That is what is called "damage control". or in plain terms, just lying out the ass.
The truth is that regardless of motion sensing or not, the PS3 cannot have rumble because Sony got their asses sued for being thieving asshats. Immersion won a lawsuit to the tune of $90M and an injunction against the dualshock.
Nintendo's whole opinion on the matter seems to be "If you like it so far, just wait and see what else we can do!. If not, fuck you."
It's a good philosophy, I wish more people would follow it. It leads to innovation, rather than being a slave to a small core of loud whiny people with no imagination.
We've actually done studies in this country that show people will sometimes resign themselves to a so-so tv show if the remote control is missing rather than get up and change channels until they find something better.
TV shows don't cost $400+. Any such study is irrelevant.
Wii is the only true next-generation system, as it is the only one with a controller that allows next-generation gameplay. The other systems have lots of power but it is wasted on last-generation gameplay.
Wii also offers last-gen gameplay in the form of the classic download service, but for new games it's time to move on to next-gen gameplay.
The best part of the Time article:
It's a remarkable experience. Instead of passively playing the games, with the new controller you physically perform them. You act them out. It's almost like theater: the fourth wall between game and player dissolves. The sense of immersion-the illusion that you, personally, are projected into the game world-is powerful. And there's an instant party atmosphere in the room. One advantage of the new controller is that it not only is fun, it looks fun. When you play with an old-style controller, you look like a loser, a blank-eyed joystick fondler. But when you're jumping around and shaking your hulamaker, everybody's having a good time.
After getting a tate of next-generation gameplay, everything else seems old and busted.
You don't want to be a blank-eyed joystick fondler, do you?
"Sometimes things are just plain fine for awile and don't really need any adjusting. The bicycle has had the same design for at least the last 50 years. Would you be willing to try one from a company that decided to be "innovative" and rotate the handlebars 180 degrees?"
You know what would be cool? If someone took the just fine bicycle design, and added some innovation, like say a combustion engine, so that the bicycle could go really fast and you wouldn't have to pedal. Now that would be cool. I hope someone makes something like that someday.
No, nevermind. The bicycle is "just fine". Innovation is teh dumb.
... is it possible? Could we use the same P2P technology to basically run a "virtual internet" with it's own transfer protocols and DNS system? Everybody would share bandwidth and storage space, no centralization needed.
I thought I heard of some project called "freenet" or something like that a few years back, I wonder if that's how it worked, or if that project is still alive.
That Time magazine article was great. If the general public is half as impressed as Time was, then Wii is going to seriously disrupt the entire game industry.
My favorite part of the article:
"It's a remarkable experience. Instead of passively playing the games, with the new controller you physically perform them. You act them out. It's almost like theater: the fourth wall between game and player dissolves. The sense of immersion-the illusion that you, personally, are projected into the game world-is powerful. And there's an instant party atmosphere in the room. One advantage of the new controller is that it not only is fun, it looks fun. When you play with an old-style controller, you look like a loser, a blank-eyed joystick fondler. But when you're jumping around and shaking your hulamaker, everybody's having a good time."
Wow. Time Magazine basically called out PS3 and X360 as being old and busted systems for loser joystick fondlers. Ouch.
"Back in 1998/1999 Microsoft was trying to determine where the next threat to their control of the home-computer market was going to come from.
-------
Now, Microsoft believes that their greatest threat comes from web-based systems so do they still believe that losing money on consoles is their best approach?"
There is some truth to that, but there is more to the picture than you are looking at.
M$ realizes that there is an end of the road to their traditional business model. THere is only so many improvements to an O$ and Office Suite that can be made. Eventually tehre is less need to upgrade. So this is why they are making some changes - first, by going to a subscription-based software model. This will help prevent the PC software well from going dry.
The next big change is to get into the consumer electronics business, and content distribution business (a la iTMS or even on-demand cable systems). Consoles are only a small part of this. THere is so much more, from PDA type devices, to media PC, to game console, to home media server, to media services like Xbox Live and movies/music on demand, and virtual marketplace. In short, M$ and Sony are battling not just about games, but for control of the heart of the digital home and digital lifestyle. You better believe that M$ will spend every last dollar in this fight, because they know that they will be the last man standing in a money war.
