IF MS isn't buying then who will? The only other company that I could see having interest and the financial backing is EA... Honestly I think I'd rather have their games arrive on just Xbox 360 and maybe Windows later on, rather then anual and buggy releases on every platform under the sun.
I agree... and I still own all of my music on some physical format.... and I will continue to buy all of my media on a physical format until such time that I no longer have that option.
I enjoy the smell of fresh plastic thumbing through the booklet and seeing how the artists audible creation is represented visually on some cover art. At the same time I also rip all of my music so that I can have the flexibility I want, popping them on to my portable media player, or streaming them to another location in my house. Not to mention that ripping them myself gives me the the best control over how well the quality of the recording is preserved.
IMO digital distribution currently only serves ease of purchase... not ease of use, and that's mostly due to the DRM involved. Though even DRM free electronically distributed media doesn't appeal to me as much as a tangible representation of the content I've purchased.
well I don't know about the NFL but I do have a friend who used to work for one of those net-nanny companies identifying pornographic content...
if it's at all the same then it's a manual process, there is a small group of people that just spend all day searching for violations. Most likely, they just punched "NFL" into the search box on YouTube and the video came up.
All of which indicates that digital is not a preferable mechanism for recording, but only for working copies and transmission. The very process of converting from analog to digital automatically results in tremendous data loss the moment you do it when you get right down to it.
You're assuming the source is analog... what about material that is no different in digital then in analog... if I write a book, or an application, what if the source is a picture, video or audio but one that was originally created or mastered on a digital machine... if I made some music though a synthesizer on my PC is it really better served on analog then digital? What if it was played using traditional instruments but recorded straight to digital?
You can argue the merits of existing analog archives staying analog but what about the rest of it?
There is more to improved graphics then HD... more polygons, more textures, more special effects and more horse power makes for an improved viewing experience regardless of your resolution. Not to mention the PS3 and Xbox 360 offer much more to the gaming experience then just better graphics through added horsepower.
The fact that you believe all they've added is HDTV support and that on an SDTV they look equivalent to their last gen counterparts says to me that either A. you haven't even done the most basic of research on these consoles before passing judgment. B. you're a rabid Nintendo fanboy, or C. all of the above.
FWIW I own both an Xbox 360 and a Wii, and I do not own an HDTV. Since finishing Zelda a few months ago the Wii has been collecting dust aside from the requisite 10 minute dog and pony show when relatives come to visits.
I don't have any problems with people having a preference in gaming machines; I have my preferences and others are entitled to theirs. Though I feel the need to say something when someone goes around making bold assumptions as undeniable truths as support for their preferences.
Suncoast and Samgoody have always had ridiculous pricing on DVDs... I believe most DVDs at the Suncoast near me are still in the $25 range for something you can get at Walmart for $15.
Interesting points.. though not all IT departments are as onesided on their security. In addition to blocking webmail and a plethora of other sites on the web (including but not limited to porn, 3rd party proxies, social networks, and blogs). They also strip all PCs of DVD writers and usb ports monitor all I/O traffic to mass storage devices. if you need to burn something you have to make an IT request.
Unless you were a really crafty and well versed PC user (and 99.9% of our employees are not) the only way way to get data out of the building is to print it out and stuff it down your pants... and hope nobody sees you (which might be difficult considering we don't have cubicles). Even then all printers are on a network and every print job gets logged.
Of course our security wasn't half this good until an employee got pissed... quit... took loads of company data with him and sent it to our competitors. One of them played the good Samaritan and told us about their care package... if they didn't we wouldn't have ever known, but since then the place has been locked up tight.
Well you're right that the rating system doesn't really help much at all for weeding out the undesirables. I was more referring to the report system (not to be confused with the prefer/avoid rating system). I've spoken to an actual XBL employee about it and if an account gets 10 or more reports a real person will sit in on a game or two to see if the reports are founded and take appropriate action
I even recall playing UNO one night and there was a guy in there, he seemed a little rough around the edges... we were all just having a conversation about various things and joking with each other. Someone dumped a whole bunch of cards on him and he said "Awe, you Ni...." and stopped himself. He then said "Sorry, I can't say that word anymore because I got my XBL account banned for a month for that stuff and if I get reported again it's canceled for good." It made me smile, because it was proof that the system was working, and took someone who would normally spout off raciest vulgarities and turned them into a someone worth playing with.
