snip
Blue-Ray? not thanks I'll just download and watch 1080p from my newsgroup servers.
Where do you think those 1080p movies on you newsgroup servers come from kid? I'll give you a hint... it starts with Blu and ends with Ray.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
snip
Blue-Ray? not thanks I'll just download and watch 1080p from my newsgroup servers.
while you're whining about how bad FF 13 sucks, I'm going to be playing it
Also if you think piracy isn't on consoles, there's a lot of delusion there. Some people buy a 360 to play online, and buy another 360 and mod it, and then pirate the hell out of the best single player games..
Well that's pretty obvious, being that the easiest platform to pirate is now gone? Not sure what point you were trying to prove there. No one except you was making the argument about piracy market share.Umm, also
if PC gaming were to stop existing tommorrow, I guarantee you that the pirates would shift more of an effort onto consoles.
It's also possible to pirate on Wii by installing custom homebrew software.
I don't know if it's possible to pirate on PS3.
That's been the thinking by some, and it's been proven to be foolish thinking over time. Sins of a Solar Empire (as do most, if not ALL of StarDock's games) had no DRM, put an incentive to buy the game by offering free DLC to subscribers. Result? The game was still pirated.PC piracy wouldn't be so rampant if they quit trying to implement stupid forms of DRM and made games that customers WANT to play. They will never win against the pirates, so trying to isn't going to work. They are better off just focusing on the customers that want to pay and making games they want to pay for.
On the physical media side; tying a CD key a game seems to have worked enough for StarCraft and Diablo, but was still a poor idea in that a small code written on either a CD sleeve, or slip of paper smaller than a Snickers bar basically decided if you could legally install, and use the game you had purchased.Best DRM I can think of is binding a cd key to some kind of online experience, obviously doesn't work for single player games, but EA had the right idea by making you log onto their servers to get their free DLC.
TF2 has free DLC too, Valve hit the right idea, that kind of concept needs to be reinforced, Valve got a lot more sales because of free DLC, patches, and updates than any other reason really.
Nor really. Look at most EA and 2K Sports titles. They still get purchased year in; year out with hardly ever living up to whatever feature/rosters were promoted that year.If people KNOW you will support a product, offer timely patches, free DLC with good updates, they will buy your product.
Good games with a fairly long history/lineage and fan base helps. Seems no one remembers how PC Fallout fans were raking FO3 over the coals for changing up the look/gameplay/'formula'.Look at Bethseda, Oblivion and Fallout 3 sold millions despite having next to no DRM.
The poor sales I'd say are due to the fact that PC is not the intended platform for this game/series, and PC players are realizing this. It has become tailored for consoles, but has a PC version to placate those players. It just doesn't help any when people hate the parent company, they 'add' matchmaking (which is step 1 towards the subscription model for this series), and the game has as many exploits/bugs as CoD:MW (same engine, seemingly same problematic code). It's not like CoD:MW was not hackable or anything.MW 2 barely sold on PC because of it's $10 higher price tag and a laundry list of reasons, abbreviated into the fact that it's a stripped and dumbed down CoD 4 without dedicated servers and it has rampant hacking.
We can agree on something, but even developers have a problem with that (Valve's conflict of interest being involved with Steam).Devs would be better off just offering Steam as the only DRM.
Even though Sony's PlayStation 3 is far behind both the Nintendo Wii and Xbox 360 in console sales, analysts at Strategy Analytics contend that when all is said and done, Sony will sell more consoles than its competitors.
Analysts at Strategy Analytics have polished up the ol crystal ball, looked ahead to 2014 and saw which console will win the war. The report will set you back a cool $7k (crystal balls dont come cheap) but, for those of you without that kinda cash on hand, you can get a brief summary here for free.
