I'd be willing to bet that a player using a console-style controller versus a player of similar skill using the traditional PC mouse/WASD combo would get destroyed every time. I'm an experienced FPS player (since Wolfenstein 3D) and, having seen friends who are evidently considered "good" at Halo, I'm confident that I could wipe the floor with any one of them mostly due to vastly superior control.
If you want to argue that console controllers are optimal for sports, platformers, fighting, or driving games, then I fully agree. But I defy you to come up with a superior control scheme for FPS games to the mouse/WASD combo. There's a reason that PC gamers and console gamers aren't matched up online: the people using the controllers will be annihilated.
A very recent patch just fixed the camera to be much closer to NWN. Prior to that patch, the camera was *appalling*, and it was more work to get a decent viewing point than it was to play the encounters. How such an terrible camera system made it past beta, I can't imagine. Indeed, I don't understand why they chose to change something that certainly wasn't broken in NWN. Regardless, I suspect pre-patch camera issues are what most people are referring to. Personally, I own NWN2 but decided not to play it until the camera was fixed and the dual-wield functionality was fixed. Both of these were taken care of in the most recent patch, so I'll be giving the game another shot after finals.
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to spend thousands of pounds on the worlds biggest turnip, and to feed my cat Milk, Bloody Milk! Well, based on his appreciation for that particular bit of humour, I thought he'd get more of a kick out of the latter three series. It was just a wild stab in the dark. Which, incidentally, is what you'll be getting if you don't start being more helpful!
Could you tell me where you found that or is it an original creation? It's going on my quoteboard. You, sir, must immediately watch Blackadder II through Forth, skipping the reprehensible blot on the series that was the first.
Understand that she's probably "getting a little nuts" from insecurity. It's important that she understands that, while you've burnt out on your job, you haven't burnt out on life or her, and have every intention of becoming gainfully employed in (one hopes) a more satisfying career. Perhaps you might find a short-term occupation that brings in a little income while still allowing you to recover from burn-out. Consider landscaping, perhaps.:)
Personally, I have an idea about what to do: use a nonlinear curve to tax assets. That's an interesting idea. I think it would run into some complications for non-liquid assets, but I certainly can see how it would work. I'm curious: where do you propose that the excess funds go? Do you envision something along the lines of Bush's tax-refund cheques or would it simply be placed in some sort of General Fund? How would corporations (currently treated as a "person") operate under this scheme? Since many corporations have assets dramatically exceeding any reasonable value of X (such as would apply to any private individual), would a value of X exist for corporations and, if not, what prevents individuals such as Gates having the vast majority of their net worth in stocks?
The phrase "point of a gun" (or "end of a gun") is a coded phrase for Libertarianism/Objectivism. I suppose it is, and I will confess to having been influenced by Rand's ideas in my more youthful past, although rather less so as time has gone on.
Since then I've found numerous critiques of Libertarianism/Objectivism (for all practical purposes the same thing, though purists will differ) and remain committed to avoiding accepting any "one truth" that explains it all. People are complicated, but fundamentally human nature is constant regardless of social background. Some people steal, rich and poor. Some people work hard, rich and poor. And here we are in complete agreement: ideal systems are perfect until you put people into the equation. I believe that the reason Socialism or Communism will never succeed as social or economic systems is because they ignore (or idealise) human nature. Capitalism is arguably more successful precisely because it focuses on several innate characteristics of human nature.
So I tend to think that the problem is still complicated and ultimately a question of psychology and education rather than economics. I suspect that it's even more complicated that you suggest, with the number of variables exceeding the capacity of any one individual to fully comprehend them. At best, we make an approximation of what is right and try to get by. The inclusion of ethics and economic mathematics into a thoroughly messy set of human interactions will doubtless keep the arguments raging for many, many years.
Income earned by exchanging time and skill is certainly deserved. Income accumulated through financial mechanisms that require no time or skill on the part of the recipient is debatable. Fair enough, although one might argue that such a situation is simply reaping the benefit of what one has already sown. Of course, schemes such as social security provide precisely the same sort of benefit in the sense that one ostensibly contributes to a fund that then pays out dividends for retirement. Do you perceive a difference between an individual who lives off of stock dividends (previously paid for with earnings) and an individual who contributes to SS via taxes and receives SS funds?