Not really. I just assumed (obviously incorrectly) that pretty much everyone who's played online games already knows that these types of blocking and banning do very little to stop these kinds of people.
Really? You're so sure? I'm glad you know how often I run into these types in my daily gaming routine. I play maybe 4 hours a day... at this point on an average week I might block 1... maybe 2 people. I've only had to report maybe 3 people total over the last year. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong games. Obviously it wont get rid of everyone but in my experience it works and works well. There seems to only be so many people that are in my skill range, in my "zone", play the kinds of games I play, and play during the same hours that I play... that narrows the pool down quite a bit, beyond that once you've got 30 or so people on your block list the number of undesirables you encounter plummets to almost nothing. I'm not making some unfounded claim... THIS IS MY ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. The "zone" filtering does wonders too as it seems almost all of the ass hats game in the "underground" zone.
Then you've got full control over it. No need to report anyone - someone's being an asshat, you ban his IP. If he gets another IP and comes back, do it again. Thirty seconds of your time wasted, and he's got to find away to get another IP address every time he wants to come back. Proxies may work well for anonymous web browsing, but they really don't cut it for online gaming.
How is banning someone's IP any different from blocking them on Xbox Live? If someone is in a room with me I push my guide button select their name out of the recent player list and hit the "Avoid this player" option. I never see that person again, not matter what game I play with. If they want to come back they have to drop another $50 to do so, not to mention they wont even know that I've blocked them, the system will just quietly put us in separate lobbies and they're none the wiser.
Or, you could just play a game that allows your clan to host your own dedicated server and split the cost between you.
And if I don't have a clan? I don't know anyone IRL who likes playing the same games I do. I live in the friggin woods, I'm lucky if I can find another gamer nevermind someone who shares my tastes and is at my skill. I turn around games quickly too... I might spend a month with a game before moving on to another. How much work would I have to do to configure a server and find a good group of people to play on it? Are we at relative skill levels to make the game enjoyable without feeling dragged down or pulled along? To me that's a whole lot of time wasted setting up a decent gaming experience when I could just be playing instead.
If you're a hardcore gaming group of friends then yeah running your own private server is ideal, but what about people like myself that while I game frequently I really just want to pop online and have a fun casual game with people who aren't so good they annihilate me or people so new they don't even know the basic concepts of playing the game.
I think you missed the point... On Xbox Live if someone is being rude or obnoxious I can block them, they're not only blocked in that game but every other game I might ever play on the service, they'll be excluded from games I host and the automatic match making will avoid putting us in the same room.
If they're causing more serious problems and I report them, and 9 other people report them as well, then they'll get their account reviewed and banned. They've lost all of their achievements, they've lost their friends list, and all of their other account details but most importantly they'll have to pay another $50 to sign back up. How much do you think the "riff-raff" would be willing to lose before they just go bother people on some free service where they can create new accounts to their hearts content?
I loathed online gaming for the longest time, it was a pain to find quality servers, it was a pain to find people who were my skill level, it was a pain to keep in touch with other gamers, and it was damn near impossible to get all three of those at once. I barely got any enjoyment out of online gaming in comparison to the work involved. I stuck mostly to LAN parties or split screen console games. When Dead or Alive Ultimate came out on the Xbox 1 I wanted to play online against some college friends so I signed up for Xbox Live... after about an hour I couldn't believe how streamlined and simple the whole service was. I've had an Xbox live account for 3 years now and I couldn't be happier with it. I could care less if the server us just one of the peers, I rarely have problems with lag or slowdown (probably because the game is built to handle the load of acting as a server) which is a lot more then I can say for the majority of the "proper" servers I find through the various free methods.
I used to spout off all sorts of crap about how stupid paying for Xbox Live is... bullet listed items with sound arguments and sources... While most of that is still true; and they really aren't doing much, the resultant ease of use the system creates makes playing online with a quality connection, skill matched opponents and plenty of options as easy as just loading the game and picking up the controller. For me, that's worth every last damn penny they charge.
The only hack I ever remember seeing is one where someone was able to log back into someone else's account on a public terminal even after the cache had been wiped, but that was quite a while ago and IIRC it was fixed rather quickly.