The anecdotal impression is that Microsoft is flat out lying over how many Xbox 360's they sell on a regular basis; and that the Red Ring of Death problem is far larger and more consistent across the Xbox 360 range than Microsoft. In the case of the Arcade system sells, if we accept that 2 or 3 million Xbox 360's went bust and were replaced by gamers buying the cheap Arcade version, the patterns of actual game and accessory sales fall back into ratios comparable to the original Xbox, and competitors such as the PS3, PS2, and Gamecube.
The anecdotal impression is that Microsoft is flat out lying over how many Xbox 360's they sell on a regular basis; and that the Red Ring of Death problem is far larger and more consistent across the Xbox 360 range than Microsoft wants to admit, or can afford to admit to publishers and developers. In the case of the Arcade system sells, if we accept that 2 or 3 million Xbox 360's went bust and were replaced by gamers buying the cheap Arcade version, the patterns of actual game and accessory sales fall back into ratios comparable to the original Xbox, and competitors such as the PS3, PS2, and Gamecube.
I can see this being somewhat true, since the Wii has become so stagnant and has no games worth playing on it outside certain first party titles. The Xbox 360 is such a piece of junk I refuse to buy it, BUT I am not biased against the 360, it certainly has better online, and a larger online gaming community than the PS3 will achieve in it's lifetime.
Let's also not forget that some people use their PS3's as a Blu-Ray player and DVD upscaler exclusively and may play games sporadically or not at all. The advantage to the PS3 is that it receives it's Blu-Ray updates to the firmware automatically. Doesn't hurt that for the longest time that the PS3 was also the best Blu-Ray player out there.
Lately, the games have been going from just merely good to plain goddamn awesome. Today FF 13 dropped, next week, God of War 3 comes out, recently we've had Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2 and Darksiders. All kinds of good games are coming out this year, the exclusives for this system have been very strong and spectecular. MGS4 is still the best PS3 game I've ever played and I have yet to get thick into Demon's Souls.
All in all, it's looking good for the PS3, now only if the fucking dumbshit executives at Sony could just shut their mouths because they sound so stupid every time they comment on even the most mundane of things!!!
Sort of like how you say you aren't biased against the 360 but refuse to buy one because it's a "piece of junk".
Nintendo has the right idea, keep it cheap and make cheap games.
It's definitely not the group you hang out with. I know a shocking number of people who don't play games on their PS3's. They use them for blu-ray and internet and nothing else. That being said, I have a few friends who bought 360's over PS3's because their friends all play on line with them despite wanting a PS3 more.So really you have to look at what the 360 offers vs what the PS3 offers in terms of games. The biggest factor for me is what my friends play- 90% of them all have Xbox's and play on Xbox Live. I bought a 360 because my friends all had them. I just don't know many people who actually play games on a PS3- maybe it's just the group of people I hang out with.
But you did with the wii, huh?I'm not really a fanboy, I have a Wii also, but it hasn't been powered on in months, like a year or so, it just sits there
i never bought the original xbox because i didn't like it's controller
i never bought a 360 cause of the RRoD and scratched disc issues
not about to just throw money down the drain
Well, first off, if by crush you mean outsell them, Nintendo is already accomplishing that so why would they bother worrying about an HD upgrade to the Wii.Why won't Nintendo make a Wii HD or Wii 2 (that's HD)? That would crush PS3 and XBox 360.
Well, first off, if by crush you mean outsell them, Nintendo is already accomplishing that so why would they bother worrying about an HD upgrade to the Wii.
Second, don't be too sure that it would improve sales at all. The Wii is being sold in large part to/for the "casual" and younger (under 10) market. The folks that care enough about having a million-plus pixels that they're unwilling to buy a Wii also might not get the games they want on a Wii HD.
Speaking purely for myself, a Wii HD couldn't replace my 360 or PS3 based on the games and the controller(s). I like the 360 controller best, the DualShock okay. The Wii motion controllers are good for games that utilize them well, but they can ruin an otherwise good game. Maybe it's because I'm "old school" but in any case I'm not at all ready to go motion control-primary.