"On the other hand the ps2 has been enormously profitable."
Take a look at the chart. The hard data is there. There is a more detailed thread that has more info by quarter. All this info is from publicly available financial reports filed by each company.
After you strip away "revenue" (Sony always has big revenue numbers) by balancing it with costs, you get the real operating profits.
Here is the last 3 years:
Sony $1.252 Billion
Nintendo $2.747 Billion*
Also note the star, because Nintendo's lastest quarter has not been announced yet. It is expected (by normal precedent as well as forecast upgrades) that this quarter was huge, around the $500+ Million range. This would put Nintendo at around 3.4 billion, nearly 3x that of Sony.
And although Sony has turned out a profit for the last 3 years overall, it has very erratic quarterly behavior, with a few losing quarters recently, while Nintendo is always rock solid and consistent. Very intersting that Sony had a great unexpected 3Q 2005 at $500+ million, then recently announced that Q4 2005 was a $500 Million loser. That's a billion dollar turn around in 3 months, and the real hardware costs of the PS3 haven't even started yet.
Think hard about it and wonder why, with 80+ million PS2 consoles, and a zillion software licenses per quarter, Sony can still manage to lose half a billion dollars? The PSP is a money pit, and PS3 is a nightmare trainwreck of over-engineering and design changes. Even when Wii-volution launches, the costs will be low and Nintendo will turn a profit. They have only had one losing quarter in over 40 years of public trading.
Yes, Xbox loses even more money. But M$ is prepared to outspend Sony into oblivion. Nintendo is taking the smart route of getting the hell out of the way.
M$ can handle the enormous costs. Sony is barely scraping by right now with the hardware costs of the failed PSP. The PS3 costs and failure will be their undoing. Never underestrimate M$ viciousness, when they smell blood they go for the kill.
Oh and in case anyone wants real, comprehensive financial data, here is a chart that shows profits/loss for Nintendo, Sony (game division) and M$ (game division) by quarter for the last 3 years.
It's so crazy it might work. For every person who got angry or turned off by the name, there will be 10 people who are curious about what it means.
In the end, the acceptance of the name will depend on the success of the console, not the other way around.
OT, but I saw some posts regarding the financial strength of Sony and Nintendo. Here is the hard data. Sony is barely scraping by, Nintendo is very strong.
Sony
Operating Income/Loss per Segment (Q4 Ended March 31, 2006) (in millions)
Electronics: ($785) loss
Games: ($525) loss
Pictures: $258
Financial Services: $678
Other: ($88) loss
"No, the real problem is, quite simply, Hollywood can NOT make a movie where the story is already written for them and the market for that story is pre-built-in. They can't HELP but change it based on market testing, on director's "creative" whims and seniour executive's cocaine fueled brain farts... Only to discover after the fact that the original story that sold so well as a game was, in fact, quite good and was the primary reason why the franchise was so popular in the first place, and that changing it to make it more saleable actually made it less appealing to everyone."
You have to understand that this is a necesary evil. A game can sell 1 million copies and be profitable, because games are $50 or so. If the movie is made to appeal to the fans of the game, then they can expect (best case scenario) that every person who bought the game will see the movie. That makes for a grand total of 1 million movie tickets at $9... or $9 Million revenue for a movie, which by all means is a horrible flop. Lets not even get into the fact that most fans of the game will still hate the movie no matter how good it is, because you can't condense 40 hours of gameplay into a 2 hour movie and keep everybody happy.
Therefore, the movie must be broadened to appeal to a wider audience.
Video game movies are kinda like pr0n stories.
on
Why Game Movies Stink
·
· Score: 1
Video game movies are kinda like pr0n stories. They really only serve the purpose of transitioning one scene to the next, but the core of the experience is in the action of the scene itself. If you tried to make an awesome story for a pr0n movie, you would end up with very little pr0n because you spend so much time developing characters and plot that there is hardly any room left for anything else. Same scenario for games. You either have to make the movie 12 hours long, or you have to cut some things out.
Re:It's a problem with the videogames NOT the movi
on
Why Game Movies Stink
·
· Score: 1
I agree completely.
Let's also face the hard facts - video games have stupid stories.
