I'm not trying to be dick or anything, but any links or references would be great. As far as I know, it has been stated that Nintendo always makes a profit on every console sold from the beginning.
I hate to break it to you, during the cold war, Iran was an ally of the US and the US provided military power to Iran in exchange for oil and being the lapdog of the US in the middle east. Then the people democratically elected Mossadegh, who decided to go against what the US wanted so, the United States initiated a Coup d'etat against a democratically elected and very popular leader in Iran in 1953 (because of oil and military interests) and imposed their own leader on the people of Iran. After years of US influence and being a US puppet in the Middle East, the Iranian people overthrew the government in a revolution. Do you think they want to overthrow this government and become a US puppet again?
Now I am going to admit that I didn't RTFA, but from your statement, I can tell you that doesn't make sense. If they had a 5% kill ratio, firing 100 of them would not give you a 99+% chance to stop the missile, because each defensive rocket they fire is an indepedent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities. The likelihood of each of those rockets successfully destroy the incoming missile is 5%, and they can all fail at the same point as each other. So, in the end, the chance to stop the incoming missile is only 5%.
As for Metroid Prime, it's a major change for the series but it still plays a lot like the other Metroid games, just with FPS elements added. Alright, so for the next Metroid game, let's make it play like Animal Crossing! WTF do you think a Metroid game will play like?
How can you be so blinded by bias, that you can't even accept the fact that Metroid Prime WAS revolutionary and innovative (even proclaimed by the big gaming sites/mags)??
Button names Cross, triangle, ball, square? Fuck! Talk about counter-intuitive. It takes time to memorize where each button is. It'd be easier if it used letters like every other controller out there.
I agree with your comments. Here is an interesting observation of the buttons.
Circle = 1 line Cross = 2 lines Triangle = 3 lines Square = 4 lines
I think somewhere, someone thought it would be smart that instead of naming them 1, 2, 3, 4, that it would be "cool" to use abstract numbering.....
So let's say I'm playing with a football and I throw it and cause the same damage etc. as your example. Do I get to sue the company that made the football? Will that company take partial responsibility? Heck I'm even using the football the way it was designed for!
How is this catering to kids? It's catering to people who don't want to deal with fucktards who curse with every 2nd word and shout into their mic and talk about how "totally wasted" or "totally high" they are. It's catering to people who don't want idiots playing loud music on the mic and having that crap being transmitted. Even though you can mute them, why should I have to put up with that crap, when I can actually have the people I want to hear and talk to from the start?
If I play with a stranger and eventually the person seems cool, I'll add them to the list.
Then you are missing out on what the DS provides. The DS is winning because of the fun games and the ease of multiplayer. I go to a movie and wait in the theater. Guess what? I see a girl with a DS and we start a multiplayer game, then other people join in. Soon we have a big group of strangers playing DS together.
Every couple I know has at least one DS now. And the amazing thing is that I have never seen so many girls with a handheld videogame device. Any where I go to, I can end up joining a multiplayer session.
How many cases have their been of home invasions compared to the US? Many of the home invasions in Canada are gang related and involve drugs and other gang related activities, and guess where most of the guns come from....smuggled from the US.
Again, the assumption that "Criminals who want guns will get them", is a fallacy because in the US a lot of criminals have guns BECAUSE of the easy access to these guns. With a few barriers of obtaining these guns, the majority of criminals won't have the ease to obtain these guns, except for really connect criminals and organized crime. These barriers won't affect law abiding citizens from obtaining guns either.
The purpose of taking away guns is so that the majority of the population/criminals probably won't take the effort to get the guns. The extreme ends of the spectrum (like all stats) will have them. One end are the law enforcement officials, hunters, gun enthusiasts willing to go through some hoops for guns, and the other end belongs to organized crime and gangs and some petty criminals who have the connections. Sure you will have exceptions, but it is far better than the situation it is now.
I actually agree with some of the stuff you said, but I must disagree with the following comment.
Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.
There is no correlation that banning guns will increase crime. The excuse has always been "Criminals who want guns will get guns, thus we need guns to protect ourselves". This may apply to the big gangs and smugglers who have far reaching contacts to get guns (if there were strict gun laws), but without the easy access to guns in the US, do you really think the majority of gun crimes committed by lowly criminals would have had the money or contacts to get a gun?