I think its primary reason for failure was its high price...
That was probably a big part of it, but why would a more modern version not fail for the same reasons?
Standardizing the hardware segregates the hardware manufacturers from the game and accessory licensing. By doing this hardware manufacturers have NO CHOICE but to sell a the console at a profit. No other guaranteed source of income means they can't afford to sell the console at a loss. the Xbox 360 might have cost as much as a 3D0 when it came out but the difference is MS ate a chunk of that cost because they knew that they'd make it up selling games. None of the 3D0 manufactures had that guarantee, because they didn't receive any income from game licensing or accessory sales, so the consumers 3D0 price was higher then it cost to make.
It's a fundamental problem when you're trying to standardize hardware.
People like being in control. And the standard controller is essentially dead. Standard being the Wii controller and automatic being the game pad.
I beg to differ, I've found most of the implementations of control via the Wii remote sloppy at best. If anything the Wii remote is the automatic here... it relies heavy on computer control to interpret user intent so a heavily filtered set of data points is recognized to trigger action A rather then button A triggers Action A. It's a less complex system for the user but accomplishes this with a more complex system under the hood. It's easier to use and requires less user training (like an automatic) but a standard pad interprets user input unquestionably but requires far more user familiarity and finesse (like a stick shift).
The automatic was introduced to encourage more females and other predominantly non-driving demographics (who found to the task of driving too complex) to start driving the Wii remote hopes to do the same thing to gaming.
I think in the way TFA is referring is sections in games where you can't NOT loose. Maybe it's a boss fight where he'll just refill his health automagically if it gets too low or some lame outside force that swoops in and captures you just before you deliver the fatal blow.
In most cases this sort of thing really annoys the hell out of me, not because I dislike failing but because the methods they use almost always feel like they were playing outside the rules to do so. The only reason I lost that battle and advanced the story is because the game cheated me.
There are cases where it's done well though. In Gears of War there's an area where you have to run from a house across a courtyard into an APC. The Courtyard is full of baddies capped off with this really nasty boss like creature just before the APC. The game usually has you clearing out an area before you're allowed to advance, but in this case the odds are really stacked against you, and the boss like character will blow up the APC after about a minute's time. You can damage him and you can wipe out all the enemies in the courtyard too, but even if you're playing with two people and you both unload the most powerful weapons into the boss guy you don't have enough time to kill him before he destroys the APC. it's a battle you can't win, you have to just run by all the baddies and hop in the APC before it's destroyed to get by it. The important thing here is that the battle was unexpected and at no point did I feel the game was cheating me, because I wasn't getting infinitely powerful enemies or fall victim to some outside force beyond my control. I lost because of my own choices and I only made it through when I decided to change my choices. IIRC it's the only part in that game where you don't win the battle in front of you, but rather must execute a successful retreat.
I think a better scenario would be a branching plot line that hinges on the outcome of a battle. If you fight and lose and the game carries on and the world reflects that you lost an important battle. Even better if the odds are against you but you have a feeling that if you played it again you might be able to win (learning from you mistakes). Maybe you simply have to level up and fight again in a different setting, or maybe you don't ever get that opportunity again. but I'd like to think that any battle I enter into the computer should play by the rules. if I'm defeated I want to genuinely feel like it was my own fault, not that I played well but lost anyway.
I don't think it would be beyond the realm of possibility to have an RPG start your off with some complex task requiring some familiarity, if you succeed you can proceed from there, if you fail you get knocked into some scenario where you have to build yourself up from the dumb dumb status.
Think of Oblivion... maybe you were half way through the ranks in the thieves guild when you start and you get a decent mission, if you fail (get caught) you're thrown in jail and the game starts with you killing rats (training). But if you succeed you keep playing from that point on... and the main quest would kick off in some other scenario. I'm sure you could apply the same thing to any number of other games.
If I had to guess I'd say they're going to drop the price next holiday season, and that you'll probably see larger hard drives at about the same time.
