Sony isn't as arrogant as people try to make them seem. People have attached a persona to a succesful entity, as always. Nintendo didn't have to bend over backwards to get FF back on thier system, it was SE that had to bow to thier whims (and make crystal chronicles) so the can bank on the Gameboys success.
"I hate the game with a passion, so I'm not saying this as a fanboy, but I remember that until FFVII, the PS was just one of 102974071240912 CD-based consoles that would have flopped, like all the others who tried"
One game never makes an entire system. Grand turismo, resident evil, tomb raider, tony hawk, the tekken series and MGS just to name a few helped propel the original playstation to its success. If the FF series never came to the system then the Gran turismo series would have to hold the mantle..... as a matter of fact to this day gran turismo has sold more copies than FFVII.
"It's really not as crazy as it sounds, you know."
Actually yes it is. Sony has been an electronics companie first and foremost. They own the majority of the factories they use and by habit have smaller sister companies that turn around and sell parts to them in bulk.
Where on earth do you get your information? DIVX was started by circuit city and some law entertainment firm. The came in and failed because of the enemies they instantly made such as hollywood videos and blockbuster. No matter which format won out the movie companies did put forth any real effort to promote this media, they stood to profit no matter what. This is an entirely different situation in which some of the biggest movi, scratch that, biggest companies in the world period, stand to profit. The companies on the bda make hundreds of billions of dollars and can easly afford to put through an effort to make BRD's more prominant in the faces of consumers.
from your link
"Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an
interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand
with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in
profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per
console profit."
Thats interesting, is this refering to the gaming division or to Sony as a whole?
http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&cid=33095
Sony currently makes a between 150 million to 200 million in profit each quarter. Somehow to use that ballpark figure mentioned in your link is supposed to inform us on how Sony's gaming division did not lose any money on the PS2? Why is this website the only website I have ever seen to imply something of that nature? I am pretty much done with this conversation as I can see in which direction it is heading.
Where does it not make sense? Instead of at cost, it was assumed that a certain number of games would be purchased per system. With that forecast or prediction of a consoles integration with the market chances ar royalties were set and remained the same. Whether it was contracted on a per company basis, set up as percentages of units sold or was charged per units made most business blindly charge into a market strategy blindly. What you speak of is actually a simple causality which was most likely researched.
"It says a lot about Sony's incompetence"
Sony decided to fight the lawsuit and MS decided to settle then buy a portion of the company. This was just a question of when to pick and choose your battles but if you took time to read immersions patents you would see that they are pretty generic in terms of functionality and use. Patents with loose wording just in case they could blanket a type of device or way of doing something. How you manage to tusn this around and blame Sony is a sign of how much anti-sony spin has been spewed on the internet lately.
"Kingdom Hearts II? Stopped halfway"
I can understand him not being interested in the story but I sure hope he isn't using this game as an example of an impossible to finish the game.
As a fan of console RPGs, I run into this all the time. Some games keep the fun continuous. Others require a lot of old-school level "grinding to wring out the rewards. Some games make it easy to pick the game up and remember where you were if work intervenes for a week or two. Others leave you feeling like you need to start over."
That is understandable but this is completely different from what this guy is talking about. He is using Tomb Raider as an example. What I can understand from this article is that he is complaining about how games are designed. He incorrectly uses terms hardcore and softcore to describe playing ability not intensity and devotion. I would consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer but when I can pick up a controller to play smash brothers and lose badly to someone else I would not blame it on the other persons ability to spent 100 hours a week on the game. That could be a factor, or chance are he is more adept in that video game than I am. For certain gamers it comes as a second sense to know the limitations of a game or what aspects can be exploited. The 40 hour game is just a companies guess on how long it would take for the average player to beat the game. Many of you gaming einstiens may do it in 15 hours and some gaming gumps can do it in 70 but if you fall in either one of those catagories you are an exception to the rule in the world of gamers.