The argument to this would be:
Nintendo pulls an Apple, and justs iterates on the DS (like Apple does on the iPods/iMacs for the most part). DS sales did not suffer jumping from the original DS (DS Fat) to the DS lite, or to the different colors (in fact, it usually made people go out, and purchase the new color scheme/bundle). Nothing major, just changes to screens and form factor/size.
DSi is released to combat piracy better, offer slightly better hardware (screens, cpu), a new physical game format, and no GBA backwards compatibility. An iteration of the DS mosrtly, but if Nintendo ever put full effort for DSi games instead of DS, this could be their new portable platform (DSi XL/LL is yet another iteration).
What does that have to do with the Wii? It's probably the route Nintendo takes again since it hasn't really let them down yet.
Wii HD could potentially offer hardware comparable to the 360/PS3 (now that hardware costs have dropped for the more expensive components depending on the platform).
They can still support Wii games; upscale, and perhaps anti-alias them to 720p, yet provide enough graphical power to allow better ports of 360/PS3.
Developers can then release better 3rd party games on a Nintendo system by porting the 360/PS3 versions (that already has had thousands, if not millions invested into development); instead of the PS2 versions, and with the marketshare the Wii has; offer them a larger market to which both parties can benefit.
Nintendo would get the 3rd party games that are not just PS2 ports with waggle controls, and publishers get a platform on which they don't have to waste resources on down-porting/re-creating from a 360/PS3 SKU.
They could either keep the same (or the old $250) price point for the new system, drop the Wii's price closer to the PS2's price, and then build in a user base of the 'cheap'/economical gamers, who then have an upgrade path down the road to the 'Wii HD'.
Pipe Dream? Perhaps, but don't be too surprised if something similar ever happens. it already happened with the GBA -> GBA SP -> DS -> DSi
Why won't Nintendo make a Wii HD or Wii 2 (that's HD)? That would crush PS3 and XBox 360.
friend that works at Nintendo says the plan is drop the Wii to PS2 price levels sell what ever the next system is going to be called at ~300 bucks and it will be on par with the 360 and PS3
There's a lot of delusion in you reading into what I said as me thinking piracy is not on consoles. However, what you are saying is: some people are buying 2 consoles (of which money may, or may not actually go to the hardware vendor), still buy games to play online (in some fashion perhaps similar as the consoles), then pirate the 'single player games'. Other than Bioshock, or perhaps a RPG, can you name any somewhat major console game nowadays without some form of online and/or multiplayer?
You're joking, right? If Nintendo comes out with a "Wii HD" (or whatever) it could easily have graphics capability as good, or better than, the 360/PS3. Why wouldn't it? The 360 and PS3 are already well behind the PC graphics curve, so the tech is there to get it done "on the cheap." You might have an argument if such a device was coming out today (or perhaps within the next 3 months), but that's not the case.No way a Wii successor costs $300 yet is on par with Gears 1+2 or Uncharted 1+2 graphically.
Okay, I agree this would likely be a problem, if only because games really have to be tweaked a ton to make good use of the Wii controllersProblem #2 is unless they go back on their current philosphy and bundle regular controllers with 2 analog sticks, 4 face buttons and 4 bumpers
But this isn't logical at all. Plenty of folks have bought both the 360 and the PS3 (myself included). The fact that they have similar controller functionality -- apart from the PS3 controller's underused motion capability -- isn't the stumbling block for anyone.they can come with anything they want to, people aren't going to buy another motion controlled console if they already own a Wii *or* already own a 360 or Ps3 with Natal and Sphere coming out by Christmas.
I don't know that it will never happen, but that is absolutely a huge problem facing the Wii when it comes to online gamers. The Wii/DS system is so user-unfriendly that it makes me angry every time I think about it.Thirdly they'd have to reinvent their online service and drop the friend codes and that ain't going to happen either.
