I heard on the radio this morning that Connery will also be back in this film.
At the same time, they are *not* going to make Indy the same age as the previous films. He will be relatively older, like Harrison Ford is.
I would worry that the script is going to be as painful as the last 3 Star Wars films, but I think that this, not being a Sci-Fi film, will turn out pretty well... and Spielburg will be directing.
Thanks, I was wondering what it was since Wikipedia had not reference to this CTI. However, Google offers some other definitions, including "computer telephony integration".
Point being - I think Nintendo could have - oh I dunno - THOUGHT OF THAT AS WELL and produced more controllers? It's a JOYSTICK! Not a frigging console! How much do you have to ramp up to have a decent supply? This is a production problem - bigtime.
I agree, and I often think this as well. But then I put on a business cap and say, well, if they did produce more that means they either 1) have to have more factories to produce more units or 2) have to stock pile more unites long before the release of the system.
Then I analyze those two situations. In situation 1) They would have to a) spend far more money on new manufacturing space (expanding a factory or building / contracting out new factories) or b)take away manufacturing space from the Wii console to convert to Wii remote production. Scenario a) is not acceptable because they will end up over producing remotes once the 'honeymoon' and holiday period is over. This would cost the company significantly more money, which is against the goal of any business, to maximize profits. Scenario b) is pretty simple. The console is more important than the remote AND every console must include a remote + nunchuk. So, that also means they cannot produce as much due to part of that supply being diverted to the console.
Situation 2, stock piling more remotes, means that Nintendo will have to spend more money on storage space. This of course, is a lot more cost effective, as it's probably cheaper to build storage space than to build a full factory. However, this also means they had to have the remote function and design perfected long before the release date and they also have to have enough supply of remote parts to build them fast enough. Couple that with the fact that remote are likely more time consuming to produce due to their more complex nature (rumble, IR detection, motion sensing, speakers, blue-tooth wireless, and tradition buttons) and it's likely that stock piling was not a very good option or even possible as the remote was the last thing to be finished on the new system. The Wii console was finished long before the remote, it was quite easy to design since it was no PS3 or Xbox 360 in terms of complexity/power.
So, while I was in that camp of "THOUGHT OF THAT AS WELL", I've come to understand that in a business sense, that it's not as easy as 'thinking' about doing something, there has to be a benefit for the company. I'm sure the business guys at Nintnedo understand and maximized the risk/reward of who much supply they need to produce to keep people happy enough while not costing the company too much... unlike say, Sony, who's supply issues are due to manufacturing problems and probably had to buy more manufacturing space to play 'catch up', and have hurt their sales due to driving customers away from having a product that had far more hardcore demand than supply. Sony also suffered from brand reconition with the PS3. This caused 'entrepreneurs' to buy the very limited PS3 in hopes of flipping them for major profit. Here's a case where PS3 gamers cannot buy a machine because someone else is buying and trying to sell it to them for 2x/3x the cost. That's just going to anger a lot of customers, particularly since it's difficult enough to save up the initial price tag for a PS3. It certainly feels 'unfair'.
Now, I have to admit I'm still in the camp of "THOUGHT OF THAT AS WELL" on software. Software supply is a different issue. It's not difficult to find another CD/DVD manufacturer who can burn code onto a disc and pump out them in the 100's of thousands. However, there still will be supply issues for the Burning Crusade. Why? Just like the original WoW, Blizzards hardware can only support so many players (anyone who remembers launch day of WoW, the long cues, the down servers, etc). There's a situation where product was limited for other reasons.
Well, anyway hooo... that's a few explanations into why a company cannot just toss out controllers.
Are you lazy, a bad reader, or purposely trying to mislead people? Here's his entire sentence...
The Wii has been flying off the shelves, and it looks like anyone who doesn't already have one isn't going to be getting one before Christmas, and the Wii did not have supply issues to nearly the extent that the PS3 did.
Which is fairly accurate.
you can't even get CONTROLLERS FOR THE FUCKING THING.
Yes, the controllers are hard to find. However, I've finally completed my 4th nunchuk and happily have 4 remotes, 4 nunchuks, and 2 classical controller attachments. You can find them, it's just not easy and it takes some time, which can be a problem.
Oh no - no supply problems there. Oh sure you can't buy one - but no supply problems....
The point the OP was making (which you apparently missed) is that the Wii has a much better supply than the PS3, however, the Wii also has significantly more demand than the PS3 right now. While this still causes supply issues, it's a more 'positive' issue for Nintendo than the 'negative' issue for Sony since the rate of Wii sales is greater than the rate of PS3 sales and the rate of PS3 sales is declining, while the Wii rate of sales is holding fairly steady.
This will likely change in a year, primarily due to games, but it puts Nintendo's new system in a much better position in one important category... market penetration. While the PS3 can still 'beat' the Wii or 360 in units sold (given a year or two), it will have to do so on games and not hype. But this is a catch 22. Game makers flock to market penetration, because the more units in peoples homes, means the more games they can potentially sell. Since the Wii has the strong growth of sales and penetration, game makers are noticing and they're going to develop for the Wii.
Also, the PS3 will have a hurtle to jump because their systems capability is similar enough to the 360 that games can be released cross-platform. Which means, Sony will miss out on a lot of 'exclusive' titles that help sell a system and game developers will sell X-platform due to penetration issues with just a single console.
On top of that, developers have been stating, before the Wii launch, that they're 'excited' to develop on the Wii due to their control setup, which might see an increase in original and there for exclusive titles for the Wii, which would help keep their early lead (or pass the Xbox 360 in a year).
So, suffice it to say, it is an interesting situation for gamers and I think it will be a good year for gamers in 2007. I'm pretty confident that the PS3 will sell well and gamers will be happy to have both Wii and PS3 in their library, if the PS3 can drop to around $300 in a year. I know I would pick one up... If I don't get a 360 before then.