That's why I laugh when I read gamers saying silly things like "omg Metal Gear has teh awesome story!!"... no, it doesn't. It's stupid, just like 99% of all games. Half-Life? Stupid. Resident Evil? Stupid. Final Fantasy? Stupid. Pokemon? Stupid. Zelda? Stupid.
To understand why games have stupid stories, you have to understand game design and the relationship the design and the story have. You always start out with your outlines and your targets, but eventually things have to be tweaked. When the game design is tweaked, the story has to be changed, and vice-versa. Gameplay is about possibilities, stories are about linearity. There's not a lot of room for compatibility.
That's why I specifically said "what console has better graphics than X360".
Yes, you can spend money to your hearts content and build a powerful PC, but that makes X360 unique in what way, exactly? At what point in history have you not been able to buy a PC which was more powerful than a console?
Last but not least, how does your ability to buy a PC have any bearing on the position of M$ in the console market?
"Microsoft is playing catch up in the next generation console market they had hoped to define."
X360 *is* the next-generation of gaming, and they *have* defined it, because no other next-gen consoles are out yet. So who exactly are they iplaying catch-up in the next generation with?
"Microsoft deciding to be more family friendly now means they completely missed their mark"
No, it means that they are concerned with Nintendo, who has an actual functioning product and is ready to hit the market soon at a reasonable price. Sony has delayed and priced themselves out of the market, so Nintendo is the focus now. If PS3 were a tangible threat, M$ would be saying the exact opposite and harping about how hardcore they are.
And as others have pointed out, this is also a bit of reverse-marketing. "We are too hardcore for our own good! w00t! lolz"
"They are now the only company where you have to pay to play online. There entire online service as a revenue generating machine pretty much looks like a joke now that Sony and Nintendo are providing the same types of services for free."
Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection is great, but it's far behind Xbox Live in features.
Sony online, I'll believe it when I see it (they promised the exact same thing for PS2, how did that turn out?) Sony doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because of their history of hype and lying. PS3 will be 4D? Puh-leeze.
"They talked up the graphic power of the machine but those claims have become a joke."
What other consoles have games that look better than the best X360 games? Vaporware and tech demos don't count.
"Seriously, 6-year-olds don't really care that much about the latest thing. They like video games, but if left to themselves I think it's about as likely they'd go for the PacMan as the revolution."
3 Words for you: Revolution Download Service.
You/he/she can play lots of classic games for a cheap price.
"you're going to add 20-30$ to the cost of the game for the attachment alone."
Huh? What part of "included in the box" are you not understanding?
"Standardized interfaces exist because it allows developers to map the controls they want to a widely accepted standard."
Standardized interfaces exist because 99.9% of hardware and software developers are afraid to innovate. Why aren't you using the same controller that you were using in 1985? Because somebody powerful and brave enough came along and changed the standard. And they changed it again in 1991, and again in 1995. Guess who did that?
"I'm positive that the Revolution's controller is going to be absolutely phenomenal, but only with a handful of games."
Phenomenal for some games, and in the worst cases, just as good as any other controller. Don't forget that Revo can use GameCube controllers, and also new shells for the remote that can give it traditional controls while retaining the positional functionality.
"Games like Guitar Hero have shown that Nintendo doesn't really corner the market on unique controllers."
Comparing a standard controller with a non-standard add-on is rather pointless.
Hey, maybe if you created something otehr than a Super Monkey Ball rip-off, then maybe I'd care what you think.
Seriously, if thinking of something new hurts your brain that much, then maybe it's a good thing you stick with your own kind on Playstation.
Slashdot Mirror
You get UMD Versions with every new DVD release of a movie.
Haha, nope. Hollywood studios cut support for UMD.
I gather the PS2 is selling well and still generating revenue, no?
It is generating revenue, but it is not generating profit. In fact, Sony lost half a billion dollars in the last 3 months, despite all the revenues from PS2 game sales.
And the manufacturing costs of the PS3 haven't even hit home yet. Sony is sunk.
That is what is called "damage control". or in plain terms, just lying out the ass.
The truth is that regardless of motion sensing or not, the PS3 cannot have rumble because Sony got their asses sued for being thieving asshats. Immersion won a lawsuit to the tune of $90M and an injunction against the dualshock.
