Edit: As it turns out, the comments cited were posted by someone pretending to be Jack Thompson. This bothers me. It is long past time for video games to join with other mainstream media and become a "fully fledged hobby" in Western society. Posts pretending to be anti-video game activists only drive the gaming community further underground and vilify us.
For posterity's sake, the entirety of my post is left here unedited. My comments, save the fourth, all still speak my mind.
Note that all emphasis is my own. Full text is found here:
"Let me reason with you disgraceful game playing maggots, the game industry is taking money and brain washing you young folk. You buy your games making your parents proke [sic] leeching off every peice [sic] of money stalking from them only to fund take 2 interactive and rockstar games. Thiis [sic yet again!] nation is in for a sad day when youths are influenced by video games."
Now, I'll grant that this post could have been by someone pretending to be Mr. Thompson--Gamepolitics.com does not have a system whereby posters are positively identified. However, the post does sound authentic.
As a married, adult gamer, here's a little advice for Mr. Thompson.
1) We're not all kids, and we resent being called kids. Video games are a hobby many adults proudly enjoy, just like model trains, stamp collecting, or golf.
2) When you're being investigated by the state bar for violations of professional ethics, publicly calling your opponents "maggots" does not help your case.
3) Rockstar did not put you in any danger. You did. Your own self-aggrandizement has made you a 'lawyer celebrity.' Rockstar's parody may/may not have been directed at you individually (I doubt it was), but they did not give anyone firearms, directions to your house, or even your name.
4) Get some help. You do not sound mentally well.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Why I think the analyst group DFC Intelligence are morons
In this article (also linked here), the analyst group DFC predicts that the xbox 360 is going to fall to "a fairly distant third" in terms of market share if they do not start picking up steam in Japan. Now it's no big secret that Microsoft has been courting Japan pretty hard with its next gen installment. It's also no big secret that MS has not been doing great there (in fact, they've pretty much fallen flat on their faces). But my big question is this: who gives a hoot if Japan doesn't like the xbox 360?
According to research compiled at www.vgchartz.com, the ps2 as of March 2007 had sold 117 million units worldwide. Sounds about right. Of that 117 million, 25 million were sold in japan, or about 20%. In other words, roughly 80% of their global sales came from everywhere else: the USA, Europe, etc.
Let's say that over the course of its lifespan, the Xbox 360 enjoys only half of the success of the ps2 in America and Europe, and sells nothing in Japan. That's still 47 million units sold--roughly double the sales the original xbox saw. And that's a very conservative estimate on my part; Microsoft has already sold 11 million 360s in spite of its relatively high price point (considering that the ps2 is still very much a competitor in the current market).
So if DFC are wrong and MS doesn't need to focus on Japan to keep up with their competition, then what should they focus on? Two words: The west.
Right now, in the west, MS is killing it. They've sold more consoles in North America and Europe than any of their competitors (including the Wii). Why continue throwing money away in a territory you can't win? By focusing on Europe and America, MS is targeting 80% of Sony's last gen purchasers. It seems dumb at first to write off 20% of your potential market, but I look at it this way: MS may be disadvantaged in Japan because MS is an 'outsider' there, but Sony and Nintendo are disadvantaged in the west because they're Japanese. Microsoft may suck at genres that are popular in Japan (traditional RPGs, dynasty warrior clones), but Nintendo and Sony suck at genres that are popular in the west (sandbox games, sports titles, and FPSs).
So I say, screw Japan. Make the 360 the ultimate English-speaker's console, and you've easily got the top console of your generation.
According to research compiled at www.vgchartz.com, the ps2 as of March 2007 had sold 117 million units worldwide. Sounds about right. Of that 117 million, 25 million were sold in japan, or about 20%. In other words, roughly 80% of their global sales came from everywhere else: the USA, Europe, etc.
Let's say that over the course of its lifespan, the Xbox 360 enjoys only half of the success of the ps2 in America and Europe, and sells nothing in Japan. That's still 47 million units sold--roughly double the sales the original xbox saw. And that's a very conservative estimate on my part; Microsoft has already sold 11 million 360s in spite of its relatively high price point (considering that the ps2 is still very much a competitor in the current market).
So if DFC are wrong and MS doesn't need to focus on Japan to keep up with their competition, then what should they focus on? Two words: The west.