IMO striving for profitaiblity is also why they haven't released a larger hard drive yet... much of that $75 of profit comes from the fact that the 20GB HDD is outrageously overpriced at this point. releasing a larger HDD would either kill their profits on the Premium unit (if they included the larger HDD with it) or it would drive sales towards the CORE unit (which still sells at a small loss) with people buying the larger HDD separate. over pricing a larger HDD wouldn't be much of an option because to make it comparable to the 20GB in terms of $ per GB it would cost nearly as much as the console itself, which probably wouldn't go over very well.
the move to 65nm will probably come with the first substantial redesign of the 360's internals which will cut costs of the unit that they could drop the price a clean $50-$100 and still turn profits on each unit sold. They'll start to roll those out any day now and probably enjoy some substantial profits until the holiday season where they'll drop the price, and roll out the bigger hard drives, they'll still be netting a profit on a per unit basis but next holiday is when they'll really need to concentrate on market share as the Wii will probably be easily available and the PS3 will have a better library. Halo 3 + Forza 2 + Mass Effect + Fable 2 + Price Drop + Larger Hard Drives will make quite the compelling knock out combo next holiday, it will definitely be difficult for the PS3 and Wii to compete with that.
This of course is all just my personal speculation though.
Gears of War is a horrible example of depth, it's fun but IMO isn't worth more then one or two plays through the main campaign. I've actually written at length about the lack of a decent online portion as well.
Condemned: Criminal Origins was available at launch and continues to be my favorite Xbox 360 title so far, single player only but the story was compelling enough that I'd love to see a feature length film from it. Dead Rising and Saints Row as sandbox games also offer plenty of interest holding depth and the kind of substance where it takes you a while to play through them, and then you can do it over again a few times and still not see everything. Dead Rising has the unique distinction of being the only sandbox game/adventure horror set in a Zombie Infested mall (at least that I know of) not to mention the story line is pretty interesting. Saints Row is a bit of a GTA rip-off but it builds on that forumula quite well and offers some unique multiplayer modes on top of it which I haven't seen before in any other GTA style games. And while their depth is arguable I'm a fan of fighting and racing games as well and I find Dead or Alive 4, Project Gotham Racing 3, Burnout Revenge and Test Drive Unlimited quite compelling for a gamer of my tastes not just for the off line play but the online play as well. Not to mention the availability of classic fighters like Mortal Kombat 3 and Street Fighter 2 put online where I can find endless amounts of worthy human opponents who still enjoy those games is quite nice too. And while I haven't played much of them I've heard from friend who spoke highly of Enchanted Arms, Phantasy Star Universe, Viva Pinata, Lost Planet and a few others as being quite compelling.
I don't have anything against PC gaming, it's still quite a relevant platform IMO and a lot of the games I like on the 360 are PC ports: Oblivion, COD2/3, FEAR, Hitman, Splinter Cell etc. And while the benefits of these games on the PC over the 360 are definitely there I just don't play PC games anymore, I grew tired of the constant upgrades and tweaking required to get games to play and look how I wanted them to, but my reasons for no longer gaming on my PC are something for another discussion.
I see the Wii as a decent party game platform, with the exception of a few key titles I saw the Gamecube in pretty much the same light. But party games IMO are just cheap fun for when you have a group of friends and are looking for some mindless entertainment. I typically play games in lieu of watching TV as my daily entertainment, so while it's nice to have some good family fun when you occasionally find yourself entertaining guests the Wii doesn't have anything for me as a console I can play on a daily basis.
You're correct that they Xbox division hopes to be turning a profit by next year, but that doesn't mean they're still loosing money on each console sold. From what I've heard they're currently netting about $75 per premium unit sold. When the console launched they were estimated to have been loosing about $125 per unit, but have since been able to cut many of their manufacturing costs. I suspect that moving their chips to the 65nm process will further reduce costs.
Basically the only reason they haven't dropped prices yet is because the console IS actually turning a profit and they have the choice between gaining more market share (by dropping) or fast tracking the division towards getting out of the red (by staying where they are and collecting the profits on the units they're selling). There's no real incentive to drop since the Wii really targets a different market and the PS3 isn't currently threating their price point.
I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer and for me the Wii novelty wore off after about 2 weeks.