That person would be able to do nothing the rest of their lives and still the foundation would grow and provide even larger incomes for more of their descendants. After two generations it could a dozen people living $100,000 per year lives. Given that those lucky beneficiaries are living in flat violation to the American work ethic, when is it OK to say enough? Here I'll freely admit that I'm torn. On the one hand, I certainly support the idea that property (and thus wealth) is private and that one should be able to pass such assets to whomsoever one chooses to. On the other hand, your point is well-taken that this may quickly lead to the Paris Hiltons and Bush twins of the world. I personally choose to earn my own way in the world (which is fortunate, given that I have no other choice) and have benefited from tax-funded education opportunities. I concede the point.
Now let's add two twists.
First, suppose I accumulated that $1 million a hundred fifty years ago using slave labor. To turn your previous question back upon you, when is it okay to say enough? If you choose to start judging the merits of current wealth holdings on the basis of origins, how far back do you go? If firms benefiting from assets traced back to slavery should have to pay, then what else must be done? Must Colorado and California be returned to Mexico because we took them by force? Should the firms who benefited from slave labour pass the bill on to the descendant firms of the Dutch East India Company? If I understand your logic, one could reasonably argue that *all* money in the U.S. is blood money of one sort or another. At some point, one must choose an arbitrary point at which to say "nothing before this counts". What point should that be?
Oh, you're a Libertarian. Nevermind then. We live in a perfect meritocracy where the current economic situation does in fact absolutely reflect the ethical Good. Carry on then. An unworthy end to an otherwise well-argued post. My statement was a simple acknowledgement that anything mandatory in a society is ultimately enforced with the threat of violence. Even if one chooses to voluntarily comply, it doesn't change the threat of violence for non-compliance; a point that, when debating the ethics of forced redistribution of wealth (as opposed to voluntary redistribution through charity, I believe should be taken into consideration.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
Just because a capitalist economy has happened to distribute wealth in such and such a manner does not imply that those who received the wealth that they did are somehow ethically justified in spending that wealth. Here is your error. Capitalist economies are not random number generators, distributing wealth according to some obscure algorithm. Your premise seems based on the idea that wealth is "received" rather than earned, and that some individuals are simply 'lucky'. Were we to accept this premise, then clearly the fair thing to do would be to redistribute the unearned wealth equitably.
However the cold, hard truth is the Bob up in Ottawa is simply worth less to society than your basketball player. While Bob doubtless works hard for his money, he evidently provides services of mediocre worth to consumers and thus earns a mediocre wage. Conversely, the basketball player provides entertainment of sufficiently high quality and to a sufficiently large number of consumers that he is richly rewarded for his efforts. Thus we have the situation in which a player of a simple game has an income several orders of magnitude higher than his blue-collar counterpart. Is this ethical? I certainly believe that it is.
Further, I would argue that wealth accumulated ethically can be disposed of as the holder sees fit, and in good conscience. One would certainly hope that individuals of great wealth would choose to use it to better the world around them, but we cannot demand it. Indeed, I propose that if we, as individuals, hold any true regard for the concept of private property and the right of people to benefit from their labours, then we must necessarily defend individuals of all income levels.
Obviously the above is very basic stuff and the economic situation is vastly more complicated (e.g. educational opportunities, starting advantages, living expense ratios), but I believe it really does boil down a fundamental question once all of that has been stripped away: do we believe that a person has a right to the income they've earned?
It's all very well to talk about redistributing income "fairly" but it's all ultimately done at the point of a gun. I would argue that the ethical sword swings both ways and the moral high ground claimed by many socialists is far from it.
This article is unfair to center the attention on Indian education. I can say the same thing for US education in general. School is about regurgitation and not much else. Personally I feel that my university degree is more about how well I listen to directions and follow orders than thinking. I disagree, at least for the science courses I've taken. My organic chemistry professors delight in presenting open-ended problems and then sitting back watching us try to figure stuff out. While questions on technicalities and more obscure chemical properties are generally well-answered, other questions are usually just met with a grin and a "what do you think?" It is the opinion of the professor who teaches my current lab (an old industrial chemist) that while correctly answering a problem is important, the journey towards the answer is even more important and is where most of the actual learning happens.
But as far as a lot of the liberal arts courses, I'm more inclined to agree. In my experience, these tended to be either regurgitation or "there is no wrong answer" affairs. A lot can be learnt from these courses, but it requires self-motivation above the norm.