Right now, in the west, MS is killing it. They've sold more consoles in North America and Europe than any of their competitors (including the Wii). Why continue throwing money away in a territory you can't win? By focusing on Europe and America, MS is targeting 80% of Sony's last gen purchasers. It seems dumb at first to write off 20% of your potential market, but I look at it this way: MS may be disadvantaged in Japan because MS is an 'outsider' there, but Sony and Nintendo are disadvantaged in the west because they're Japanese. Microsoft may suck at genres that are popular in Japan (traditional RPGs, dynasty warrior clones), but Nintendo and Sony suck at genres that are popular in the west (sandbox games, sports titles, and FPSs).
So I say, screw Japan. Make the 360 the ultimate English-speaker's console, and you've easily got the top console of your generation.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Why I hate Blu ray and HD-DVD
I'm on a posting streak lately, huh?
Ok, Blu-ray and HD-DVD. They're both pretty decent media formats. Both are capable of outputting in 1080p, with Dolby TrueHD 8.1+ channel audio. Both store a heck of a lot of media. So what's my beef?
Well, first off, neither seems terribly space efficient. Granted, the H.264 codec is pretty solid. But 8.1 channel audio? How the hell many speakers does dolby think the average joe is going to surround himself with? Frankly, I watch most of my movies without my surround sound system even on. Ooh, I can hear rain drops pitter pattering behind me! It's like being in the movie--except I'm not, I'm sitting on my couch eating potato chips!
Don't get me wrong, I dig surround sound. It's a pretty kickin' idea, really. But I had a hard enough time setting up my two surround speakers up behind my couch and at the right positions and distances and all that. Now they expect me to find a home for another 3 speakers? I think Dolby's ultimate goal involves building little rooms made of nothing but speakers and a screen at the front (which is also a speaker) and having 267.1 surround sound.
Beef the second: I just bought a dvd player like 10 years ago! This isn't like high def tvs replacing standard def--I got my money's worth out of my old tv. And it isn't like dvd replacing VHS--there was a huge difference between the two: not only was quality better, but dvds didn't wear out, dvds had chapter skipping, dvds has interactive menus, dvds had extra features, etc.
Now I like high quality video as much as the next guy, but I have no intention of buying a new video player every 10 years. Frankly, I'd just assume save my money and buy more dvds with it.
My third issue: unless you get a movie sourced in 1080p, the video is just going to be upscaled. Most decent dvd players will do that without requiring fancy-pants new discs. So frankly, unless your movie was made in the past 5 or 10 years or so, its probably going to suck as much as it did before.
My final issue with Blu-ray and HD-DVD: there are two friggin formats!!!
I don't really give a flying hoot whether Blu-ray or HD-DVD wins this format war. Frankly, the only people who do either own Toshiba or Sony stock, or are fanbois. I don't care if the next video format to take root involves etching data into cat turds. So long as its universal.
See, I'm not interested in investing hundreds of dollars into equipment that may end up only supporting a discontinued format. This is one of the main reasons I refuse to buy a PS3: it costs so much because it has a blu-ray drive, and I'm not at a point where I'm willing to bet $600 on the future of blu-ray. Its also the single greatest reason I refuse to buy the HD-DVD addon for the 360: I'm not at a point where I'm willing to bet $180 on the future of HD-DVD.
And the kick is, I don't think I'm alone on these concerns. Look at how suq the sales have been for HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Hell, if anything I'm most surprised at the sales HD-DVD has: at least people who got a ps3 for games might be tempted to get blu-ray movies since they have the player anyhow. But otherwise, who wants to be stuck with the 21st century version of the beta max?
So my advice for Sony and the DVD forum is this: give it up already. Pick a format, cut costs, and settle in for the long haul. But this 2 format crap has gotta go.
Ok, Blu-ray and HD-DVD. They're both pretty decent media formats. Both are capable of outputting in 1080p, with Dolby TrueHD 8.1+ channel audio. Both store a heck of a lot of media. So what's my beef?
Well, first off, neither seems terribly space efficient. Granted, the H.264 codec is pretty solid. But 8.1 channel audio? How the hell many speakers does dolby think the average joe is going to surround himself with? Frankly, I watch most of my movies without my surround sound system even on. Ooh, I can hear rain drops pitter pattering behind me! It's like being in the movie--except I'm not, I'm sitting on my couch eating potato chips!