This browser is a new thing, and it will likely make websites more accessed via a TV. Web designers to this point rarely if ever design with TV's in mind. However, there's a nice article on how to start designing sites to fit many different size screens from cell phones, to PDA's, to 24" widescreen LCD monitors.
Though, this is not entirely possible due to browser compatibility, time to develop, unobtrusive JavaScript, etc., etc. But, it might be worth to start designing a site to work well on the Wii as this is something likely to be more popular with the next Gen. consoles.
After being zoomed in, I hit the 'back' button to go back, and my Wii hard locked. I had to press (and hold) the power button on the console to turn it on/off. It rebooted and there where no 'side effects'. However, I couldn't turn the Wii off with the Wii Remote.
Sorry, this isn't written well. I hit submit before preview. I couldn't turn the Wii off with the remote after it hard locked, making me have to push the power button on the console. Which makes sense since the Remote was basically dead. The remote worked fine after I rebooted.
Difficult to see the screen, as it was really small. You can 'zoom' in with the +/- buttons
Gmail rendered nicely, and fairly fast.
After being zoomed in, I hit the 'back' button to go back, and my Wii hard locked. I had to press (and hold) the power button on the console to turn it on/off. It rebooted and there where no 'side effects'. However, I couldn't turn the Wii off with the Wii Remote.
So, at that point, I was out the door to work. It's what I expect. This is more or less a open 'beta' test for the opera browser (without specifically saying it's an open beta test by Opera or Nintendo).
There will need to be a 'wii keyboard' or remote attachment. One that can fold up, like I've seen on some PDA's would be cool. But also allowing any USB keyboard to plug and play from the console would be nice as well.
The Gmail site rendered well and apparently JavaScript works well. I haven't tried any flash heavy sites, and I'm not sure how some sites will render, but I think it will be fairly good or as expected for a normal Opera browser. Though, I might just toss up some CSS pages to see how well this Opera browser supports CSS.
You don't want to think about a new pair of sneakers or getting a sandwich.
I don't want to think about buying sneakers or eating a sandwich, no matter what I'm doing. People don't watch TV because they're hungry or they want to go shopping (exception might be the Super Bowl ads and the Home Shopping channel). They don't drive their cars to look at billboards (unless there's something news worth about one). And they don't go to the cinema to sit through 20 mins of ads (though, I love seeing the pre-views). Yet, advertisements are there (often times undesirably so, just ask any European who watches a TV show in the U.S. how annoying ads are).
You bought the game to play it, not to solicit advertising for upgrades to your lifestyle.
I paid for cable to watch TV, not watch ads. I paid my $10 for a movie ticket to see a film, not watch ads. I pay my taxes and toll fees to drive on good roads, not watch ads. Yet, they're there. Why? Because there's an audience. Part of what I got from this article was that advertisers realize that ads are not effective in some (if not most) games, not just that gamers didn't want ads. Ads will become common in games soon, in one way or another. WoW is already doing marketing tie-ins for some time, through their website with Nvida and other companies. They're running Coka-Cola TV ads and cross-promotion in Asia.
A lot of this 'games in Ads' is just FUD. You're not going to see Pepsi billboard in your Lord of the Rings game, and your not have to eat a Domino's pizza to regain your life points in Half-Life 2. (though, companies have made their own video games, and continue to do so, look at Burger Kings mascots games)
What you will see are Nike ads in NBA 2k8, or maybe some kind of half-time "Ford Motor Company Quarterback Challenge" mini game in the next Madden. Whats FUD is to not realize that game developers are still the ones who are making games and not marketing people. If a company is going to pay to put an ad in a game, first, the marketing department is going to make sure there is a good potential ROI for spending that money on an ad. Second, the game developer is going to make sure that promotion will and can be fit into the game without destroying the game play or story or whatever. What you'll see are littered Dr Pepper cans in the streets of Resident Evil. Or maybe you bust down a door in some 'COPS' game to find the bad guys scarfing Pizza Hut pizza (or hey, maybe it's not delivery, it's Di-Gorno's!).
Ads are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, they can be a good thing! They can make a game feel even more 'realistic', a common mantra of many gamers desire. It's ultimately going to be up to the game developers choice to how to implement ads. I can tell you, ad revenue will not be enough to compensate a crappy game and it won't sell a game, and that's the primary purpose of a game company, to sell games.
Now... I'll be waiting for the companies listed above to send me some money for all the advertisement I just gave them. =P
Your math is good up until you assume that even a minor percentage of wii accidents are reported to one particular little-known website.
I agree with you, which I included the comment that this Wii problem website is not going to be a reliably accurate portrayal of the incident amounts. However, this site does go beyond a 'little-known' website. It's been mentioned in a Reuters news article which gets published to various news outlets such as yahoo, Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN Money, and the Washington Post not to mention the hordes of local newspapers, blogs, TV and Radio stations who reported on this topic and mentioned that website.
Suffice it to say, they're not 'little-known' when talking about the topic of Wii remote damages. However, I would believe that they don't have accurate data or methods to accurately report the data. Though, as I mentioned in my earlier post, it would have to be off by 400% to even reach 1%, which would be an amount at which I can start to see an actual product defect, rather than 'user defect', so to speak, hehe.
I'm sure there's a large margin of error on that math as it's just using basic estimates and takes in a lot of assumptions, but I think it does put this 'Wii remote damage' phenomenon into a better perspective of how it's more of a 'bizarre' news story than an actual consumer problem. It seems more like FUD than a creditable concern. I'd boldly state that not even Kevin Bacon can be connected to a case. =P hehe Of course, there's plenty of room for me to be wrong on this. =)
You may be surprised, but I completely agree with you here. They may have had fewer throwing incidents if people didn't think there was a strap to keep them from losing complete control of the remote.