An increasing number of gas pumps allow bills to be inserted, automated charge payment stations at parking garages, self-checkout lines of grocery stores, etc etc. A few years ago you'd have been right but more and more devices are accepting large bills for large charges.Fair enough. I had thought more along the lines of candy and soda vending machines when commenting. For any other purpose, such as grocery store self-serve checkouts or the other examples people have given, I'm in full agreement. Of course we *could* just make everything with only card-swipe payment as an option. That way the FBI, CIA, and NSA can keep careful tabs on patriotic purchases while inconveniencing the terrorists who use cash for their subversive and antisocial "private" transactions.
"Changing the bill size would be an option... other than the fact that we probably have millions of hardware bill scanners already out there in vending machines...Meh. While the rest of your examples are indeed problematic, this one is easy: simply retain the one-dollar bill as it currently is while changing higher denomination bills. I don't see too many people shoving anything higher than singles into vending machines.
I'm just glad to see some positive press coverage of gaming for once. In terms of friendliness, camaraderie, and just plain fun, the Wii launch stood in stark contrast to the PS3 debacle. I commented some time ago in a thread that I'm a fairly hardcore PC gamer but the Wii was enough to make me consider a foray into console gaming. This launch has only solidified that temptation.
Actually, it can be done with a cardboard box and a mirror. If I recall correctly, V.S. Ramachandran detailed performing precisely the same technique in his book Phantoms of the Brain for patients who had a phantom hand that was painfully clenched into a tight fist.
In essence, he had the box and the mirror positioned such that the patient would insert his good arm into the box and have the amputated arm stump occluded. Obviously, a reflected image of the unamputated limb would appear in the mirror to the patient, who was then instructed to position the "phantom limb" such that it superimposed the mirror image. This done, the patient was then instructed to repeatedly clench and declench both hands.
Obviously only one hand was real, but the correlation between what the brain felt was happening and what the eyes reported was happening was sufficient to fool the brain into believing that the phantom fist had been unclenched and thus the phantom limb pain was eliminated. I believe that Ramachandran reported excellent success with this ingenious medical hack.
Oh, good. And here I was afraid that I'd have to finish medical school and residency to be a good doctor. Fortunately, my Google skills are top-notch, so I guess I'll just run outside and hang up my shingle right away!
Although not a scientist myself, I was under the impression that the science behind global warming predictions was considered sound by the scientific community. Although I certainly don't have time to conduct a survey of the literature at the moment, I wonder if anyone here can cite the agree/disagree ratio for peer-reviewed climate research?
Regardless, some people's strong feelings and zealous campaigning on the subject hardly rate global warming as a "religion".
PoL
Then again, perhaps you shouldn't. I'm periodically gripped by a desire to play a favourite game of yore and occasionally do go through the necessary motions to install one. I am invariably disappointed. When I first played these games back in the early nineties, there was a true sense of wonder and discovery. Somehow, along the way, I've lost that. Better then to allow those game experiences to remain golden in memory than to drag them once more into the harsh light of modern day. I'd hate for you to have your memory of AMFV tarnished in a similar manner.
regards,
PoL
I recall hearing on a science podcast a while ago that a similar technique is being tested in dentistry. It was reported that patients who wore glasses that showed them a movie were able to withstand significantly more invasive and painful procedures for longer periods of time before anesthesia was required. Since pain is created in the brain, it makes good sense that "distracting" the brain would make it significantly easier to withstand greater amounts of pain. The many anecdotes of soldiers sustaining horrendous injuries but fighting on without knowing would seem to corroborate this.
I wonder if it would be possible to train someone to consciously ignore the pain centre of the brain in this manner?
I'm really looking forward to Spore, so please don't screw it up by designing it to be "console-friendly". TFA seems to imply that the PC game will be developed first, followed by console ports. Fair enough, if that's the case. But designing games simultaneously for both consoles and PCs seems to result in console gamers saying "wow, this game is much deeper/better than most games!" while PC gamers are shaking their heads at the moronic interface while lamenting what could have been.
Oblivion is a prime example of this. Grrr.
Fair enough, and good points. However I spent enough time drooling over blister packs, poring over the books, and spilling pots of Blood Red and Ultramarine Blue all over my parents' carpet that GW products will always have a place in my heart. Even if their business practices are terrible, their product is appealing. Hell, I hadn't played anything in years but when Dawn of War and the Winter Assault RTS games came out, I bought them immediately. Worth every penny, too.