The problem for me is games like Wii sports are just lacking the depth to really hold my attention, and for games like Zelda the use of the Wii remote is just rather "meh". IMO it didn't add anything to Zelda and I would not have enjoyed the game any less using a Wavebird.
so about a month past buying the Wii it's started collecting dust and I've gone back to playing Xbox 360 games. IMO if the Wii wants to get past being a gimmick they need games that have the compelling depth of Zelda combined with the unique and value added controller usage of Wii Sports. So far the only title that really delivers that is Trauma Center, but I've already played that title... on the DS (widescreen support would have been nice too), Red Steel was close but the buggy game mechanics killed what uniqueness the Wii Remote added to it. I'm sure they'll come but as of right now I don't consider the Wii to be much more compelling then the PS3 is right now, if anything it serves as a nice show piece and entertainer when friends and family visit, and I'm sure there will be better games down the road... right now though, and I think the same holds true for many other hardcore gamers, there just isn't enough substance.
Just because they loose money at one point doesn't mean they wont make money in the long run. If they priced the PS3 at a point where they'd make a profit they'd be selling even fewer of them. Judging by the PS2's sales numbers (which IIRC they make about $40-$50 per unit these days). You're right that Nintendo passed the class but I'd say Sony passed that class as well.
Microsoft on the other hand... AFAIK the 360 is currently selling at a small profit but the Xbox 1 never reached that point, which is why it was dropped so quickly; the games division on a whole has been deep in the red since it's inception. Even still, I suspect they'll come out on top eventually just on a much longer time scale.
I think it would be benificial for the government to prevent DRM. They wouldn't waste all that FBI money on enforcing it, they would waste all that money in the legal system fighting over it's infringement, and consumers get a product that isn't artificially limited in it's use. And depending on who you believe record sales will actually increase as consumers get a product they're more happy with/are able to let more people experience more music causing them to buy more music.
It's win-win-win... except for the companies that exist only to develop ridiculous DRM schemes... but they were already losers anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
IF MS isn't buying then who will? The only other company that I could see having interest and the financial backing is EA... Honestly I think I'd rather have their games arrive on just Xbox 360 and maybe Windows later on, rather then anual and buggy releases on every platform under the sun.
I can see it now... GTA08, GTA09, GTA10...
I agree... and I still own all of my music on some physical format.... and I will continue to buy all of my media on a physical format until such time that I no longer have that option.
I enjoy the smell of fresh plastic thumbing through the booklet and seeing how the artists audible creation is represented visually on some cover art. At the same time I also rip all of my music so that I can have the flexibility I want, popping them on to my portable media player, or streaming them to another location in my house. Not to mention that ripping them myself gives me the the best control over how well the quality of the recording is preserved.
IMO digital distribution currently only serves ease of purchase... not ease of use, and that's mostly due to the DRM involved. Though even DRM free electronically distributed media doesn't appeal to me as much as a tangible representation of the content I've purchased.
well I don't know about the NFL but I do have a friend who used to work for one of those net-nanny companies identifying pornographic content...
if it's at all the same then it's a manual process, there is a small group of people that just spend all day searching for violations. Most likely, they just punched "NFL" into the search box on YouTube and the video came up.
You can argue the merits of existing analog archives staying analog but what about the rest of it?
There is more to improved graphics then HD... more polygons, more textures, more special effects and more horse power makes for an improved viewing experience regardless of your resolution. Not to mention the PS3 and Xbox 360 offer much more to the gaming experience then just better graphics through added horsepower.
The fact that you believe all they've added is HDTV support and that on an SDTV they look equivalent to their last gen counterparts says to me that either A. you haven't even done the most basic of research on these consoles before passing judgment. B. you're a rabid Nintendo fanboy, or C. all of the above.
FWIW I own both an Xbox 360 and a Wii, and I do not own an HDTV. Since finishing Zelda a few months ago the Wii has been collecting dust aside from the requisite 10 minute dog and pony show when relatives come to visits.
I don't have any problems with people having a preference in gaming machines; I have my preferences and others are entitled to theirs. Though I feel the need to say something when someone goes around making bold assumptions as undeniable truths as support for their preferences.
Crap... forgot the link: http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php
Honestly it's amazing the man even has a law degree. I seriously wonder if it was found in a cracker jack box.
Suncoast and Samgoody have always had ridiculous pricing on DVDs... I believe most DVDs at the Suncoast near me are still in the $25 range for something you can get at Walmart for $15.