HD/broadband penetration is just an excuse, and Nintendo knows it. With HD, they just wanted to get the most profit possible and debut at a lower price than the competition - mission accomplished. The online issue is all about making the system appear kid-friendly. There's a lot of paranoia out there about kids going online -- game consoles, PCs, etc. -- and Nintendo can point to their system and say "We're the safest!"Nintendo does not get HD and they do not get online play. Their opinion is that HD penetration is so low and so is broadband penetration, so...why bother? It's the same stupid philosophy they've had since the Gamecube came out.
BRB selling 50,000,000+consoles with "stupid philosophy"
Nintendo does not get HD and they do not get online play. Their opinion is that HD penetration is so low and so is broadband penetration, so...why bother? It's the same stupid philosophy they've had since the Gamecube came out.
At the end of the day, I am happy with both systems, but I still think Sony didn't deserve such a surge in sales due to a price drop. They have done little else besides that to polish such a tarnished reputation. Though they pulled similar stunts back in the days of the PS2 developers backed their system and it was my favorite system of that generation, those days are over Sony and it is time to put the archaic hardware business model behind you.
I certainly hope Sony doesn't become the Toyota of the console world, pissing on you while telling you it's raining.
I own all 4..
My PC Gaming is strictly MMO... except for blizzard games, and the gf with her sims 3. And this is mostly because game playing is just so much easier on the consoles, very rare system crashes, no drivers being incompatable and causing headaches, no features turned off because the developer got into bed with Nvidia over ATI... you plug in the disc and go.
Every one has there advantages and there disadvantages, and that is what really makes this round of the wars so interesting... it's people who embrace everything that win in the end, instead of the constant bickering over which will win, which is better.
You're joking, right? If Nintendo comes out with a "Wii HD" (or whatever) it could easily have graphics capability as good, or better than, the 360/PS3. Why wouldn't it? The 360 and PS3 are already well behind the PC graphics curve, so the tech is there to get it done "on the cheap." You might have an argument if such a device was coming out today (or perhaps within the next 3 months), but that's not the case.
But this isn't logical at all. Plenty of folks have bought both the 360 and the PS3 (myself included). The fact that they have similar controller functionality -- apart from the PS3 controller's underused motion capability -- isn't the stumbling block for anyone.
...Yeah, see, I didn't leave that statement open ended to where it could be twisted around like you just tried to.
Notice I didn't say anything about their sales in that sentence. I said their stance on HD and online play was a stupid philosophy. I didn't say their sales model was a stupid philosophy.
Nice try though.
Please do try to argue against this though. The Wii, just like the GC, supported a max 480p. The GC had an even more laughable online presence, what...2 games used the BBA and modem adapter? However the fact remains - the core of the Wii online engine is friend codes, same as the DS and it's many revisions (of which I own 2, a phat and a lite).
Down the road probably.
Nintendo's business model is sell low, build at low cost. Hence the euphemism that the Wii is "2 Gamecubes duct taped together".
They could come up with something better, however, I doubt they'd sell it for $300 right off the bat. Nintendo doesn't like losing money; they never have. Hell they haven't lost money since the Virtual Boy. The Gamecube was a statistical failure (compared to the Ps2 and the Xbox), but it still made them money. Therefore going by past history - Nintendo's not going to sell a console that costs $500 to manufacture at an MSRP of $299; that's not going to happen. For crying out loud DS's are probably cheap enough to give away free with a box of cereal but that didn't stop them from announcing the DS XL will cost $190 which is damn near a Wii or a 360 Arcade.
I'm saying if Nintendo releases an "elite" Wii (HD and a higher cost), it's going to cater to what Nintendo calls "core gamers" (and what has been referred to as "hardcore gamers" for a long time now). I don't think core gamers are going to pay $300 for a Wii with HD graphics just to see Mario in 1080p. Core gamers are lifelong gamers who grew up on Nintendo (or Atari/Colecovision) like I did. Nintendo would need to shed the "kiddie" image, and they've done a decent job of starting that greenlighting stuff like Mad World and GTA DS, but they have to keep that up before I consider Nintendo as a company that isn't afraid to put out titles that may offend people (due to violence, content, blood, language, etc).
~just my $0.02