Ack, I just posted with this point before I read this comment. I would have put it under here if I had read it here first.
A better other-product analogy to use here rather than footballs and knives would be a railing on a staircase that appeared to be attached but really was not. In this case the appearance of security was there, but not the reality.
Not a bad attempt at an analogy. However, I think this analogy would be best stated like this...
"An attached railing worked for those who grab it with one hand and walked down some stairs, but broke when a 180 pound man tried to sit on it or slid down it."
In this case, railings where designed for people to hold with their hands and even put some body weight on it. Some thick railings (banisters) are capable of holding the weight of an adult to slide down. If one railing would support your weight to slide down, it does not mean all railings can. Even if a railing can support your weight, it does not mean you should slide down one, because it is dangerous to do so; you can fall off and bump your head.
Even so, people and kids will use railings and bannister's to slide down. Some kids will even stupidly try to do it (like myself as a kid) on a railing that cannot support their weight. They will break the railing and maybe even damage something else such as the wall, furniture or themselves. Is it the railing manufacturers fault the kid used the railing in such a way? Or, lets put it this way... How much fault is a railing manufacturer responsible for should they design a product that can be used inappropriately?
Of course, they could have designed the railing to be 'un-slidable', or make it stronger with supports. Yet, I cannot see a vast majority of parents blaming the railing company for the accident, but rather the child's actions. I can see the children turning to their invisible monsters and lair to their parents stating that it was someone else who broke it, to deflect blame.
This would be my case in point, from my previous post. Also, it's been stated that the broken TV phenomenon is over-hyped, and lets run some numbers...
On Nov. 28th, PC World reported that some 600,000 Wii's where sold, with Nintendo estimates to hit 4 million by the end of the year. It's also been reported that the sales numbers are off as much as 20% (less) for that 4 million mark. So, we'll just use the 600,00 Wii number. We'll also use an average of 2 Wii remotes sold per console (everyone will have one, while others can have up to 4). That's 1.2 million remotes out there. Wiihaveaproblem.com is stating that there has been a total number of Wii remote damages of about 40 destroyed objects (including TV's, laptops, PDA's, Walls, Wii's, and more) and they only list 29 broken straps (I guess the other causes of damage where people not even using the strap), but we'll just use 40 as a conservative estimate.
That's an incident rate of 0.0025%. Hardly what I call a problem and should clearly show that these incidences are the exception, rather than the normal and that the cause for these accidents are not the fault of the system, but the user of that system due to the fact that if it was a system design flaw, there would be significantly higher rates. Now, Wiihaveaproblem.com would hardly justify as an accurate site, but even if it is off, it would have to be off by 400 times that amount to reach 1%. Also, the sales number of remotes and systems continues to climb at the same ti
Despite all the Nintendo PR cover-up about the defective Wii controllers (e.g., SlashDot's "it's a replacement program, not a recall" wuss-out), it looks like the flaks missed one guy. Take a look at #7:
Actually, Nintendo's biggest F*up was to include a strap in the first place. If they didn't include a strap, the blame would be on the user of the remote for letting go. Because they included a strap, and display numerous 'safety' messages that you should use it, it makes people feel that it's Nintendo's fault should they let go, at unrealistic motion speeds, and the strap doesn't hold.
I agree with the person who said that it was probably someone who got angry at the system and through the remote, thinking the strap would prevent it from going anywhere. I know that in my NES, GENISIS, SNES, and N64 days, I threw and smashed my fair of controllers on the ground due to frustration. I wouldn't even doubt you could find people who broke their TV's back then with controllers. They're just blaming Nintendo because they don't want to fess up to their parents that they have temper problems, broke the TV out of frustration, and would be punished for doing so (like getting their Nintendo taken away from them.)
Ah, it's technology. It'll be maxed out in just a couple years if not sooner. Of course no current game is using more than 50% of it's power. It can take a couple years to develop a game. Those game companies get a dev. kit late in the game and have to push the game out on launch of the PS3. There's no chance to play with the system to find out what tricks will pull out the power of the PS3.
It's not until companies can spend time playing with the system and finding 'tricks' of squeezing power out of it, that they start to use close to 100% of it's power. It's also going to need developers to changer their designing style. With a hard-drive, content can be stored / saved in multiple manners, no longer just reading off a DVD/Blu-Ray disc.
Though, like all technology, it won't be long before it's maxed out and people will want something "better". Though, out of respect for the PS3 hardware, it should have quite a long shelf life.
I couldn't help but smile this morning when I got up and saw the glowing blue light under my TV... I knew that some new Wii goodness had been handed down by the Wii Gods overnight;-)
hehe, I saw my DVD loading drive glowing blue this morning too, and I was like "what they heck?" Then I figured it was doing a system update or something. I didn't check anything new out, I had to head out the door for work, but I look forward trying it out when I get home. =)
Isn't it interesting how the people who first want parents "taking responsibility" for raising their children in fact do not want that, they want to impose a child-rearing method on parents.
Indeed. After all, social values are basically the majority ideal of the people. Those people include parents. If the parents decree that those social values are wrong and work to have laws passed for their wishes, this would be making a parenting decision, in a holistic sense. Only, in this particular case, it is effecting those who are not parents and might wish to engage in the now illegal activities. Yet, one cannot say that the parents are not trying to raise their children, when in fact they are, but they're just doing it in a less than desirable way for other people who do not share their values.
Though, in this particular case, I would claim that the banning of internet by the government is a suppression of a freedom (of speech), where if a parent did not want their child to see porn, they have the ability to lock-down their own computers rather than force their values upon everyone else, like it or not. This, of course, doesn't prevent the kid from accessing it from a friends house or another location, but it would be their responsibility to make sure said friends house imposes the same restrictions that the parent feels right for their child, and if they don't, then they should prevent the child from spending time at the house.