I know that I am one of many who likes rumble but would not miss it to much if it went away. Tournaments in naruto games on the GC and on wavebirds showed us how much we didn't pay attention to rumble and how much we can get by without it. What this does is force people to stop and think whether or not they would miss the controller. If you put a fun game on the screen and a controller without rumble in someones hand I am pretty sure that most will not realize the rumble is missing.
You have misunderstood what happened. MS lost 4 billion on purpose for market saturatioin but could have gotten most of it back through the sales of its game. The key difference here is that the Xbox was being sold at a loss for the majority of its lifetime (competition reasons only) where as the PS2 was mached 3 years after its release. Not to mention look at how many titles sold over 1 million copies for the PS2. Compare and contrast to the xbox and the GC. All those factors together shows how riskey the razorblade model is and Sony did it right. MS, albeit on purpose, did it wrong.
Thank you. This is one of the most interesting conversations I have had in a long time as well. I apologize for not being clear about the normal mapping conversation. What I am trying to get across is that the higher poly count model, normally used to enhance the lower count poly model, can now be used in games because of the absurd amount of power being employed here. As far as the size issue goes, I put my faith in my favorite game devs. If Hideo Kojima says he is using the space or is even contemplating using the space then I see that this can be a feesable thing. So if PD increased the size and detail of one of thier cars by six wouldn't it be safe to assume they did so for the entire game? If GT4 (i really do not know) took up 4.5 gigs and GT5 turns out to be 6 times bigger then that proves a pretty strong arguement about the importance of bigger media in this gen's console. The PS3 is not out yet so I cannot speak with certainty but if a couple of launch games are actually using the majority of the blu ray discspace in a productive way, wouldn't that signal the importance of that space over the entire life of that console? I fully understand that it may raise production costs and even the game cost but I am probably one of the few who would actually purchase those games eagerly.
We could probably go on forever about this but you are voicing the concerns of many people that say that devs are going to waste the majority of space on the disc. That may be tru for most and during the early life of the system but I am not going to believe that most devs will lust take the easy path out and NOT find a way to fill that space with data. They did that very quickly with both the XBox and the PS2 then spent the later years of each consoles life figuring out how to make things run more effeciently, which enable most devs to fit more content in the same amount of space. Now devs are given even more freedom to bring thier visions to life which actually might result in longer games and more elaborate stages and designs. Many end up on the floor not only because of space restrictions but also restrictions in what any given console could do.
I was mentioning resitance because you asked me to mention a game, something that was posted clearly on ign. The system isn't out yet but there are hints of Resistance, MGS4, afrika and warhawk actually using a large portion of blu ray. As for the normal mapping I was talking about the ability of modelers (thats really the only first hand knowledge I have) to be able to use bigger (higher poly count) models in a game. The serve great use as to less deformation and is of habit because they normally model high res to make the normal mapped characters that is so prevelant in our games today.
There are only a few multi-dvd games out there but that goes hand in hand with system restrictions. There was only so much the previous gen systems could do and display at one time. Given now that the PS3 is more than (as stated by sony) 25 times more powerful than the PS2 then by all logic more detail in animations, textures and modeling go in. This all results in taking up more space. In gran turismo 3 it took over 3,500 polygons make each vehicle and it took two weeks to design and model each car, GT 4 took a month and now for GT5 on the PS3 it takes half a year to complete one car. (all according to the Series producer Kazunori Yamauchi). I am not sure how you can imply that that level of detail will not result in an incredibly larger game.
Why do you see more multiple CD's instead of dvd's. Memory restricions. The PS1 games operated off of a raw reading drive that streamed more information to the system than was stored into the memory. Another reason was because of those wonderful FMV's you were refering to as well. The majority of multiple discs games for the PS1 were RPGs and along with those games came 30 minutes to an hour of FMV. If the majority of the games had so much space to waste on FMV's and were normally attributed to one genre, how can you call that critical mass?