I'm not an expert, but the awkwardness you speak of might be due to the individual trying to plug a dualshock into their X-Box.
/the more you know...
Dualshock -> Xbox adapter.
Nintendo's whole opinion on the matter seems to be "If you like it so far, just wait and see what else we can do!. If not, fuck you."
It's a good philosophy, I wish more people would follow it. It leads to innovation, rather than being a slave to a small core of loud whiny people with no imagination.
We've actually done studies in this country that show people will sometimes resign themselves to a so-so tv show if the remote control is missing rather than get up and change channels until they find something better.
TV shows don't cost $400+. Any such study is irrelevant.
Wii is the only true next-generation system, as it is the only one with a controller that allows next-generation gameplay. The other systems have lots of power but it is wasted on last-generation gameplay.
Wii also offers last-gen gameplay in the form of the classic download service, but for new games it's time to move on to next-gen gameplay.
The best part of the Time article:
It's a remarkable experience. Instead of passively playing the games, with the new controller you physically perform them. You act them out. It's almost like theater: the fourth wall between game and player dissolves. The sense of immersion-the illusion that you, personally, are projected into the game world-is powerful. And there's an instant party atmosphere in the room. One advantage of the new controller is that it not only is fun, it looks fun. When you play with an old-style controller, you look like a loser, a blank-eyed joystick fondler. But when you're jumping around and shaking your hulamaker, everybody's having a good time.
After getting a tate of next-generation gameplay, everything else seems old and busted.
You don't want to be a blank-eyed joystick fondler, do you?
"Sometimes things are just plain fine for awile and don't really need any adjusting. The bicycle has had the same design for at least the last 50 years. Would you be willing to try one from a company that decided to be "innovative" and rotate the handlebars 180 degrees?"
You know what would be cool? If someone took the just fine bicycle design, and added some innovation, like say a combustion engine, so that the bicycle could go really fast and you wouldn't have to pedal. Now that would be cool. I hope someone makes something like that someday.
No, nevermind. The bicycle is "just fine". Innovation is teh dumb.
... is it possible? Could we use the same P2P technology to basically run a "virtual internet" with it's own transfer protocols and DNS system? Everybody would share bandwidth and storage space, no centralization needed. I thought I heard of some project called "freenet" or something like that a few years back, I wonder if that's how it worked, or if that project is still alive.
That Time magazine article was great. If the general public is half as impressed as Time was, then Wii is going to seriously disrupt the entire game industry.
My favorite part of the article:
"It's a remarkable experience. Instead of passively playing the games, with the new controller you physically perform them. You act them out. It's almost like theater: the fourth wall between game and player dissolves. The sense of immersion-the illusion that you, personally, are projected into the game world-is powerful. And there's an instant party atmosphere in the room. One advantage of the new controller is that it not only is fun, it looks fun. When you play with an old-style controller, you look like a loser, a blank-eyed joystick fondler. But when you're jumping around and shaking your hulamaker, everybody's having a good time."
Wow. Time Magazine basically called out PS3 and X360 as being old and busted systems for loser joystick fondlers. Ouch.
"Back in 1998/1999 Microsoft was trying to determine where the next threat to their control of the home-computer market was going to come from.
-------
Now, Microsoft believes that their greatest threat comes from web-based systems so do they still believe that losing money on consoles is their best approach?"
There is some truth to that, but there is more to the picture than you are looking at.
M$ realizes that there is an end of the road to their traditional business model. THere is only so many improvements to an O$ and Office Suite that can be made. Eventually tehre is less need to upgrade. So this is why they are making some changes - first, by going to a subscription-based software model. This will help prevent the PC software well from going dry.
The next big change is to get into the consumer electronics business, and content distribution business (a la iTMS or even on-demand cable systems). Consoles are only a small part of this. THere is so much more, from PDA type devices, to media PC, to game console, to home media server, to media services like Xbox Live and movies/music on demand, and virtual marketplace. In short, M$ and Sony are battling not just about games, but for control of the heart of the digital home and digital lifestyle. You better believe that M$ will spend every last dollar in this fight, because they know that they will be the last man standing in a money war.
Here is another write-up I did on the battle for the digital home.