Of course, if a kid really wants to do or see something, there is nothing that can really stop them. That's when a firm understanding of family values is in order and a parent needs to make it clear what the consequences are if those values are broken, and stick to their word.
Speaking with some EB games guys last night (as I traded in my Red Steel Wii game and miraculously found 1 of 2 nunchuk attachments I still need) it seems the PS3's price tag is keeping the PS3 from 'flying' off store shelves (though, my city is slightly lower income than the average, I would bet). From the the EB manager said... "The PS3 has been selling slower than expected, but we've been getting in shipments constantly. It takes take a day or two to sell out our shipment.".
My next question naturally moved into how the Wii shipments where going and he replied... "We just cannot keep those in the store. We have people calling constantly to check for more shipments."
I also asked about the Xbox360 which the manager explained that he did not see any drastic change in sales due to PS3/Wii shortages, but added that he would definitely buy a 360 over a PS3 given the price points and multi-platform launches for the PS3/360.
It won't be long and soon the US will have a surplus of PS3's which we'll just ship over to the EU. hehe I admit, I was a little surprised to here the PS3's taking a couple days to sell out, but with a lower income community, it might explain things better. That and the proximity to the Xmas holiday probably slows down such big-ticket premium items as most shoppings have already started maxing out their credit.
And Thurman Thomas, who was always part of the "who's the best back" debate back then. Unfortunately, Sanders never had a Super Bowl team like the Cowboys or Bills. It would have been interesting to see the "What if.." of Sanders on a Super Bowl team. Particularly, the often talked about Green Bay Packers, who passed him up for the big bust that was Tony Mandarich. Sanders would have been older, but still active during Packs Bowl years. Though, he might not have stayed around after a few winters at Lambeau, hehe.
The scary thing is that Wayne Fontes is still the only Lions coach to win a playoff game in my lifetime.
While Sanders was exciting to watch (he could score from anywhere on the field)
Absolutely. Always enjoyable
he wasn't particularly good at helping his team.
I can see where you're going with this, but I would have to disagree. His career average run is over 5 yards. Of course, this is a bit screwed as often those runs where 50,60,80+ yard runs. Certainly, scoring points, and getting first downs, cannot be seen has hurting the team.
He ran out of bounds too much
yes, I agree he ran out of bounds a lot. Though, it's not always a bad thing. Particularly when you're trying to stop the clock. Doing it during the middle of the game, well, the impact on the game is debatable, in only hindsight. It also can be debated that he did it to preserve his health longer (less injuries), which is a benefit to him and his team.
...was tackled before the line of scrimmage too much, and was not reliable inside the five. Sanders would run for two hundred yards one week and forty the next. Detroit would have been better off with the less talented but more reliable Jerome Bettis.
More than 50% of this is the fault of Barry's running style. However, the Lions never exactly had a super offensive line, even the years when all the sporting magazines had Sanders and the big guys blocking for him on their front covers, you still rarely saw holes you could drive trucks through. A lot of Sanders yards came after the first contact.
As for more of a Bettis back...that maybe true. I don't really know as at the time, I was just a kid collecting football cards and playing Techmo Super Bowl. However, being a half-back, I would make the argument that it's not Sanders position to 'punch it in' at the 5 yard line, but that of a good Full-Back. I would also attribute it to crappy coaching/GM, and quarterbacking. They always seemed to call the wrong play at the wrong time. They tried to get Barry to run it in, when a short half-back pass, only on the text down, they do the half-back pass when the defense expected it, instead of punching it in or doing a play-action QB keeper.
I think Sanders was good for the team, but the team was not good for Sanders. Coaching and management has always been miserable. Quarterbacks have always been over-hyped and under-performing. They had some of the best defense for a while (Lomas Brown and Chris Spielman). They had some great receiving talent (and not just Herman Moore who was also 'streaky') and they've had some of the best special teams and kickers every (Mel Grey and Jason Hanson). Yet, they couldn't get to a super bowl. My only conclusion is it came down to poor coaching/training. The games the Lions lost, I just feel like they didn't care because they coach never gave them enough discipline in training.
Well, it's been a pleasure to drum up some old Lion memories. =) Thanks.
Since we're linking to Jeremy's blog post, I thought it might be worth while to also post Matt Cutts blog regarding this 'drama'. Matt acknowledges Googles mistake (and by Google, we mean a person(s) working for Google who first, thought copying a Yahoo! page was a good idea and 2) got through management approval to let it go live.)
Matt also points out, probably more interesting, how Yahoo! is not entirely innocent when it comes to 'copying' what the competitor does. However, the comments on his page have an interesting discussion of which is truly worse? Copying UI/Layout/Design or Graphics/Layout/Design.
This is a tough call for me (as a web programmer/developer). I can kind of go both ways on this one. Patents and such are always a difficult concept to talk about. On one hand, they protect inventor and innovators, while on the other hand they're a forced 'legal' monopoly of "If they make it, you cannot make it too". As an inventor, I'd hate to create something, be original, and have it copied. As an average everyday person, I'd hate for one company to control a product and prevent natural competition.
In this sense, I cannot agree with myself on this situation. A photographer buys a Hamburger at a popular fast-food chain. Takes it home and opens it up and takes a photograph of it. A 2nd photographer see this photo (on the 1st photographers website) takes a hamburger from the same food-chain, and shoots a drastically similar photograph (the pickle is on the other side). A 3rd photographer cooked his own hamburger, and decided to take a photo of it, and has never seen photographer 1 or 2's photos, and his photo turns out to be almost the exact same image of the 1st photographer. Who's right? Who's wrong? Has a 'crime' (either moral, ethical, artistic, respectful, or legal) been committed?