It is because of the ease of getting guns, that criminals can have access to them. Thus, the feeling that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves. As an example, in Canada again, guns aren't illegal, people can have them, but it's just harder to get them. Thus, the majority of criminals don't have guns. Sure, as I said earlier, the major gangs have them, but rarely are they involved with small time robberies, etc, and regular citizens. Unforutnately, more and more guns are being smuggled north into Canada from the US now.....
Also one more thing....even though I agree on a grand statistical scale, school killings are an exception to the rule (just like plane crashes are), it is not a minor problem. When a plane crashes, it's a MAJOR problem because it is deviating from the norm and the problem is handled until an answer surfaces. That is the same thing for school shootings. Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....As sad as it is, there are crimes that people expect and crimes that fall outside of this expectation and thus more emphasis is placed upon them. Nothing in life is just about numbers...
Except that he'd prefer to rob the store (or house) when nobody was there, since he doesn't want to get shot
I knew this would be brought up, and the answer is that this applies if a store/house having a gun is not that prevalent. However in the US and the ease of obtaining a gun, unless the criminal takes the the time to case a house/store to determine if they have a gun (and who knows if they can ever find out), then they will assume they do have gun.
Yeah, if guns were harder to get, suiciders would use something else.
If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.
Or they'll run away when a gun is produced, since they just want cash anyway.
Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.
But you can't just go into your local Walmart in Canada to buy a gun.
And the majority of the population that have guns, don't live in the major metropolitan areas.
And.....our population is similar to the population of California...yet it's spread out over this huge land mass.....
I am not going to argue if guns will prevent crimes or if guns lower crime rates, but one thing I believe is that the easy access to guns, so that everyone can have one, is the reason the US has a high gun related death rate compared to other nations.
Think about it, for example, if a criminal is robbing a store in Canada, that criminal will not have the mentality that it will be a life or death situation, since most people don't carry guns. This criminal will go in, knowing that using a big knife or something maybe good enough and that he/she won't have to kill the store owner. Now in the US, this criminal will be prepared to potentially face a person with a gun, and thus will not hesitate to protect his/her own life by either killing the clerk first, or having the mentality to kill that person.
Now some of you will say that the potential for a criminal to lose their life due to the store owner having a gun, will be the deterring factor for the criminal to NOT rob that store. But the problem is that many criminals will rob a store no matter what, due to their desperate nature/situation, and thus will use any means to rob that store. And that includes getting a gun, since that's the only way to ensure their own protection against the store owners with guns.
Many multi-platform games were not developed for the cube, but ported over. So it wasn't optimized for the Gamecube.
Look at the games that were optimized for the Gamecube, like Resident Evil 4. It destroyed what the PS2 could produce and rivaled what the XBox was producing. Heck, it won IGN's best graphics award for the year it was released.
I'm sure that PS3 1080P will look great on a standard definition TV. Where's that link showing that only 10%-20% of the population has adopted HDTV.
And I think you're a little bit behind the times or have been brainwashed by Microsoft's and Sony's "Hardcore gamer / Adult gamer" marketing scheme. The GC and DS have been praised as THE party systems and adults play them all the time. Heck, in my group of friends, each couple has at least one DS and the GC is the machine that gets all the attention from guys AND girls.
Again Microsoft's and Sony's strategy to point out Nintendo as a "kids machine" is aimed at the "I wanna be soooo hardcore and cool crowd" which is usually the 12-23 crowd, and unforutnately, they fall for it.
Expandability?
That's what we should avoid with consoles. You cannot have two standards for the same console, as the developers will then develop for the lowest common denominator to ensure maximum compatibility. By branching out, something will end up like an add-on and fade away. That's why most add-ons fail, because you can't guarantee everyone will have one, and therefore publishers are afraid they can't get the sales volume they are looking for. People don't buy consoles so they have to add on items to play, and of the games that do require an add-on, most of them, fail to live up to their potential in sales and acceptance.