Interesting points.. though not all IT departments are as onesided on their security. In addition to blocking webmail and a plethora of other sites on the web (including but not limited to porn, 3rd party proxies, social networks, and blogs). They also strip all PCs of DVD writers and usb ports monitor all I/O traffic to mass storage devices. if you need to burn something you have to make an IT request.
Unless you were a really crafty and well versed PC user (and 99.9% of our employees are not) the only way way to get data out of the building is to print it out and stuff it down your pants... and hope nobody sees you (which might be difficult considering we don't have cubicles). Even then all printers are on a network and every print job gets logged.
Of course our security wasn't half this good until an employee got pissed... quit... took loads of company data with him and sent it to our competitors. One of them played the good Samaritan and told us about their care package... if they didn't we wouldn't have ever known, but since then the place has been locked up tight.
Well you're right that the rating system doesn't really help much at all for weeding out the undesirables. I was more referring to the report system (not to be confused with the prefer/avoid rating system). I've spoken to an actual XBL employee about it and if an account gets 10 or more reports a real person will sit in on a game or two to see if the reports are founded and take appropriate action
I even recall playing UNO one night and there was a guy in there, he seemed a little rough around the edges... we were all just having a conversation about various things and joking with each other. Someone dumped a whole bunch of cards on him and he said "Awe, you Ni...." and stopped himself. He then said "Sorry, I can't say that word anymore because I got my XBL account banned for a month for that stuff and if I get reported again it's canceled for good." It made me smile, because it was proof that the system was working, and took someone who would normally spout off raciest vulgarities and turned them into a someone worth playing with.
I think you missed the point... On Xbox Live if someone is being rude or obnoxious I can block them, they're not only blocked in that game but every other game I might ever play on the service, they'll be excluded from games I host and the automatic match making will avoid putting us in the same room.
If they're causing more serious problems and I report them, and 9 other people report them as well, then they'll get their account reviewed and banned. They've lost all of their achievements, they've lost their friends list, and all of their other account details but most importantly they'll have to pay another $50 to sign back up. How much do you think the "riff-raff" would be willing to lose before they just go bother people on some free service where they can create new accounts to their hearts content?
I loathed online gaming for the longest time, it was a pain to find quality servers, it was a pain to find people who were my skill level, it was a pain to keep in touch with other gamers, and it was damn near impossible to get all three of those at once. I barely got any enjoyment out of online gaming in comparison to the work involved. I stuck mostly to LAN parties or split screen console games. When Dead or Alive Ultimate came out on the Xbox 1 I wanted to play online against some college friends so I signed up for Xbox Live... after about an hour I couldn't believe how streamlined and simple the whole service was. I've had an Xbox live account for 3 years now and I couldn't be happier with it. I could care less if the server us just one of the peers, I rarely have problems with lag or slowdown (probably because the game is built to handle the load of acting as a server) which is a lot more then I can say for the majority of the "proper" servers I find through the various free methods.
I used to spout off all sorts of crap about how stupid paying for Xbox Live is... bullet listed items with sound arguments and sources... While most of that is still true; and they really aren't doing much, the resultant ease of use the system creates makes playing online with a quality connection, skill matched opponents and plenty of options as easy as just loading the game and picking up the controller. For me, that's worth every last damn penny they charge.
The only hack I ever remember seeing is one where someone was able to log back into someone else's account on a public terminal even after the cache had been wiped, but that was quite a while ago and IIRC it was fixed rather quickly.
Standardizing the hardware segregates the hardware manufacturers from the game and accessory licensing. By doing this hardware manufacturers have NO CHOICE but to sell a the console at a profit. No other guaranteed source of income means they can't afford to sell the console at a loss. the Xbox 360 might have cost as much as a 3D0 when it came out but the difference is MS ate a chunk of that cost because they knew that they'd make it up selling games. None of the 3D0 manufactures had that guarantee, because they didn't receive any income from game licensing or accessory sales, so the consumers 3D0 price was higher then it cost to make.
It's a fundamental problem when you're trying to standardize hardware.
I think in the way TFA is referring is sections in games where you can't NOT loose. Maybe it's a boss fight where he'll just refill his health automagically if it gets too low or some lame outside force that swoops in and captures you just before you deliver the fatal blow.