Regarding the Google vs Yahoo!, it raises another question... online media. Graphics/Photos (JPG, GIFs, PNGS, etc) are protected, but what about UI? Layout? Coding practices? If it 'looks' the same on a monitor, is it not like being a Photo? After all, I can take a screen-capture and make it one easily. So, should it be equally worse to copy ones layout or design? Or even use similar or the same color palettes?
If I spend hours of time and money in R&D for the perfect usable interface, should my 'innovation' also be protected, the same as if I took the time to take a photo of something? After all, a layout/design is artistically placed in the same manner a photographer or painter choose the placement of objects in their shot and a designer chooses their color and brightness the same as a photographer or painter chooses theirs.
It's still 3d. It's not about in which axis you can move.
Since the original posts point was on 'less development costs', it would interest me to findout if a 3D rendered game with 2D movement is easier or more complicated (these days) to develop for?
Slashdot Mirror
Crap I forgot to mention... it was also said to be written by the guy who wrote the last 'War of the Worlds'.
I heard on the radio this morning that Connery will also be back in this film.
At the same time, they are *not* going to make Indy the same age as the previous films. He will be relatively older, like Harrison Ford is.
I would worry that the script is going to be as painful as the last 3 Star Wars films, but I think that this, not being a Sci-Fi film, will turn out pretty well... and Spielburg will be directing.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Opps, you're correct. I missed it. My Bad.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Thanks, I was wondering what it was since Wikipedia had not reference to this CTI. However, Google offers some other definitions, including "computer telephony integration".
Cheers,
Fozzy
I agree, and I often think this as well. But then I put on a business cap and say, well, if they did produce more that means they either 1) have to have more factories to produce more units or 2) have to stock pile more unites long before the release of the system.
Then I analyze those two situations. In situation 1) They would have to a) spend far more money on new manufacturing space (expanding a factory or building / contracting out new factories) or b)take away manufacturing space from the Wii console to convert to Wii remote production. Scenario a) is not acceptable because they will end up over producing remotes once the 'honeymoon' and holiday period is over. This would cost the company significantly more money, which is against the goal of any business, to maximize profits. Scenario b) is pretty simple. The console is more important than the remote AND every console must include a remote + nunchuk. So, that also means they cannot produce as much due to part of that supply being diverted to the console.
Situation 2, stock piling more remotes, means that Nintendo will have to spend more money on storage space. This of course, is a lot more cost effective, as it's probably cheaper to build storage space than to build a full factory. However, this also means they had to have the remote function and design perfected long before the release date and they also have to have enough supply of remote parts to build them fast enough. Couple that with the fact that remote are likely more time consuming to produce due to their more complex nature (rumble, IR detection, motion sensing, speakers, blue-tooth wireless, and tradition buttons) and it's likely that stock piling was not a very good option or even possible as the remote was the last thing to be finished on the new system. The Wii console was finished long before the remote, it was quite easy to design since it was no PS3 or Xbox 360 in terms of complexity/power.
So, while I was in that camp of "THOUGHT OF THAT AS WELL", I've come to understand that in a business sense, that it's not as easy as 'thinking' about doing something, there has to be a benefit for the company. I'm sure the business guys at Nintnedo understand and maximized the risk/reward of who much supply they need to produce to keep people happy enough while not costing the company too much... unlike say, Sony, who's supply issues are due to manufacturing problems and probably had to buy more manufacturing space to play 'catch up', and have hurt their sales due to driving customers away from having a product that had far more hardcore demand than supply. Sony also suffered from brand reconition with the PS3. This caused 'entrepreneurs' to buy the very limited PS3 in hopes of flipping them for major profit. Here's a case where PS3 gamers cannot buy a machine because someone else is buying and trying to sell it to them for 2x /3x the cost. That's just going to anger a lot of customers, particularly since it's difficult enough to save up the initial price tag for a PS3. It certainly feels 'unfair'.
Now, I have to admit I'm still in the camp of "THOUGHT OF THAT AS WELL" on software. Software supply is a different issue. It's not difficult to find another CD/DVD manufacturer who can burn code onto a disc and pump out them in the 100's of thousands. However, there still will be supply issues for the Burning Crusade. Why? Just like the original WoW, Blizzards hardware can only support so many players (anyone who remembers launch day of WoW, the long cues, the down servers, etc). There's a situation where product was limited for other reasons.
Well, anyway hooo... that's a few explanations into why a company cannot just toss out controllers.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Are you lazy, a bad reader, or purposely trying to mislead people? Here's his entire sentence...
Which is fairly accurate.
Yes, the controllers are hard to find. However, I've finally completed my 4th nunchuk and happily have 4 remotes, 4 nunchuks, and 2 classical controller attachments. You can find them, it's just not easy and it takes some time, which can be a problem.
The point the OP was making (which you apparently missed) is that the Wii has a much better supply than the PS3, however, the Wii also has significantly more demand than the PS3 right now. While this still causes supply issues, it's a more 'positive' issue for Nintendo than the 'negative' issue for Sony since the rate of Wii sales is greater than the rate of PS3 sales and the rate of PS3 sales is declining, while the Wii rate of sales is holding fairly steady.
This will likely change in a year, primarily due to games, but it puts Nintendo's new system in a much better position in one important category... market penetration. While the PS3 can still 'beat' the Wii or 360 in units sold (given a year or two), it will have to do so on games and not hype. But this is a catch 22. Game makers flock to market penetration, because the more units in peoples homes, means the more games they can potentially sell. Since the Wii has the strong growth of sales and penetration, game makers are noticing and they're going to develop for the Wii.
Also, the PS3 will have a hurtle to jump because their systems capability is similar enough to the 360 that games can be released cross-platform. Which means, Sony will miss out on a lot of 'exclusive' titles that help sell a system and game developers will sell X-platform due to penetration issues with just a single console.