As for futureproofing, that's a fallacy in buying technology. Standards and new technology are introduced so fast, that buying for the future and spending a premium on it is silly. Just think back, two years ago, stores were pushing HDTVs as "buying for the future", and people had to pay over $6000-$7000 CDN for a 42" Plasma with DVI. Yet that TV would just sit there, displaying Standard Definition, sometimes EDTV, and rarely HDTV for most of the time and not using it's full potential. Now a 42" Plasma HDTV with HDMI can be had for $2500-$3000CDN and at least now, a person can enjoy some of their channels in HDTV. So what did the person paying an additional $3000 2 years ago get? No use of the HD, DVI standard being replaced by HDMI, etc...
I'm so tired of this "inferior" graphics mentality towards Nintendo and the Gamecube.
Perhaps you didn't realize that Resident Evil 4 won for best graphics of 2005. It beat out the Xbox and the PS2.
Yes! All my training in first person shooters is going to pay off!
Now I can take my mouse and keyboard skills and go out and kill some enemy soldiers!
Or I can take my joystick skills from fighting games and pick a fight in bar!
BETTER YET! I will take my point and click (or keyboarding) skills from Leisure Suit Larry and get some girls....
If you've got money then you don't need to defer payment until a later date...
If you don't have money, and put purchases on a credit card, you're pretty much unlikely to have that money at all on the due date...
Therefore, you make small payments monthly, which seem reasonable, and you do a quick calculation in your head. $2000 at 15% APR, with minimum payments I should owe $2300 in total.. that's not bad - it's a small price to pay.
What are you talking about?
If I have money, of course I would want to defer payment as long as possible. As long as you pay your bill in full, then there's no interest charged on the bill, however I would've gained the interest with the money I kept in my account.
It's standard practice for companies to wait till the due dates to clear their accounts payable, just for that reason.
Now why would I want to pay upfront, when I can gain money through interest, plus earn speciality points for a particular credit card?
Define hardcore game. Are you saying a person spending 8 hours a day playing Tetris is not "hardcore" enough for you? Finishing Zelda without dying and saving is not "hardcore" enough?
Please, no more Sony/Microsoft brainwashing terms anymore....
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trying to be dick or anything, but any links or references would be great. As far as I know, it has been stated that Nintendo always makes a profit on every console sold from the beginning.
Darn, you posted before my resignation of being in error was posted.
Making a mistake on the internet (especially slashdot) hurts!
Argh, I have to admit that I was wrong, as all 100 missiles are part of the same event of trying to hit the incoming missile once.
Too much arguing about the lottery....
I hate to break it to you, during the cold war, Iran was an ally of the US and the US provided military power to Iran in exchange for oil and being the lapdog of the US in the middle east. Then the people democratically elected Mossadegh, who decided to go against what the US wanted so, the United States initiated a Coup d'etat against a democratically elected and very popular leader in Iran in 1953 (because of oil and military interests) and imposed their own leader on the people of Iran. After years of US influence and being a US puppet in the Middle East, the Iranian people overthrew the government in a revolution. Do you think they want to overthrow this government and become a US puppet again?
Now I am going to admit that I didn't RTFA, but from your statement, I can tell you that doesn't make sense. If they had a 5% kill ratio, firing 100 of them would not give you a 99+% chance to stop the missile, because each defensive rocket they fire is an indepedent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities. The likelihood of each of those rockets successfully destroy the incoming missile is 5%, and they can all fail at the same point as each other. So, in the end, the chance to stop the incoming missile is only 5%.
WTF do you think a Metroid game will play like?
How can you be so blinded by bias, that you can't even accept the fact that Metroid Prime WAS revolutionary and innovative (even proclaimed by the big gaming sites/mags)??
Cross, triangle, ball, square? Fuck! Talk about counter-intuitive. It takes time to memorize where each button is. It'd be easier if it used letters like every other controller out there.
I agree with your comments. Here is an interesting observation of the buttons.
Circle = 1 line
Cross = 2 lines
Triangle = 3 lines
Square = 4 lines
I think somewhere, someone thought it would be smart that instead of naming them 1, 2, 3, 4, that it would be "cool" to use abstract numbering.....
So let's say I'm playing with a football and I throw it and cause the same damage etc. as your example. Do I get to sue the company that made the football? Will that company take partial responsibility? Heck I'm even using the football the way it was designed for!