In most cases this sort of thing really annoys the hell out of me, not because I dislike failing but because the methods they use almost always feel like they were playing outside the rules to do so. The only reason I lost that battle and advanced the story is because the game cheated me.
There are cases where it's done well though. In Gears of War there's an area where you have to run from a house across a courtyard into an APC. The Courtyard is full of baddies capped off with this really nasty boss like creature just before the APC. The game usually has you clearing out an area before you're allowed to advance, but in this case the odds are really stacked against you, and the boss like character will blow up the APC after about a minute's time. You can damage him and you can wipe out all the enemies in the courtyard too, but even if you're playing with two people and you both unload the most powerful weapons into the boss guy you don't have enough time to kill him before he destroys the APC. it's a battle you can't win, you have to just run by all the baddies and hop in the APC before it's destroyed to get by it. The important thing here is that the battle was unexpected and at no point did I feel the game was cheating me, because I wasn't getting infinitely powerful enemies or fall victim to some outside force beyond my control. I lost because of my own choices and I only made it through when I decided to change my choices. IIRC it's the only part in that game where you don't win the battle in front of you, but rather must execute a successful retreat.
I think a better scenario would be a branching plot line that hinges on the outcome of a battle. If you fight and lose and the game carries on and the world reflects that you lost an important battle. Even better if the odds are against you but you have a feeling that if you played it again you might be able to win (learning from you mistakes). Maybe you simply have to level up and fight again in a different setting, or maybe you don't ever get that opportunity again. but I'd like to think that any battle I enter into the computer should play by the rules. if I'm defeated I want to genuinely feel like it was my own fault, not that I played well but lost anyway.
I don't think it would be beyond the realm of possibility to have an RPG start your off with some complex task requiring some familiarity, if you succeed you can proceed from there, if you fail you get knocked into some scenario where you have to build yourself up from the dumb dumb status.
Think of Oblivion... maybe you were half way through the ranks in the thieves guild when you start and you get a decent mission, if you fail (get caught) you're thrown in jail and the game starts with you killing rats (training). But if you succeed you keep playing from that point on... and the main quest would kick off in some other scenario. I'm sure you could apply the same thing to any number of other games.
If I had to guess I'd say they're going to drop the price next holiday season, and that you'll probably see larger hard drives at about the same time.
IMO striving for profitaiblity is also why they haven't released a larger hard drive yet... much of that $75 of profit comes from the fact that the 20GB HDD is outrageously overpriced at this point. releasing a larger HDD would either kill their profits on the Premium unit (if they included the larger HDD with it) or it would drive sales towards the CORE unit (which still sells at a small loss) with people buying the larger HDD separate. over pricing a larger HDD wouldn't be much of an option because to make it comparable to the 20GB in terms of $ per GB it would cost nearly as much as the console itself, which probably wouldn't go over very well.
the move to 65nm will probably come with the first substantial redesign of the 360's internals which will cut costs of the unit that they could drop the price a clean $50-$100 and still turn profits on each unit sold. They'll start to roll those out any day now and probably enjoy some substantial profits until the holiday season where they'll drop the price, and roll out the bigger hard drives, they'll still be netting a profit on a per unit basis but next holiday is when they'll really need to concentrate on market share as the Wii will probably be easily available and the PS3 will have a better library. Halo 3 + Forza 2 + Mass Effect + Fable 2 + Price Drop + Larger Hard Drives will make quite the compelling knock out combo next holiday, it will definitely be difficult for the PS3 and Wii to compete with that.
This of course is all just my personal speculation though.
Gears of War is a horrible example of depth, it's fun but IMO isn't worth more then one or two plays through the main campaign. I've actually written at length about the lack of a decent online portion as well.