On top of that, developers have been stating, before the Wii launch, that they're 'excited' to develop on the Wii due to their control setup, which might see an increase in original and there for exclusive titles for the Wii, which would help keep their early lead (or pass the Xbox 360 in a year).
So, suffice it to say, it is an interesting situation for gamers and I think it will be a good year for gamers in 2007. I'm pretty confident that the PS3 will sell well and gamers will be happy to have both Wii and PS3 in their library, if the PS3 can drop to around $300 in a year. I know I would pick one up... If I don't get a 360 before then.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Here's a game I really could play in my sleep!
I'll wait for WoW to be playable in my sleep. =)
Cheers,
Fozzy
This browser is a new thing, and it will likely make websites more accessed via a TV. Web designers to this point rarely if ever design with TV's in mind. However, there's a nice article on how to start designing sites to fit many different size screens from cell phones, to PDA's, to 24" widescreen LCD monitors.
Though, this is not entirely possible due to browser compatibility, time to develop, unobtrusive JavaScript, etc., etc. But, it might be worth to start designing a site to work well on the Wii as this is something likely to be more popular with the next Gen. consoles.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Sorry, this isn't written well. I hit submit before preview. I couldn't turn the Wii off with the remote after it hard locked, making me have to push the power button on the console. Which makes sense since the Remote was basically dead. The remote worked fine after I rebooted.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Yes, my experience is...
So, at that point, I was out the door to work. It's what I expect. This is more or less a open 'beta' test for the opera browser (without specifically saying it's an open beta test by Opera or Nintendo).
There will need to be a 'wii keyboard' or remote attachment. One that can fold up, like I've seen on some PDA's would be cool. But also allowing any USB keyboard to plug and play from the console would be nice as well.
The Gmail site rendered well and apparently JavaScript works well. I haven't tried any flash heavy sites, and I'm not sure how some sites will render, but I think it will be fairly good or as expected for a normal Opera browser. Though, I might just toss up some CSS pages to see how well this Opera browser supports CSS.
Cheers,
Fozzy
I don't want to think about buying sneakers or eating a sandwich, no matter what I'm doing. People don't watch TV because they're hungry or they want to go shopping (exception might be the Super Bowl ads and the Home Shopping channel). They don't drive their cars to look at billboards (unless there's something news worth about one). And they don't go to the cinema to sit through 20 mins of ads (though, I love seeing the pre-views). Yet, advertisements are there (often times undesirably so, just ask any European who watches a TV show in the U.S. how annoying ads are).
I paid for cable to watch TV, not watch ads. I paid my $10 for a movie ticket to see a film, not watch ads. I pay my taxes and toll fees to drive on good roads, not watch ads. Yet, they're there. Why? Because there's an audience. Part of what I got from this article was that advertisers realize that ads are not effective in some (if not most) games, not just that gamers didn't want ads. Ads will become common in games soon, in one way or another. WoW is already doing marketing tie-ins for some time, through their website with Nvida and other companies. They're running Coka-Cola TV ads and cross-promotion in Asia.
A lot of this 'games in Ads' is just FUD. You're not going to see Pepsi billboard in your Lord of the Rings game, and your not have to eat a Domino's pizza to regain your life points in Half-Life 2. (though, companies have made their own video games, and continue to do so, look at Burger Kings mascots games)
What you will see are Nike ads in NBA 2k8, or maybe some kind of half-time "Ford Motor Company Quarterback Challenge" mini game in the next Madden. Whats FUD is to not realize that game developers are still the ones who are making games and not marketing people. If a company is going to pay to put an ad in a game, first, the marketing department is going to make sure there is a good potential ROI for spending that money on an ad. Second, the game developer is going to make sure that promotion will and can be fit into the game without destroying the game play or story or whatever. What you'll see are littered Dr Pepper cans in the streets of Resident Evil. Or maybe you bust down a door in some 'COPS' game to find the bad guys scarfing Pizza Hut pizza (or hey, maybe it's not delivery, it's Di-Gorno's!).
Ads are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, they can be a good thing! They can make a game feel even more 'realistic', a common mantra of many gamers desire. It's ultimately going to be up to the game developers choice to how to implement ads. I can tell you, ad revenue will not be enough to compensate a crappy game and it won't sell a game, and that's the primary purpose of a game company, to sell games.
Now... I'll be waiting for the companies listed above to send me some money for all the advertisement I just gave them. =P
Cheers,
Fozzy
I wouldn't classify the web as being intellectual. hehe I've killed more brain cells on some sites than all my years of drinking beer. =P
Cheers,
Fozzy
I agree with you, which I included the comment that this Wii problem website is not going to be a reliably accurate portrayal of the incident amounts. However, this site does go beyond a 'little-known' website. It's been mentioned in a Reuters news article which gets published to various news outlets such as yahoo, Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN Money, and the Washington Post not to mention the hordes of local newspapers, blogs, TV and Radio stations who reported on this topic and mentioned that website.
Suffice it to say, they're not 'little-known' when talking about the topic of Wii remote damages. However, I would believe that they don't have accurate data or methods to accurately report the data. Though, as I mentioned in my earlier post, it would have to be off by 400% to even reach 1%, which would be an amount at which I can start to see an actual product defect, rather than 'user defect', so to speak, hehe.
I'm sure there's a large margin of error on that math as it's just using basic estimates and takes in a lot of assumptions, but I think it does put this 'Wii remote damage' phenomenon into a better perspective of how it's more of a 'bizarre' news story than an actual consumer problem. It seems more like FUD than a creditable concern. I'd boldly state that not even Kevin Bacon can be connected to a case. =P hehe Of course, there's plenty of room for me to be wrong on this. =)
Cheers,
Fozzy
Ack, I just posted with this point before I read this comment. I would have put it under here if I had read it here first.