How is this catering to kids? It's catering to people who don't want to deal with fucktards who curse with every 2nd word and shout into their mic and talk about how "totally wasted" or "totally high" they are. It's catering to people who don't want idiots playing loud music on the mic and having that crap being transmitted. Even though you can mute them, why should I have to put up with that crap, when I can actually have the people I want to hear and talk to from the start?
If I play with a stranger and eventually the person seems cool, I'll add them to the list.
Then you are missing out on what the DS provides. The DS is winning because of the fun games and the ease of multiplayer. I go to a movie and wait in the theater. Guess what? I see a girl with a DS and we start a multiplayer game, then other people join in. Soon we have a big group of strangers playing DS together.
Every couple I know has at least one DS now. And the amazing thing is that I have never seen so many girls with a handheld videogame device. Any where I go to, I can end up joining a multiplayer session.
Did you see what happens at 14:45 of the video?
Now THAT is a "wardrobe malfunction"!!!
How many cases have their been of home invasions compared to the US? Many of the home invasions in Canada are gang related and involve drugs and other gang related activities, and guess where most of the guns come from....smuggled from the US.
Again, the assumption that "Criminals who want guns will get them", is a fallacy because in the US a lot of criminals have guns BECAUSE of the easy access to these guns. With a few barriers of obtaining these guns, the majority of criminals won't have the ease to obtain these guns, except for really connect criminals and organized crime. These barriers won't affect law abiding citizens from obtaining guns either.
The purpose of taking away guns is so that the majority of the population/criminals probably won't take the effort to get the guns. The extreme ends of the spectrum (like all stats) will have them. One end are the law enforcement officials, hunters, gun enthusiasts willing to go through some hoops for guns, and the other end belongs to organized crime and gangs and some petty criminals who have the connections. Sure you will have exceptions, but it is far better than the situation it is now.
I actually agree with some of the stuff you said, but I must disagree with the following comment. Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.
There is no correlation that banning guns will increase crime. The excuse has always been "Criminals who want guns will get guns, thus we need guns to protect ourselves". This may apply to the big gangs and smugglers who have far reaching contacts to get guns (if there were strict gun laws), but without the easy access to guns in the US, do you really think the majority of gun crimes committed by lowly criminals would have had the money or contacts to get a gun?
It is because of the ease of getting guns, that criminals can have access to them. Thus, the feeling that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves. As an example, in Canada again, guns aren't illegal, people can have them, but it's just harder to get them. Thus, the majority of criminals don't have guns. Sure, as I said earlier, the major gangs have them, but rarely are they involved with small time robberies, etc, and regular citizens. Unforutnately, more and more guns are being smuggled north into Canada from the US now.....
Also one more thing....even though I agree on a grand statistical scale, school killings are an exception to the rule (just like plane crashes are), it is not a minor problem. When a plane crashes, it's a MAJOR problem because it is deviating from the norm and the problem is handled until an answer surfaces. That is the same thing for school shootings. Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....As sad as it is, there are crimes that people expect and crimes that fall outside of this expectation and thus more emphasis is placed upon them. Nothing in life is just about numbers...
Except that he'd prefer to rob the store (or house) when nobody was there, since he doesn't want to get shot
I knew this would be brought up, and the answer is that this applies if a store/house having a gun is not that prevalent. However in the US and the ease of obtaining a gun, unless the criminal takes the the time to case a house/store to determine if they have a gun (and who knows if they can ever find out), then they will assume they do have gun.
Yeah, if guns were harder to get, suiciders would use something else.
If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.
Or they'll run away when a gun is produced, since they just want cash anyway.
Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.
But you can't just go into your local Walmart in Canada to buy a gun. And the majority of the population that have guns, don't live in the major metropolitan areas. And.....our population is similar to the population of California...yet it's spread out over this huge land mass.....
I am not going to argue if guns will prevent crimes or if guns lower crime rates, but one thing I believe is that the easy access to guns, so that everyone can have one, is the reason the US has a high gun related death rate compared to other nations.