Condemned: Criminal Origins was available at launch and continues to be my favorite Xbox 360 title so far, single player only but the story was compelling enough that I'd love to see a feature length film from it. Dead Rising and Saints Row as sandbox games also offer plenty of interest holding depth and the kind of substance where it takes you a while to play through them, and then you can do it over again a few times and still not see everything. Dead Rising has the unique distinction of being the only sandbox game/adventure horror set in a Zombie Infested mall (at least that I know of) not to mention the story line is pretty interesting. Saints Row is a bit of a GTA rip-off but it builds on that forumula quite well and offers some unique multiplayer modes on top of it which I haven't seen before in any other GTA style games. And while their depth is arguable I'm a fan of fighting and racing games as well and I find Dead or Alive 4, Project Gotham Racing 3, Burnout Revenge and Test Drive Unlimited quite compelling for a gamer of my tastes not just for the off line play but the online play as well. Not to mention the availability of classic fighters like Mortal Kombat 3 and Street Fighter 2 put online where I can find endless amounts of worthy human opponents who still enjoy those games is quite nice too. And while I haven't played much of them I've heard from friend who spoke highly of Enchanted Arms, Phantasy Star Universe, Viva Pinata, Lost Planet and a few others as being quite compelling.
I don't have anything against PC gaming, it's still quite a relevant platform IMO and a lot of the games I like on the 360 are PC ports: Oblivion, COD2/3, FEAR, Hitman, Splinter Cell etc. And while the benefits of these games on the PC over the 360 are definitely there I just don't play PC games anymore, I grew tired of the constant upgrades and tweaking required to get games to play and look how I wanted them to, but my reasons for no longer gaming on my PC are something for another discussion.
I see the Wii as a decent party game platform, with the exception of a few key titles I saw the Gamecube in pretty much the same light. But party games IMO are just cheap fun for when you have a group of friends and are looking for some mindless entertainment. I typically play games in lieu of watching TV as my daily entertainment, so while it's nice to have some good family fun when you occasionally find yourself entertaining guests the Wii doesn't have anything for me as a console I can play on a daily basis.
You're correct that they Xbox division hopes to be turning a profit by next year, but that doesn't mean they're still loosing money on each console sold. From what I've heard they're currently netting about $75 per premium unit sold. When the console launched they were estimated to have been loosing about $125 per unit, but have since been able to cut many of their manufacturing costs. I suspect that moving their chips to the 65nm process will further reduce costs.
Basically the only reason they haven't dropped prices yet is because the console IS actually turning a profit and they have the choice between gaining more market share (by dropping) or fast tracking the division towards getting out of the red (by staying where they are and collecting the profits on the units they're selling). There's no real incentive to drop since the Wii really targets a different market and the PS3 isn't currently threating their price point.
I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer and for me the Wii novelty wore off after about 2 weeks.
The problem for me is games like Wii sports are just lacking the depth to really hold my attention, and for games like Zelda the use of the Wii remote is just rather "meh". IMO it didn't add anything to Zelda and I would not have enjoyed the game any less using a Wavebird.
so about a month past buying the Wii it's started collecting dust and I've gone back to playing Xbox 360 games. IMO if the Wii wants to get past being a gimmick they need games that have the compelling depth of Zelda combined with the unique and value added controller usage of Wii Sports. So far the only title that really delivers that is Trauma Center, but I've already played that title... on the DS (widescreen support would have been nice too), Red Steel was close but the buggy game mechanics killed what uniqueness the Wii Remote added to it. I'm sure they'll come but as of right now I don't consider the Wii to be much more compelling then the PS3 is right now, if anything it serves as a nice show piece and entertainer when friends and family visit, and I'm sure there will be better games down the road... right now though, and I think the same holds true for many other hardcore gamers, there just isn't enough substance.
Just because they loose money at one point doesn't mean they wont make money in the long run. If they priced the PS3 at a point where they'd make a profit they'd be selling even fewer of them. Judging by the PS2's sales numbers (which IIRC they make about $40-$50 per unit these days). You're right that Nintendo passed the class but I'd say Sony passed that class as well.
Microsoft on the other hand... AFAIK the 360 is currently selling at a small profit but the Xbox 1 never reached that point, which is why it was dropped so quickly; the games division on a whole has been deep in the red since it's inception. Even still, I suspect they'll come out on top eventually just on a much longer time scale.
I think it would be benificial for the government to prevent DRM. They wouldn't waste all that FBI money on enforcing it, they would waste all that money in the legal system fighting over it's infringement, and consumers get a product that isn't artificially limited in it's use. And depending on who you believe record sales will actually increase as consumers get a product they're more happy with/are able to let more people experience more music causing them to buy more music.
It's win-win-win... except for the companies that exist only to develop ridiculous DRM schemes... but they were already losers anyway.