Why not try IGN's hands on report of resistance? Or the developer blogs? Right now I would link you but I cannot because of the device I am using. If you are a seasoned developer you are used to building models from the ground up. Modelers who have been introduced to the wonders of normal mapping now tend to make very detailed characters first then create a smaller sized model to normal map to. I understand different companies have different ways of making a video game but to tell me that it is hard for a game dev to fill up a dvd I really do not buy. resistance as per various reports, sports about 400 animations per character. If you add to that complete area's of games with very few instanced objects and repeated textures and increased texture sizes (non-procedural) then you can fill up space very quickly. These little things add up to a big difference in what a person sees in a video game. I am pretty sure you can come back here and debate whether or not its a good idea to do such things, as it drives production costs up but as a person that loves CG and video games, I will spend money on whatever I see is worth it.
"Bigger storage needs for video games haven't reached enough critical mass to warrant the bigger disks, in my opinion."
If you have been around long enough you would know that was never really the case. From 600MB to 1GB to the 4.5GB, all these forms of media were introduced at times when the extra space wasn't needed per say, but devs quickly found ways to utilize the space. And in each generation you can see that it normally took about a year and a half for most devs to acclimate to the space. I am curious about how long you have been making video games to make a statement like that?
Your need for bashing falls flat. I already Know this information, I post this information on my website. What you are not getting is that even though the same companies will profit from BOTH media' sales. The bigger companies stand to profit MORE off of blu ray.
"Last I knew, the Premium Xbox 360 ("non-core") was $399. Plus games, as with the PS3. I was under the impression that the cheaper $499 PS3 model was all but useless as a blu-ray player that they've been touting it as, so you're looking at $599 plus quite possibly more expensive games - a $200 difference right off the bat."
Another thing he was mentioning the HD-DVD add on in addition to the premium 360. I don't need a movie player is a perfect excuse but many of the games comming out for the PS3 are on Blu ray and actually taking advantage of the space. Not only in terms of textures but animations per character and the reduction of instanced objects in a given scene. Now that the low end PS3 has HDMI everyones complaints should be muted and without a doubt a low end PS3 is of more value than the premium 360.
To add to a more expensive game spin, what happens when the game becomes 10 to 20 hours longer on average. Is that something your not willing to pay for? How exactly do you think this content is made? The fact remains that for what it is the PS3 is a very good gaming system (part and specs only) and has the potential to be one of the greatest consoles again. All that is needed, is for the PS3 to regain the variaty of solid and fun titles that the PS2 had.
Sony has always had a high strung attitude. That is not what enticed people to buy the Playstations. It was because of the games. it amazes me how people would claim the PS's large sales to manufacture defects. If the system didn't have any good games why would anyone purchase it? you haven't "seen" anything that has interested you? I have "owned" every almost every system since the atari 2600 and to this date, The best games and the largest library of great games has to go to the PS line hands down. I am the type of person who buys movies and games that are not advertised all over the place just for new experiences and out of all the systems, again the PS line has the most hidden gems. Not to deny the great games that were on the nintendo's, xbox, or sega (i luv you sega!!!) but the numbers and the experiences are clear. The Mii channels look great and so does using the wii-mote but if it continues to have the GC trend of pick up and play (insert addiction) vs engrossing gameplay and thematics then the PS3 might just end up on top. AS to be expected.
I am lost..... the N64 and the gamecube were aimed at the hardcore?
I love how people speak of the same old same old and then use the "same old games" as an example of something different. It is very simple. The Wii could be hit or miss but even as such if the ps3 has even half of the good games that the PS2 has had (and still have to this day) then this guys predictions might be on point.
"A secondary problem I see is that consoles are consoles. They're supposed to be a standardized unit in which I can assure myself that everyone is having the same playing experience. This seems to no longer be true with the different models of Xbox360 or PS3 they are planning. And, frankly, it turns me off a bit. Is it a good thing that consoles are becoming more like computers? And if it is, why aren't we just buying a special USB controller from these companies and running everything on our computers?"