Not a bad attempt at an analogy. However, I think this analogy would be best stated like this...
"An attached railing worked for those who grab it with one hand and walked down some stairs, but broke when a 180 pound man tried to sit on it or slid down it."
In this case, railings where designed for people to hold with their hands and even put some body weight on it. Some thick railings (banisters) are capable of holding the weight of an adult to slide down. If one railing would support your weight to slide down, it does not mean all railings can. Even if a railing can support your weight, it does not mean you should slide down one, because it is dangerous to do so; you can fall off and bump your head.
Even so, people and kids will use railings and bannister's to slide down. Some kids will even stupidly try to do it (like myself as a kid) on a railing that cannot support their weight. They will break the railing and maybe even damage something else such as the wall, furniture or themselves. Is it the railing manufacturers fault the kid used the railing in such a way? Or, lets put it this way... How much fault is a railing manufacturer responsible for should they design a product that can be used inappropriately?
Of course, they could have designed the railing to be 'un-slidable', or make it stronger with supports. Yet, I cannot see a vast majority of parents blaming the railing company for the accident, but rather the child's actions. I can see the children turning to their invisible monsters and lair to their parents stating that it was someone else who broke it, to deflect blame.
This would be my case in point, from my previous post. Also, it's been stated that the broken TV phenomenon is over-hyped, and lets run some numbers...
On Nov. 28th, PC World reported that some 600,000 Wii's where sold, with Nintendo estimates to hit 4 million by the end of the year. It's also been reported that the sales numbers are off as much as 20% (less) for that 4 million mark. So, we'll just use the 600,00 Wii number. We'll also use an average of 2 Wii remotes sold per console (everyone will have one, while others can have up to 4). That's 1.2 million remotes out there. Wiihaveaproblem.com is stating that there has been a total number of Wii remote damages of about 40 destroyed objects (including TV's, laptops, PDA's, Walls, Wii's, and more) and they only list 29 broken straps (I guess the other causes of damage where people not even using the strap), but we'll just use 40 as a conservative estimate.
That's an incident rate of 0.0025%. Hardly what I call a problem and should clearly show that these incidences are the exception, rather than the normal and that the cause for these accidents are not the fault of the system, but the user of that system due to the fact that if it was a system design flaw, there would be significantly higher rates. Now, Wiihaveaproblem.com would hardly justify as an accurate site, but even if it is off, it would have to be off by 400 times that amount to reach 1%. Also, the sales number of remotes and systems continues to climb at the same ti
Actually, Nintendo's biggest F*up was to include a strap in the first place. If they didn't include a strap, the blame would be on the user of the remote for letting go. Because they included a strap, and display numerous 'safety' messages that you should use it, it makes people feel that it's Nintendo's fault should they let go, at unrealistic motion speeds, and the strap doesn't hold.
I agree with the person who said that it was probably someone who got angry at the system and through the remote, thinking the strap would prevent it from going anywhere. I know that in my NES, GENISIS, SNES, and N64 days, I threw and smashed my fair of controllers on the ground due to frustration. I wouldn't even doubt you could find people who broke their TV's back then with controllers. They're just blaming Nintendo because they don't want to fess up to their parents that they have temper problems, broke the TV out of frustration, and would be punished for doing so (like getting their Nintendo taken away from them.)
Cheers,
Fozzy
Ah, it's technology. It'll be maxed out in just a couple years if not sooner. Of course no current game is using more than 50% of it's power. It can take a couple years to develop a game. Those game companies get a dev. kit late in the game and have to push the game out on launch of the PS3. There's no chance to play with the system to find out what tricks will pull out the power of the PS3.
It's not until companies can spend time playing with the system and finding 'tricks' of squeezing power out of it, that they start to use close to 100% of it's power. It's also going to need developers to changer their designing style. With a hard-drive, content can be stored / saved in multiple manners, no longer just reading off a DVD/Blu-Ray disc.
Though, like all technology, it won't be long before it's maxed out and people will want something "better". Though, out of respect for the PS3 hardware, it should have quite a long shelf life.
Cheers,
Fozzy
hehe, I saw my DVD loading drive glowing blue this morning too, and I was like "what they heck?" Then I figured it was doing a system update or something. I didn't check anything new out, I had to head out the door for work, but I look forward trying it out when I get home. =)
Indeed. After all, social values are basically the majority ideal of the people. Those people include parents. If the parents decree that those social values are wrong and work to have laws passed for their wishes, this would be making a parenting decision, in a holistic sense. Only, in this particular case, it is effecting those who are not parents and might wish to engage in the now illegal activities. Yet, one cannot say that the parents are not trying to raise their children, when in fact they are, but they're just doing it in a less than desirable way for other people who do not share their values.
Though, in this particular case, I would claim that the banning of internet by the government is a suppression of a freedom (of speech), where if a parent did not want their child to see porn, they have the ability to lock-down their own computers rather than force their values upon everyone else, like it or not. This, of course, doesn't prevent the kid from accessing it from a friends house or another location, but it would be their responsibility to make sure said friends house imposes the same restrictions that the parent feels right for their child, and if they don't, then they should prevent the child from spending time at the house.
Of course, if a kid really wants to do or see something, there is nothing that can really stop them. That's when a firm understanding of family values is in order and a parent needs to make it clear what the consequences are if those values are broken, and stick to their word.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Speaking with some EB games guys last night (as I traded in my Red Steel Wii game and miraculously found 1 of 2 nunchuk attachments I still need) it seems the PS3's price tag is keeping the PS3 from 'flying' off store shelves (though, my city is slightly lower income than the average, I would bet). From the the EB manager said... "The PS3 has been selling slower than expected, but we've been getting in shipments constantly. It takes take a day or two to sell out our shipment.".