You're not alone in this thinking. However, Supreme Commander,the spiritual successor to Total Annihilation, is touted to focus far more on strategy as opposed to the more tactically oriented RTS games we're used to. I'll be interested to see exactly how strategic Supreme Commander is, since much has been made of its large maps and coordinated unit movement (with respect to arrival times at a destination). Also, Total Annihilation is one hell of a pedigree to claim.
Not bad, for a first step. Of course, he should really be working on a beta-level personality simulation such as those described in Alastair Reynolds' series of books (Revelation Space et al). With that achieved, he wouldn't even have to be involved in teaching students. Now that is a solid technological goal!
Alternatively, I *could* be a long-time PC gamer who has occasionally eyed consoles but never felt sufficiently compelled to buy one. In my eyes, the PS3 and 360 are competing directly for the dollars that would otherwise go to my desktop gaming rig. Nintendo, on the other hand, is saying "hey, we can supply you with a fun pick-up-and-play experience that's pretty cheap." That, as I stated before, may be the reason they have a winner. If Nintendo can, by supplying a decent console at an attractive price-point, finally convince me to purchase a console, isn't that success?
On price alone, I think Nintendo's going to do well. I'm not a console-gamer, but if I chose to get into console gaming, I'd go with a Wii I think. After all, I already have an incredibly expensive box full of hardware for super-pretty games: my desktop!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please.
I'd be willing to bet that a player using a console-style controller versus a player of similar skill using the traditional PC mouse/WASD combo would get destroyed every time. I'm an experienced FPS player (since Wolfenstein 3D) and, having seen friends who are evidently considered "good" at Halo, I'm confident that I could wipe the floor with any one of them mostly due to vastly superior control.
If you want to argue that console controllers are optimal for sports, platformers, fighting, or driving games, then I fully agree. But I defy you to come up with a superior control scheme for FPS games to the mouse/WASD combo. There's a reason that PC gamers and console gamers aren't matched up online: the people using the controllers will be annihilated.
A very recent patch just fixed the camera to be much closer to NWN. Prior to that patch, the camera was *appalling*, and it was more work to get a decent viewing point than it was to play the encounters. How such an terrible camera system made it past beta, I can't imagine. Indeed, I don't understand why they chose to change something that certainly wasn't broken in NWN. Regardless, I suspect pre-patch camera issues are what most people are referring to. Personally, I own NWN2 but decided not to play it until the camera was fixed and the dual-wield functionality was fixed. Both of these were taken care of in the most recent patch, so I'll be giving the game another shot after finals.
Understand that she's probably "getting a little nuts" from insecurity. It's important that she understands that, while you've burnt out on your job, you haven't burnt out on life or her, and have every intention of becoming gainfully employed in (one hopes) a more satisfying career. Perhaps you might find a short-term occupation that brings in a little income while still allowing you to recover from burn-out. Consider landscaping, perhaps. :)
The phrase "point of a gun" (or "end of a gun") is a coded phrase for Libertarianism/Objectivism. I suppose it is, and I will confess to having been influenced by Rand's ideas in my more youthful past, although rather less so as time has gone on.
Since then I've found numerous critiques of Libertarianism/Objectivism (for all practical purposes the same thing, though purists will differ) and remain committed to avoiding accepting any "one truth" that explains it all. People are complicated, but fundamentally human nature is constant regardless of social background. Some people steal, rich and poor. Some people work hard, rich and poor. And here we are in complete agreement: ideal systems are perfect until you put people into the equation. I believe that the reason Socialism or Communism will never succeed as social or economic systems is because they ignore (or idealise) human nature. Capitalism is arguably more successful precisely because it focuses on several innate characteristics of human nature.
So I tend to think that the problem is still complicated and ultimately a question of psychology and education rather than economics. I suspect that it's even more complicated that you suggest, with the number of variables exceeding the capacity of any one individual to fully comprehend them. At best, we make an approximation of what is right and try to get by. The inclusion of ethics and economic mathematics into a thoroughly messy set of human interactions will doubtless keep the arguments raging for many, many years.
cheers.
That person would be able to do nothing the rest of their lives and still the foundation would grow and provide even larger incomes for more of their descendants. After two generations it could a dozen people living $100,000 per year lives. Given that those lucky beneficiaries are living in flat violation to the American work ethic, when is it OK to say enough? Here I'll freely admit that I'm torn. On the one hand, I certainly support the idea that property (and thus wealth) is private and that one should be able to pass such assets to whomsoever one chooses to. On the other hand, your point is well-taken that this may quickly lead to the Paris Hiltons and Bush twins of the world. I personally choose to earn my own way in the world (which is fortunate, given that I have no other choice) and have benefited from tax-funded education opportunities. I concede the point.