While that may hold true for the 360 it does not for the PS3. The higher end SKU has slightly more space,wifi, and and hdmi port but that does not change how programmers will dev the game. The most important components remain the same so the devs only have to keep the lowest common denominator in mind which is ok because the Higher end does nothing for performance.
The stronger issue at hand is how the batteries are made. They are filled with flamable liquids and because of the manufacturing processes little shards of metal sometimes ar caught between the layers. The demand for longer lasting batteries translate to companies wanting the manufacturers to make longer lasting batteries. This is done by making the protective layers/seperators thinner so they can fit more cells in a compact battery.
"No, not really. Remember when the PSP was coming out how everyone was oo-ing and aah-ing the 'technologicaly impressive' PSP? I remember it well, mostly because I was one of the those posting replies to posts like yours, that stated Nintendo has had it and that those two screens, mic and touch screen were all gimics, especially when compared to the PSP which is 'more powerfull than the PS1'. Of course all I could say at the time was 'think of the possibilities!'."
It is still an impressive piece of hardware. The only issue was with the games, which they are only now getting around to fix it. As far as the PS3, the games will not be a concern because of the upswell and the support they have had from thier PS2 ensures that most of thier heavy hitters are comming out soonoer or later on the PS3. You can use that as a comparison to the support that the DS recieved because of its previous 10+ years of success with the gameboy line.....10+ years, thats a long time.
So chances are it is about the games. The pick up and play style always lends more to a portable than a home console so it is really curious as to how this will play out. nintendo has not changed thier ideas on gaming since the N64. The ideas and gameplay has been echoed throught the GC and most likely continue to the Wii. The way the games are played might make a difference but the biggest will be how the game is structured. If the wii can come up with games that can change both we will have a killer system.
"So your answer is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people so that 100 illegal votes won't be cast?"
Yes, 100 illegal votes per person not just 100 votes.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony isn't as arrogant as people try to make them seem. People have attached a persona to a succesful entity, as always. Nintendo didn't have to bend over backwards to get FF back on thier system, it was SE that had to bow to thier whims (and make crystal chronicles) so the can bank on the Gameboys success.
"I hate the game with a passion, so I'm not saying this as a fanboy, but I remember that until FFVII, the PS was just one of 102974071240912 CD-based consoles that would have flopped, like all the others who tried" One game never makes an entire system. Grand turismo, resident evil, tomb raider, tony hawk, the tekken series and MGS just to name a few helped propel the original playstation to its success. If the FF series never came to the system then the Gran turismo series would have to hold the mantle..... as a matter of fact to this day gran turismo has sold more copies than FFVII.
"It's really not as crazy as it sounds, you know." Actually yes it is. Sony has been an electronics companie first and foremost. They own the majority of the factories they use and by habit have smaller sister companies that turn around and sell parts to them in bulk.
Where on earth do you get your information? DIVX was started by circuit city and some law entertainment firm. The came in and failed because of the enemies they instantly made such as hollywood videos and blockbuster. No matter which format won out the movie companies did put forth any real effort to promote this media, they stood to profit no matter what. This is an entirely different situation in which some of the biggest movi, scratch that, biggest companies in the world period, stand to profit. The companies on the bda make hundreds of billions of dollars and can easly afford to put through an effort to make BRD's more prominant in the faces of consumers.
from your link "Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per console profit." Thats interesting, is this refering to the gaming division or to Sony as a whole? http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&cid=33095 Sony currently makes a between 150 million to 200 million in profit each quarter. Somehow to use that ballpark figure mentioned in your link is supposed to inform us on how Sony's gaming division did not lose any money on the PS2? Why is this website the only website I have ever seen to imply something of that nature? I am pretty much done with this conversation as I can see in which direction it is heading.
Where does it not make sense? Instead of at cost, it was assumed that a certain number of games would be purchased per system. With that forecast or prediction of a consoles integration with the market chances ar royalties were set and remained the same. Whether it was contracted on a per company basis, set up as percentages of units sold or was charged per units made most business blindly charge into a market strategy blindly. What you speak of is actually a simple causality which was most likely researched.