My next question naturally moved into how the Wii shipments where going and he replied... "We just cannot keep those in the store. We have people calling constantly to check for more shipments."
I also asked about the Xbox360 which the manager explained that he did not see any drastic change in sales due to PS3/Wii shortages, but added that he would definitely buy a 360 over a PS3 given the price points and multi-platform launches for the PS3/360.
It won't be long and soon the US will have a surplus of PS3's which we'll just ship over to the EU. hehe I admit, I was a little surprised to here the PS3's taking a couple days to sell out, but with a lower income community, it might explain things better. That and the proximity to the Xmas holiday probably slows down such big-ticket premium items as most shoppings have already started maxing out their credit.
Cheers,
Fozzy
I hear that the pilots like to play Flight Sim and XvTie while flying internationally. Or was that just a dream I had?
'Nuf said!
And Thurman Thomas, who was always part of the "who's the best back" debate back then. Unfortunately, Sanders never had a Super Bowl team like the Cowboys or Bills. It would have been interesting to see the "What if.." of Sanders on a Super Bowl team. Particularly, the often talked about Green Bay Packers, who passed him up for the big bust that was Tony Mandarich. Sanders would have been older, but still active during Packs Bowl years. Though, he might not have stayed around after a few winters at Lambeau, hehe.
Hehe, same here.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Absolutely. Always enjoyable
I can see where you're going with this, but I would have to disagree. His career average run is over 5 yards. Of course, this is a bit screwed as often those runs where 50,60,80+ yard runs. Certainly, scoring points, and getting first downs, cannot be seen has hurting the team.
yes, I agree he ran out of bounds a lot. Though, it's not always a bad thing. Particularly when you're trying to stop the clock. Doing it during the middle of the game, well, the impact on the game is debatable, in only hindsight. It also can be debated that he did it to preserve his health longer (less injuries), which is a benefit to him and his team.
More than 50% of this is the fault of Barry's running style. However, the Lions never exactly had a super offensive line, even the years when all the sporting magazines had Sanders and the big guys blocking for him on their front covers, you still rarely saw holes you could drive trucks through. A lot of Sanders yards came after the first contact.
As for more of a Bettis back...that maybe true. I don't really know as at the time, I was just a kid collecting football cards and playing Techmo Super Bowl. However, being a half-back, I would make the argument that it's not Sanders position to 'punch it in' at the 5 yard line, but that of a good Full-Back. I would also attribute it to crappy coaching/GM, and quarterbacking. They always seemed to call the wrong play at the wrong time. They tried to get Barry to run it in, when a short half-back pass, only on the text down, they do the half-back pass when the defense expected it, instead of punching it in or doing a play-action QB keeper.
I think Sanders was good for the team, but the team was not good for Sanders. Coaching and management has always been miserable. Quarterbacks have always been over-hyped and under-performing. They had some of the best defense for a while (Lomas Brown and Chris Spielman). They had some great receiving talent (and not just Herman Moore who was also 'streaky') and they've had some of the best special teams and kickers every (Mel Grey and Jason Hanson). Yet, they couldn't get to a super bowl. My only conclusion is it came down to poor coaching/training. The games the Lions lost, I just feel like they didn't care because they coach never gave them enough discipline in training.
Well, it's been a pleasure to drum up some old Lion memories. =) Thanks.
Since we're linking to Jeremy's blog post, I thought it might be worth while to also post Matt Cutts blog regarding this 'drama'. Matt acknowledges Googles mistake (and by Google, we mean a person(s) working for Google who first, thought copying a Yahoo! page was a good idea and 2) got through management approval to let it go live.)
Matt also points out, probably more interesting, how Yahoo! is not entirely innocent when it comes to 'copying' what the competitor does. However, the comments on his page have an interesting discussion of which is truly worse? Copying UI/Layout/Design or Graphics/Layout/Design.
This is a tough call for me (as a web programmer/developer). I can kind of go both ways on this one. Patents and such are always a difficult concept to talk about. On one hand, they protect inventor and innovators, while on the other hand they're a forced 'legal' monopoly of "If they make it, you cannot make it too". As an inventor, I'd hate to create something, be original, and have it copied. As an average everyday person, I'd hate for one company to control a product and prevent natural competition.
In this sense, I cannot agree with myself on this situation. A photographer buys a Hamburger at a popular fast-food chain. Takes it home and opens it up and takes a photograph of it. A 2nd photographer see this photo (on the 1st photographers website) takes a hamburger from the same food-chain, and shoots a drastically similar photograph (the pickle is on the other side). A 3rd photographer cooked his own hamburger, and decided to take a photo of it, and has never seen photographer 1 or 2's photos, and his photo turns out to be almost the exact same image of the 1st photographer. Who's right? Who's wrong? Has a 'crime' (either moral, ethical, artistic, respectful, or legal) been committed?
Regarding the Google vs Yahoo!, it raises another question... online media. Graphics/Photos (JPG, GIFs, PNGS, etc) are protected, but what about UI? Layout? Coding practices? If it 'looks' the same on a monitor, is it not like being a Photo? After all, I can take a screen-capture and make it one easily. So, should it be equally worse to copy ones layout or design? Or even use similar or the same color palettes?
If I spend hours of time and money in R&D for the perfect usable interface, should my 'innovation' also be protected, the same as if I took the time to take a photo of something? After all, a layout/design is artistically placed in the same manner a photographer or painter choose the placement of objects in their shot and a designer chooses their color and brightness the same as a photographer or painter chooses theirs.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Since the original posts point was on 'less development costs', it would interest me to findout if a 3D rendered game with 2D movement is easier or more complicated (these days) to develop for?
Cheers,
Fozzy