Now let's add two twists.
First, suppose I accumulated that $1 million a hundred fifty years ago using slave labor. To turn your previous question back upon you, when is it okay to say enough? If you choose to start judging the merits of current wealth holdings on the basis of origins, how far back do you go? If firms benefiting from assets traced back to slavery should have to pay, then what else must be done? Must Colorado and California be returned to Mexico because we took them by force? Should the firms who benefited from slave labour pass the bill on to the descendant firms of the Dutch East India Company? If I understand your logic, one could reasonably argue that *all* money in the U.S. is blood money of one sort or another. At some point, one must choose an arbitrary point at which to say "nothing before this counts". What point should that be?
Oh, you're a Libertarian. Nevermind then. We live in a perfect meritocracy where the current economic situation does in fact absolutely reflect the ethical Good. Carry on then. An unworthy end to an otherwise well-argued post. My statement was a simple acknowledgement that anything mandatory in a society is ultimately enforced with the threat of violence. Even if one chooses to voluntarily comply, it doesn't change the threat of violence for non-compliance; a point that, when debating the ethics of forced redistribution of wealth (as opposed to voluntary redistribution through charity, I believe should be taken into consideration. Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
However the cold, hard truth is the Bob up in Ottawa is simply worth less to society than your basketball player. While Bob doubtless works hard for his money, he evidently provides services of mediocre worth to consumers and thus earns a mediocre wage. Conversely, the basketball player provides entertainment of sufficiently high quality and to a sufficiently large number of consumers that he is richly rewarded for his efforts. Thus we have the situation in which a player of a simple game has an income several orders of magnitude higher than his blue-collar counterpart. Is this ethical? I certainly believe that it is.
Further, I would argue that wealth accumulated ethically can be disposed of as the holder sees fit, and in good conscience. One would certainly hope that individuals of great wealth would choose to use it to better the world around them, but we cannot demand it. Indeed, I propose that if we, as individuals, hold any true regard for the concept of private property and the right of people to benefit from their labours, then we must necessarily defend individuals of all income levels.
Obviously the above is very basic stuff and the economic situation is vastly more complicated (e.g. educational opportunities, starting advantages, living expense ratios), but I believe it really does boil down a fundamental question once all of that has been stripped away: do we believe that a person has a right to the income they've earned?
It's all very well to talk about redistributing income "fairly" but it's all ultimately done at the point of a gun. I would argue that the ethical sword swings both ways and the moral high ground claimed by many socialists is far from it.
But as far as a lot of the liberal arts courses, I'm more inclined to agree. In my experience, these tended to be either regurgitation or "there is no wrong answer" affairs. A lot can be learnt from these courses, but it requires self-motivation above the norm.
Have you been following me?
An increasing number of gas pumps allow bills to be inserted, automated charge payment stations at parking garages, self-checkout lines of grocery stores, etc etc. A few years ago you'd have been right but more and more devices are accepting large bills for large charges.Fair enough. I had thought more along the lines of candy and soda vending machines when commenting. For any other purpose, such as grocery store self-serve checkouts or the other examples people have given, I'm in full agreement. Of course we *could* just make everything with only card-swipe payment as an option. That way the FBI, CIA, and NSA can keep careful tabs on patriotic purchases while inconveniencing the terrorists who use cash for their subversive and antisocial "private" transactions.
"Changing the bill size would be an option... other than the fact that we probably have millions of hardware bill scanners already out there in vending machines...Meh. While the rest of your examples are indeed problematic, this one is easy: simply retain the one-dollar bill as it currently is while changing higher denomination bills. I don't see too many people shoving anything higher than singles into vending machines.
I'm just glad to see some positive press coverage of gaming for once. In terms of friendliness, camaraderie, and just plain fun, the Wii launch stood in stark contrast to the PS3 debacle. I commented some time ago in a thread that I'm a fairly hardcore PC gamer but the Wii was enough to make me consider a foray into console gaming. This launch has only solidified that temptation.
Good work, Nintendo
Actually, it can be done with a cardboard box and a mirror. If I recall correctly, V.S. Ramachandran detailed performing precisely the same technique in his book Phantoms of the Brain for patients who had a phantom hand that was painfully clenched into a tight fist.