"On the other hand the ps2 has been enormously profitable."
Take a look at the chart. The hard data is there. There is a more detailed thread that has more info by quarter. All this info is from publicly available financial reports filed by each company.
After you strip away "revenue" (Sony always has big revenue numbers) by balancing it with costs, you get the real operating profits.
Here is the last 3 years:
Sony $1.252 Billion
Nintendo $2.747 Billion*
Also note the star, because Nintendo's lastest quarter has not been announced yet. It is expected (by normal precedent as well as forecast upgrades) that this quarter was huge, around the $500+ Million range. This would put Nintendo at around 3.4 billion, nearly 3x that of Sony.
And although Sony has turned out a profit for the last 3 years overall, it has very erratic quarterly behavior, with a few losing quarters recently, while Nintendo is always rock solid and consistent. Very intersting that Sony had a great unexpected 3Q 2005 at $500+ million, then recently announced that Q4 2005 was a $500 Million loser. That's a billion dollar turn around in 3 months, and the real hardware costs of the PS3 haven't even started yet.
Think hard about it and wonder why, with 80+ million PS2 consoles, and a zillion software licenses per quarter, Sony can still manage to lose half a billion dollars? The PSP is a money pit, and PS3 is a nightmare trainwreck of over-engineering and design changes. Even when Wii-volution launches, the costs will be low and Nintendo will turn a profit. They have only had one losing quarter in over 40 years of public trading.
Yes, Xbox loses even more money. But M$ is prepared to outspend Sony into oblivion. Nintendo is taking the smart route of getting the hell out of the way.
M$ can handle the enormous costs. Sony is barely scraping by right now with the hardware costs of the failed PSP. The PS3 costs and failure will be their undoing. Never underestrimate M$ viciousness, when they smell blood they go for the kill.
Here is an article I wrote last year about the coming decline of Sony marketshare in the game biz, and the resulting overall financial disaster for Sony Corp as a whole.
Oh and in case anyone wants real, comprehensive financial data, here is a chart that shows profits/loss for Nintendo, Sony (game division) and M$ (game division) by quarter for the last 3 years.
"Ultra 64 == amazingly powerful
Nintendo 64 == bland and meaningless
Dolphin == agile and ellegant
Gamecube == bland and meaningless"
Hogwash. Try it like this:
Ultra 64 == cheesy and exagerrated, nondescript
Nintendo 64 == a 64-bit Nintendo game system
Dolphin == a freaking fish, not a game system, nondescript
Gamecube == a cube that plays games
It's so crazy it might work. For every person who got angry or turned off by the name, there will be 10 people who are curious about what it means.
In the end, the acceptance of the name will depend on the success of the console, not the other way around.
OT, but I saw some posts regarding the financial strength of Sony and Nintendo. Here is the hard data. Sony is barely scraping by, Nintendo is very strong.
Sony
Operating Income/Loss per Segment (Q4 Ended March 31, 2006) (in millions)
Electronics: ($785) loss
Games: ($525) loss
Pictures: $258
Financial Services: $678
Other: ($88) loss
Detailed reports here.
"No, the real problem is, quite simply, Hollywood can NOT make a movie where the story is already written for them and the market for that story is pre-built-in. They can't HELP but change it based on market testing, on director's "creative" whims and seniour executive's cocaine fueled brain farts... Only to discover after the fact that the original story that sold so well as a game was, in fact, quite good and was the primary reason why the franchise was so popular in the first place, and that changing it to make it more saleable actually made it less appealing to everyone."
You have to understand that this is a necesary evil. A game can sell 1 million copies and be profitable, because games are $50 or so. If the movie is made to appeal to the fans of the game, then they can expect (best case scenario) that every person who bought the game will see the movie. That makes for a grand total of 1 million movie tickets at $9... or $9 Million revenue for a movie, which by all means is a horrible flop. Lets not even get into the fact that most fans of the game will still hate the movie no matter how good it is, because you can't condense 40 hours of gameplay into a 2 hour movie and keep everybody happy.
Therefore, the movie must be broadened to appeal to a wider audience.