"It says a lot about Sony's incompetence" Sony decided to fight the lawsuit and MS decided to settle then buy a portion of the company. This was just a question of when to pick and choose your battles but if you took time to read immersions patents you would see that they are pretty generic in terms of functionality and use. Patents with loose wording just in case they could blanket a type of device or way of doing something. How you manage to tusn this around and blame Sony is a sign of how much anti-sony spin has been spewed on the internet lately.
"Kingdom Hearts II? Stopped halfway" I can understand him not being interested in the story but I sure hope he isn't using this game as an example of an impossible to finish the game.
As a fan of console RPGs, I run into this all the time. Some games keep the fun continuous. Others require a lot of old-school level "grinding to wring out the rewards. Some games make it easy to pick the game up and remember where you were if work intervenes for a week or two. Others leave you feeling like you need to start over." That is understandable but this is completely different from what this guy is talking about. He is using Tomb Raider as an example. What I can understand from this article is that he is complaining about how games are designed. He incorrectly uses terms hardcore and softcore to describe playing ability not intensity and devotion. I would consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer but when I can pick up a controller to play smash brothers and lose badly to someone else I would not blame it on the other persons ability to spent 100 hours a week on the game. That could be a factor, or chance are he is more adept in that video game than I am. For certain gamers it comes as a second sense to know the limitations of a game or what aspects can be exploited. The 40 hour game is just a companies guess on how long it would take for the average player to beat the game. Many of you gaming einstiens may do it in 15 hours and some gaming gumps can do it in 70 but if you fall in either one of those catagories you are an exception to the rule in the world of gamers.
I know that I am one of many who likes rumble but would not miss it to much if it went away. Tournaments in naruto games on the GC and on wavebirds showed us how much we didn't pay attention to rumble and how much we can get by without it. What this does is force people to stop and think whether or not they would miss the controller. If you put a fun game on the screen and a controller without rumble in someones hand I am pretty sure that most will not realize the rumble is missing.
You have misunderstood what happened. MS lost 4 billion on purpose for market saturatioin but could have gotten most of it back through the sales of its game. The key difference here is that the Xbox was being sold at a loss for the majority of its lifetime (competition reasons only) where as the PS2 was mached 3 years after its release. Not to mention look at how many titles sold over 1 million copies for the PS2. Compare and contrast to the xbox and the GC. All those factors together shows how riskey the razorblade model is and Sony did it right. MS, albeit on purpose, did it wrong.
Thank you. This is one of the most interesting conversations I have had in a long time as well. I apologize for not being clear about the normal mapping conversation. What I am trying to get across is that the higher poly count model, normally used to enhance the lower count poly model, can now be used in games because of the absurd amount of power being employed here. As far as the size issue goes, I put my faith in my favorite game devs. If Hideo Kojima says he is using the space or is even contemplating using the space then I see that this can be a feesable thing. So if PD increased the size and detail of one of thier cars by six wouldn't it be safe to assume they did so for the entire game? If GT4 (i really do not know) took up 4.5 gigs and GT5 turns out to be 6 times bigger then that proves a pretty strong arguement about the importance of bigger media in this gen's console. The PS3 is not out yet so I cannot speak with certainty but if a couple of launch games are actually using the majority of the blu ray discspace in a productive way, wouldn't that signal the importance of that space over the entire life of that console? I fully understand that it may raise production costs and even the game cost but I am probably one of the few who would actually purchase those games eagerly.
We could probably go on forever about this but you are voicing the concerns of many people that say that devs are going to waste the majority of space on the disc. That may be tru for most and during the early life of the system but I am not going to believe that most devs will lust take the easy path out and NOT find a way to fill that space with data. They did that very quickly with both the XBox and the PS2 then spent the later years of each consoles life figuring out how to make things run more effeciently, which enable most devs to fit more content in the same amount of space. Now devs are given even more freedom to bring thier visions to life which actually might result in longer games and more elaborate stages and designs. Many end up on the floor not only because of space restrictions but also restrictions in what any given console could do.