In essence, he had the box and the mirror positioned such that the patient would insert his good arm into the box and have the amputated arm stump occluded. Obviously, a reflected image of the unamputated limb would appear in the mirror to the patient, who was then instructed to position the "phantom limb" such that it superimposed the mirror image. This done, the patient was then instructed to repeatedly clench and declench both hands.
Obviously only one hand was real, but the correlation between what the brain felt was happening and what the eyes reported was happening was sufficient to fool the brain into believing that the phantom fist had been unclenched and thus the phantom limb pain was eliminated. I believe that Ramachandran reported excellent success with this ingenious medical hack.
Oh, good. And here I was afraid that I'd have to finish medical school and residency to be a good doctor. Fortunately, my Google skills are top-notch, so I guess I'll just run outside and hang up my shingle right away!
Although not a scientist myself, I was under the impression that the science behind global warming predictions was considered sound by the scientific community. Although I certainly don't have time to conduct a survey of the literature at the moment, I wonder if anyone here can cite the agree/disagree ratio for peer-reviewed climate research? Regardless, some people's strong feelings and zealous campaigning on the subject hardly rate global warming as a "religion". PoL
Then again, perhaps you shouldn't. I'm periodically gripped by a desire to play a favourite game of yore and occasionally do go through the necessary motions to install one. I am invariably disappointed. When I first played these games back in the early nineties, there was a true sense of wonder and discovery. Somehow, along the way, I've lost that. Better then to allow those game experiences to remain golden in memory than to drag them once more into the harsh light of modern day. I'd hate for you to have your memory of AMFV tarnished in a similar manner. regards, PoL
I recall hearing on a science podcast a while ago that a similar technique is being tested in dentistry. It was reported that patients who wore glasses that showed them a movie were able to withstand significantly more invasive and painful procedures for longer periods of time before anesthesia was required. Since pain is created in the brain, it makes good sense that "distracting" the brain would make it significantly easier to withstand greater amounts of pain. The many anecdotes of soldiers sustaining horrendous injuries but fighting on without knowing would seem to corroborate this.
I wonder if it would be possible to train someone to consciously ignore the pain centre of the brain in this manner?
Hey!
I'm really looking forward to Spore, so please don't screw it up by designing it to be "console-friendly". TFA seems to imply that the PC game will be developed first, followed by console ports. Fair enough, if that's the case. But designing games simultaneously for both consoles and PCs seems to result in console gamers saying "wow, this game is much deeper/better than most games!" while PC gamers are shaking their heads at the moronic interface while lamenting what could have been. Oblivion is a prime example of this. Grrr.
Fair enough, and good points. However I spent enough time drooling over blister packs, poring over the books, and spilling pots of Blood Red and Ultramarine Blue all over my parents' carpet that GW products will always have a place in my heart. Even if their business practices are terrible, their product is appealing. Hell, I hadn't played anything in years but when Dawn of War and the Winter Assault RTS games came out, I bought them immediately. Worth every penny, too.
You're not alone in this thinking. However, Supreme Commander,the spiritual successor to Total Annihilation, is touted to focus far more on strategy as opposed to the more tactically oriented RTS games we're used to. I'll be interested to see exactly how strategic Supreme Commander is, since much has been made of its large maps and coordinated unit movement (with respect to arrival times at a destination). Also, Total Annihilation is one hell of a pedigree to claim.
Not bad, for a first step. Of course, he should really be working on a beta-level personality simulation such as those described in Alastair Reynolds' series of books (Revelation Space et al). With that achieved, he wouldn't even have to be involved in teaching students. Now that is a solid technological goal!
Alternatively, I *could* be a long-time PC gamer who has occasionally eyed consoles but never felt sufficiently compelled to buy one. In my eyes, the PS3 and 360 are competing directly for the dollars that would otherwise go to my desktop gaming rig. Nintendo, on the other hand, is saying "hey, we can supply you with a fun pick-up-and-play experience that's pretty cheap." That, as I stated before, may be the reason they have a winner. If Nintendo can, by supplying a decent console at an attractive price-point, finally convince me to purchase a console, isn't that success?
On price alone, I think Nintendo's going to do well. I'm not a console-gamer, but if I chose to get into console gaming, I'd go with a Wii I think. After all, I already have an incredibly expensive box full of hardware for super-pretty games: my desktop!