Video game movies are kinda like pr0n stories. They really only serve the purpose of transitioning one scene to the next, but the core of the experience is in the action of the scene itself. If you tried to make an awesome story for a pr0n movie, you would end up with very little pr0n because you spend so much time developing characters and plot that there is hardly any room left for anything else. Same scenario for games. You either have to make the movie 12 hours long, or you have to cut some things out.
I agree completely.
Let's also face the hard facts - video games have stupid stories.
That's why I laugh when I read gamers saying silly things like "omg Metal Gear has teh awesome story!!"... no, it doesn't. It's stupid, just like 99% of all games. Half-Life? Stupid. Resident Evil? Stupid. Final Fantasy? Stupid. Pokemon? Stupid. Zelda? Stupid.
To understand why games have stupid stories, you have to understand game design and the relationship the design and the story have. You always start out with your outlines and your targets, but eventually things have to be tweaked. When the game design is tweaked, the story has to be changed, and vice-versa. Gameplay is about possibilities, stories are about linearity. There's not a lot of room for compatibility.
That's why I specifically said "what console has better graphics than X360".
Yes, you can spend money to your hearts content and build a powerful PC, but that makes X360 unique in what way, exactly? At what point in history have you not been able to buy a PC which was more powerful than a console?
Last but not least, how does your ability to buy a PC have any bearing on the position of M$ in the console market?
Wow, what kind of morons do you think are running Nintendo? The kind that would release the Virtual Boy.
The people people responsible for Virtual Boy are no longer running the company, so your comment is baseless.
"Microsoft is playing catch up in the next generation console market they had hoped to define."
X360 *is* the next-generation of gaming, and they *have* defined it, because no other next-gen consoles are out yet. So who exactly are they iplaying catch-up in the next generation with?
"Microsoft deciding to be more family friendly now means they completely missed their mark"
No, it means that they are concerned with Nintendo, who has an actual functioning product and is ready to hit the market soon at a reasonable price. Sony has delayed and priced themselves out of the market, so Nintendo is the focus now. If PS3 were a tangible threat, M$ would be saying the exact opposite and harping about how hardcore they are.
And as others have pointed out, this is also a bit of reverse-marketing. "We are too hardcore for our own good! w00t! lolz"
"They are now the only company where you have to pay to play online. There entire online service as a revenue generating machine pretty much looks like a joke now that Sony and Nintendo are providing the same types of services for free."
Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection is great, but it's far behind Xbox Live in features.
Sony online, I'll believe it when I see it (they promised the exact same thing for PS2, how did that turn out?) Sony doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because of their history of hype and lying. PS3 will be 4D? Puh-leeze.
"They talked up the graphic power of the machine but those claims have become a joke."
What other consoles have games that look better than the best X360 games? Vaporware and tech demos don't count.
"Seriously, 6-year-olds don't really care that much about the latest thing. They like video games, but if left to themselves I think it's about as likely they'd go for the PacMan as the revolution."
3 Words for you: Revolution Download Service.
You/he/she can play lots of classic games for a cheap price.
"Personally, I'd hate to be a developer who can't make the game I want because of a non-standard controller and sub-par hardware."
Then be a PC developer.
"you're going to add 20-30$ to the cost of the game for the attachment alone."
Huh? What part of "included in the box" are you not understanding?
"Standardized interfaces exist because it allows developers to map the controls they want to a widely accepted standard."
Standardized interfaces exist because 99.9% of hardware and software developers are afraid to innovate. Why aren't you using the same controller that you were using in 1985? Because somebody powerful and brave enough came along and changed the standard. And they changed it again in 1991, and again in 1995. Guess who did that?
"I'm positive that the Revolution's controller is going to be absolutely phenomenal, but only with a handful of games."
Phenomenal for some games, and in the worst cases, just as good as any other controller. Don't forget that Revo can use GameCube controllers, and also new shells for the remote that can give it traditional controls while retaining the positional functionality.
"Games like Guitar Hero have shown that Nintendo doesn't really corner the market on unique controllers."
Comparing a standard controller with a non-standard add-on is rather pointless.
Hey, maybe if you created something otehr than a Super Monkey Ball rip-off, then maybe I'd care what you think. Seriously, if thinking of something new hurts your brain that much, then maybe it's a good thing you stick with your own kind on Playstation.