Think about it, for example, if a criminal is robbing a store in Canada, that criminal will not have the mentality that it will be a life or death situation, since most people don't carry guns. This criminal will go in, knowing that using a big knife or something maybe good enough and that he/she won't have to kill the store owner. Now in the US, this criminal will be prepared to potentially face a person with a gun, and thus will not hesitate to protect his/her own life by either killing the clerk first, or having the mentality to kill that person.
Now some of you will say that the potential for a criminal to lose their life due to the store owner having a gun, will be the deterring factor for the criminal to NOT rob that store. But the problem is that many criminals will rob a store no matter what, due to their desperate nature/situation, and thus will use any means to rob that store. And that includes getting a gun, since that's the only way to ensure their own protection against the store owners with guns.
Furthermore to add to this.
Many multi-platform games were not developed for the cube, but ported over. So it wasn't optimized for the Gamecube.
Look at the games that were optimized for the Gamecube, like Resident Evil 4. It destroyed what the PS2 could produce and rivaled what the XBox was producing. Heck, it won IGN's best graphics award for the year it was released.
I'm sure that PS3 1080P will look great on a standard definition TV. Where's that link showing that only 10%-20% of the population has adopted HDTV.
And I think you're a little bit behind the times or have been brainwashed by Microsoft's and Sony's "Hardcore gamer / Adult gamer" marketing scheme. The GC and DS have been praised as THE party systems and adults play them all the time. Heck, in my group of friends, each couple has at least one DS and the GC is the machine that gets all the attention from guys AND girls.
Again Microsoft's and Sony's strategy to point out Nintendo as a "kids machine" is aimed at the "I wanna be soooo hardcore and cool crowd" which is usually the 12-23 crowd, and unforutnately, they fall for it.
Expandability?
That's what we should avoid with consoles. You cannot have two standards for the same console, as the developers will then develop for the lowest common denominator to ensure maximum compatibility. By branching out, something will end up like an add-on and fade away. That's why most add-ons fail, because you can't guarantee everyone will have one, and therefore publishers are afraid they can't get the sales volume they are looking for. People don't buy consoles so they have to add on items to play, and of the games that do require an add-on, most of them, fail to live up to their potential in sales and acceptance.
As for futureproofing, that's a fallacy in buying technology. Standards and new technology are introduced so fast, that buying for the future and spending a premium on it is silly. Just think back, two years ago, stores were pushing HDTVs as "buying for the future", and people had to pay over $6000-$7000 CDN for a 42" Plasma with DVI. Yet that TV would just sit there, displaying Standard Definition, sometimes EDTV, and rarely HDTV for most of the time and not using it's full potential. Now a 42" Plasma HDTV with HDMI can be had for $2500-$3000CDN and at least now, a person can enjoy some of their channels in HDTV. So what did the person paying an additional $3000 2 years ago get? No use of the HD, DVI standard being replaced by HDMI, etc...
I'm so tired of this "inferior" graphics mentality towards Nintendo and the Gamecube. Perhaps you didn't realize that Resident Evil 4 won for best graphics of 2005. It beat out the Xbox and the PS2.
Yes! All my training in first person shooters is going to pay off!
Now I can take my mouse and keyboard skills and go out and kill some enemy soldiers!
Or I can take my joystick skills from fighting games and pick a fight in bar!
BETTER YET! I will take my point and click (or keyboarding) skills from Leisure Suit Larry and get some girls....
ALL MY YEARS OF GAMING IS NOW PAYING OFF!
What are you talking about?
If I have money, of course I would want to defer payment as long as possible. As long as you pay your bill in full, then there's no interest charged on the bill, however I would've gained the interest with the money I kept in my account.
It's standard practice for companies to wait till the due dates to clear their accounts payable, just for that reason.
Now why would I want to pay upfront, when I can gain money through interest, plus earn speciality points for a particular credit card?
I beg to differ. Look at the latest numbers for the top 10 console games sold in Japan
http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm
The top 3 spots are DS games and 7/10 spots are DS games.
And on the US charts for July 2-8
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6153855.html
DS games are right up there, but only pushed down a bit due to the World Cup frenzy that pushed all the soccer games up the charts.
To innovate, one should see what new opportunities and game types this controller can introduce to the console gaming world.
Please, no more Sony/Microsoft brainwashing terms anymore....