I was mentioning resitance because you asked me to mention a game, something that was posted clearly on ign. The system isn't out yet but there are hints of Resistance, MGS4, afrika and warhawk actually using a large portion of blu ray. As for the normal mapping I was talking about the ability of modelers (thats really the only first hand knowledge I have) to be able to use bigger (higher poly count) models in a game. The serve great use as to less deformation and is of habit because they normally model high res to make the normal mapped characters that is so prevelant in our games today. There are only a few multi-dvd games out there but that goes hand in hand with system restrictions. There was only so much the previous gen systems could do and display at one time. Given now that the PS3 is more than (as stated by sony) 25 times more powerful than the PS2 then by all logic more detail in animations, textures and modeling go in. This all results in taking up more space. In gran turismo 3 it took over 3,500 polygons make each vehicle and it took two weeks to design and model each car, GT 4 took a month and now for GT5 on the PS3 it takes half a year to complete one car. (all according to the Series producer Kazunori Yamauchi). I am not sure how you can imply that that level of detail will not result in an incredibly larger game. Why do you see more multiple CD's instead of dvd's. Memory restricions. The PS1 games operated off of a raw reading drive that streamed more information to the system than was stored into the memory. Another reason was because of those wonderful FMV's you were refering to as well. The majority of multiple discs games for the PS1 were RPGs and along with those games came 30 minutes to an hour of FMV. If the majority of the games had so much space to waste on FMV's and were normally attributed to one genre, how can you call that critical mass?
Why not try IGN's hands on report of resistance? Or the developer blogs? Right now I would link you but I cannot because of the device I am using. If you are a seasoned developer you are used to building models from the ground up. Modelers who have been introduced to the wonders of normal mapping now tend to make very detailed characters first then create a smaller sized model to normal map to. I understand different companies have different ways of making a video game but to tell me that it is hard for a game dev to fill up a dvd I really do not buy. resistance as per various reports, sports about 400 animations per character. If you add to that complete area's of games with very few instanced objects and repeated textures and increased texture sizes (non-procedural) then you can fill up space very quickly. These little things add up to a big difference in what a person sees in a video game. I am pretty sure you can come back here and debate whether or not its a good idea to do such things, as it drives production costs up but as a person that loves CG and video games, I will spend money on whatever I see is worth it. "Bigger storage needs for video games haven't reached enough critical mass to warrant the bigger disks, in my opinion." If you have been around long enough you would know that was never really the case. From 600MB to 1GB to the 4.5GB, all these forms of media were introduced at times when the extra space wasn't needed per say, but devs quickly found ways to utilize the space. And in each generation you can see that it normally took about a year and a half for most devs to acclimate to the space. I am curious about how long you have been making video games to make a statement like that?
Your need for bashing falls flat. I already Know this information, I post this information on my website. What you are not getting is that even though the same companies will profit from BOTH media' sales. The bigger companies stand to profit MORE off of blu ray.
"Last I knew, the Premium Xbox 360 ("non-core") was $399. Plus games, as with the PS3. I was under the impression that the cheaper $499 PS3 model was all but useless as a blu-ray player that they've been touting it as, so you're looking at $599 plus quite possibly more expensive games - a $200 difference right off the bat." Another thing he was mentioning the HD-DVD add on in addition to the premium 360. I don't need a movie player is a perfect excuse but many of the games comming out for the PS3 are on Blu ray and actually taking advantage of the space. Not only in terms of textures but animations per character and the reduction of instanced objects in a given scene. Now that the low end PS3 has HDMI everyones complaints should be muted and without a doubt a low end PS3 is of more value than the premium 360. To add to a more expensive game spin, what happens when the game becomes 10 to 20 hours longer on average. Is that something your not willing to pay for? How exactly do you think this content is made? The fact remains that for what it is the PS3 is a very good gaming system (part and specs only) and has the potential to be one of the greatest consoles again. All that is needed, is for the PS3 to regain the variaty of solid and fun titles that the PS2 had.
