlike Xbox 1.
I'm guessing that this is the reason for the increased price in the controllers. According to the price lists on the major sites, wireless controllers were $50, and wired were $40. I'm guessing that price hike is mostly due to royalty fees necessary to include DVD functionality since MS doesn't hold the patent. That's why the Xbox couldn't play DVDs out of the box. It looks like they've given the controllers the necessary functionality to play DVDs as well, driving up the cost slightly. I'm wondering if it wouldn't have just been better to build the technology into the console though? Maybe I'm off the mark on this one and MS is just raising prices to make more money.
iPods are detected by default, as are PSPs, and by our watch it took about 2 or 3 seconds for the Xbox 360 to notice they were there. With an iPod plugged in you can play music direct through the Dashboard software, with visualisations, or you can play a slideshow of photographs.
That's a pretty nice feature, although you can just plug an iPod directly into a TV for a slideshow. I don't know if running through the Xbox 360 to a HD TV will result in better visuals or not though. I'm also interested in what interaction the Xbox 360 will be able to have with the PSP beyond what is listed.
Xbox Live will allow you to play in various Zones - there will be causal, pro, family, and underground (where "anything goes") and perhaps more - and these will allow you to go for whatever kind of experience you like.
I'm pretty big on this feature. I just got Xbox Live a short while ago so I could play with my friends online. I've noticed there are a lot of assholes on Live and would like to avoid them if possible. The current Halo 2 scene on there is generally not something for young children. It is funny to hear someone yell, "I'm going to skull rape your mother!" to someone and blast them with a shotgun, but it's probably not something I'd want any of my children to hear or repeat.
The wireless networking adapter plugs into the USB 2.0 port on the back of the console and is "like a small pack of cigarettes" in terms of size.
I'd like to know if third party wireless network adapters will be able to work. Right now I've got my Xbox on the wireless network in my apartment. I could probably just use the current setup and run a cord from ethernet jack to the wireless adapter, but it can get a little laggy at times, especially with the poor internet service. But at $99, the adapter from MS seems a little expensive.
You can plug in a keyboard but this is for text input only - including in massively-multiplayer games. You can't use it to play games and that was a design choice.
Probably a good choice. If you could get a mouse and keyboard to play an FPS, you'd probably have an edge over gamers using controllers. Point and click sniping is a lot easier than manipulating analog sticks in my opinion. It might be nice to give people the option of playing with a keyboard and mouse though. This would open up the console to more traditional PC games like RTS and other FPS games. Just don't allow keyboard//mouse users to play against controller users.
Likewise, the System blade allows greater control over family settings. Micros
In fact, it would almost certainly cost more if they tried to make a hard drive that had exactly 8 MB of space and no more because the parts for it are no longer mass produced. The easiest way would be to make a 40 GB hard drive and seal off everything after the first 8 MB. Of course who in the hell wants a 8 MB hard drive anyhow?
If you're an Apple person, then you're already likely seeing 120 GB drives as standard if you own an iMac or one of their other top tier computers. The same is probably true if you buy a gaming rig from Alienware or some other company that specializes in high performance computers.
As technology progresses to the point where it's easy and cheap to cram 120 GB into a hard drive then they will become more standard as we pave way towards bigger and bigger drives. Do most people really need 120 GB hard drive? Not really, in my opinion, but it'll be nice for the Google's of the world who want to give us 2 GB of inbox space.
Of course, people will continue to become more tech savvy and start to put more digital photographs and eventually videos on their computers. 40 GB can hold a lot of pictures, but 120 GB is better suited for having a lot of video content stored on your hard drive.
In 10 years we'll likely be measuring drive sizes in TB instead of GB, laughing about the days when computers only came with 40 GB HDs and single core processors, kind of like how we laugh about how computers from the 80's had HDs that measured in MBs and RAM that measued in KB!
After all, the people who buy into Google really don't give a shit what it does or how it does it as long as it makes money and pays good dividends. I don't know exactly what portion of Google will be in "public hands" after this, but if they've sold off enough of the company they could just wind up like almost every other company in the business.
Maybe I'm sounding a little paranoid, but I really think that going public and giving partial ownership of your company to people who don't share your creative vision is just a bad idea. I don't invest in the market myself, so I can't speak for everyone, but isn't the point to make money? Eventually a unique company like Google that's been pushing new and innovative technology and forcing competitors to work just as hard to keep up, will eventually stagnate and become more of a conservative business that would rather rest on its laurels and make money rather than strike out an pioneer new grounds in the industry.
Would a company all about the money offer 2GB email inbox sizes, a wonderful and easy to use online mapping service, and a great search service? Personally I think they'd turn out a little more like Microsoft, spending more time talking about all the innovative things they're doing rather than actually doing them and settling into a state of mediocrity.
For $100 I can get a 200GB HD that really could turn an Xbox 360 into a media center. 20 GB just isn't going to do it for me.
A hard drive actually has a lot more value to me than the rest of the stuff. Don't want to bother with batteries or charge times for a wireless controller. Don't need an ethernet cable since I already have some, can get them cheaper elsewhere, or make one if I really have to. I hope the remote control isn't required for DVD playback, which just gives me more reason to hack the sucker, but if it is I'll just use a DVD player. The wireless headset doesn't really do much for me either since if I mod/hack the box I probably won't be able to play Live.
On the other hand they could just as easily use some type of HD that I can't just go out and buy. Which means I'll probably be stuck paying $50 (or more!) for a hard drive that's maybe worth $20. If this is the case I don't forsee myself getting an Xbox 360 until there are some major price cuts.
I know I don't speak for all of us, but for some of us, the HD is probably the least useless part of the package.
While having LoZ:TP out in time for the Xbox 360 launch could steal away some of the Xbox 360's thunder and possibly change a few minds, I don't think it would do anything drastic. Slashing prices on the GameCube and offering bundles with the best games on the system already might be a better option.
If this article has any truth to it, Sony might be gearing up to drastically cut prices on the PS2. If Sony can do this, what's stopping Nintendo from lowering the price of a GameCube to $80 or less. I don't know what production costs are for one right now, but I think they could do it while remaining profitable if it suited their interests. Parents looking for a nice Christmas present for their children would be more willing to drop $80 - $100 than $300.
A great game on an old system isn't likely to push too many more sales or take away sales from competitors, but slashing the hell out of your price might do just that. Considering that Microsoft probably doens't want to lower the price of the current Xbox, firstly because it would cost them even more since they've been selling it at a loss already (it might be getting close to break even though), and secondly because the lower price would just cause more competition with their next generation console, which they might have a harder time selling than expected with all of the FUD from Sony.
Nintendo probably has some rough months ahead, but they've managed to stay out of the red quite well despite lackluster sales. Not to mention the mounds of money they've been accumulating from all the profitable times they've had for the past two decades.
You probably won't be seeing too many advertisements for tampons, but once they figure out you're male based on your viewing habits, I can easily see every other commercial being for Girls Gone Wild like they used to on late night Comedy Central (haven't watched in a while, for all I know they still do it).
Additionally, who decides which demographic you fall into? If you decide that men aged x to y watch this programming and tailor the advertising to suit men aged x to y, what happens if it's a woman or someone not in that demographic?
Of course there will also be multiple users in some households. The Father might enjoy sporting events, the mother likes nature shows, one of the younger children watches cartoons, and one of the older children likes sitcoms. Given the mixture the thing decides that sports get watched the most so it plasters beer and girls gone wild ads while the 4 year old is watching cartoons.
Keep in mind that you're still completely at the whim of whatever the company gets paid to advertise. Of course you can always just switch the channle or go do something else while the commercials are on.