Wow, haven't been reading news much? Universal is the only movie company on the board of HD-DVD. While the Blu ray disc association is comprised of almost everyone else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Associat ion
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Sec tion-14009/Index.html
Before you say something along the lines of HD-dvd having more going for it than blu ray is purely selective.
Hrmm, I guess you missed the part about MS losing 4 billion despite ending up second place in the last gen race.
Sony has always had a high strung attitude. That is not what enticed people to buy the Playstations. It was because of the games. it amazes me how people would claim the PS's large sales to manufacture defects. If the system didn't have any good games why would anyone purchase it? you haven't "seen" anything that has interested you? I have "owned" every almost every system since the atari 2600 and to this date, The best games and the largest library of great games has to go to the PS line hands down. I am the type of person who buys movies and games that are not advertised all over the place just for new experiences and out of all the systems, again the PS line has the most hidden gems. Not to deny the great games that were on the nintendo's, xbox, or sega (i luv you sega!!!) but the numbers and the experiences are clear. The Mii channels look great and so does using the wii-mote but if it continues to have the GC trend of pick up and play (insert addiction) vs engrossing gameplay and thematics then the PS3 might just end up on top. AS to be expected.
I am lost..... the N64 and the gamecube were aimed at the hardcore? I love how people speak of the same old same old and then use the "same old games" as an example of something different. It is very simple. The Wii could be hit or miss but even as such if the ps3 has even half of the good games that the PS2 has had (and still have to this day) then this guys predictions might be on point.
"A secondary problem I see is that consoles are consoles. They're supposed to be a standardized unit in which I can assure myself that everyone is having the same playing experience. This seems to no longer be true with the different models of Xbox360 or PS3 they are planning. And, frankly, it turns me off a bit. Is it a good thing that consoles are becoming more like computers? And if it is, why aren't we just buying a special USB controller from these companies and running everything on our computers?" While that may hold true for the 360 it does not for the PS3. The higher end SKU has slightly more space,wifi, and and hdmi port but that does not change how programmers will dev the game. The most important components remain the same so the devs only have to keep the lowest common denominator in mind which is ok because the Higher end does nothing for performance.
The stronger issue at hand is how the batteries are made. They are filled with flamable liquids and because of the manufacturing processes little shards of metal sometimes ar caught between the layers. The demand for longer lasting batteries translate to companies wanting the manufacturers to make longer lasting batteries. This is done by making the protective layers/seperators thinner so they can fit more cells in a compact battery.
"No, not really. Remember when the PSP was coming out how everyone was oo-ing and aah-ing the 'technologicaly impressive' PSP? I remember it well, mostly because I was one of the those posting replies to posts like yours, that stated Nintendo has had it and that those two screens, mic and touch screen were all gimics, especially when compared to the PSP which is 'more powerfull than the PS1'. Of course all I could say at the time was 'think of the possibilities!'." It is still an impressive piece of hardware. The only issue was with the games, which they are only now getting around to fix it. As far as the PS3, the games will not be a concern because of the upswell and the support they have had from thier PS2 ensures that most of thier heavy hitters are comming out soonoer or later on the PS3. You can use that as a comparison to the support that the DS recieved because of its previous 10+ years of success with the gameboy line.....10+ years, thats a long time. So chances are it is about the games. The pick up and play style always lends more to a portable than a home console so it is really curious as to how this will play out. nintendo has not changed thier ideas on gaming since the N64. The ideas and gameplay has been echoed throught the GC and most likely continue to the Wii. The way the games are played might make a difference but the biggest will be how the game is structured. If the wii can come up with games that can change both we will have a killer system.
"So your answer is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people so that 100 illegal votes won't be cast?" Yes, 100 illegal votes per person not just 100 votes.