Don't get me wrong, I dig surround sound. It's a pretty kickin' idea, really. But I had a hard enough time setting up my two surround speakers up behind my couch and at the right positions and distances and all that. Now they expect me to find a home for another 3 speakers? I think Dolby's ultimate goal involves building little rooms made of nothing but speakers and a screen at the front (which is also a speaker) and having 267.1 surround sound.
Beef the second: I just bought a dvd player like 10 years ago! This isn't like high def tvs replacing standard def--I got my money's worth out of my old tv. And it isn't like dvd replacing VHS--there was a huge difference between the two: not only was quality better, but dvds didn't wear out, dvds had chapter skipping, dvds has interactive menus, dvds had extra features, etc.
Now I like high quality video as much as the next guy, but I have no intention of buying a new video player every 10 years. Frankly, I'd just assume save my money and buy more dvds with it.
My third issue: unless you get a movie sourced in 1080p, the video is just going to be upscaled. Most decent dvd players will do that without requiring fancy-pants new discs. So frankly, unless your movie was made in the past 5 or 10 years or so, its probably going to suck as much as it did before.
My final issue with Blu-ray and HD-DVD: there are two friggin formats!!!
I don't really give a flying hoot whether Blu-ray or HD-DVD wins this format war. Frankly, the only people who do either own Toshiba or Sony stock, or are fanbois. I don't care if the next video format to take root involves etching data into cat turds. So long as its universal.
See, I'm not interested in investing hundreds of dollars into equipment that may end up only supporting a discontinued format. This is one of the main reasons I refuse to buy a PS3: it costs so much because it has a blu-ray drive, and I'm not at a point where I'm willing to bet $600 on the future of blu-ray. Its also the single greatest reason I refuse to buy the HD-DVD addon for the 360: I'm not at a point where I'm willing to bet $180 on the future of HD-DVD.
And the kick is, I don't think I'm alone on these concerns. Look at how suq the sales have been for HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Hell, if anything I'm most surprised at the sales HD-DVD has: at least people who got a ps3 for games might be tempted to get blu-ray movies since they have the player anyhow. But otherwise, who wants to be stuck with the 21st century version of the beta max?
So my advice for Sony and the DVD forum is this: give it up already. Pick a format, cut costs, and settle in for the long haul. But this 2 format crap has gotta go.
I love free speech, and I hate that I do
After removing a scene involving testicular torture and blurring other graphic depictions of violence, Rockstar games has successfully gotten the rating of Manhunt 2 reduced to M (Mature).
I'm glad that Rockstar is now allowed to sell their product. In fact, I think it sucks that they weren't able to release their game in its original form. After all, the one thing that defines America is our commitment to freedom of speech (most other countries, even in the West, have some form of censorship).
That being said, I played the original Manhunt for about 10 minutes, and was disgusted. I don't understand how anyone could enjoy this game. The premise is simple: you're being hunted for some reason, and the only way to escape your situation alive is by killing the hunters. No great shakes there; it actually sounds like the basis of every other movie Hollywood has ever made. But the Manhunt difference is that when you kill a hunter, the game gives you a brief scene (5-10 seconds) showing your avatar killing the hunter. And it's graphic! One such kill in the original Manhunt involved placing a plastic bag over the hunters head and holding it tight around his neck while he suffocates, thrashing the entire time.
Why in the hell would anyone want to watch this? I mean, if there were some sort of gameplay mechanic where you were grappling with the hunter and this suffocation happened after an intense, interactive struggle, I guess I'd understand the need for the gratuitous violence. But it serves no gameplay purpose. All it does is show you a guy being murdered. Uh, yay?
I love freedom of speech. I really do. But I really wish I didn't, because I would love to be among those raising a hue and a cry against this glorified snuff film of a game.
I'm glad that Rockstar is now allowed to sell their product. In fact, I think it sucks that they weren't able to release their game in its original form. After all, the one thing that defines America is our commitment to freedom of speech (most other countries, even in the West, have some form of censorship).
That being said, I played the original Manhunt for about 10 minutes, and was disgusted. I don't understand how anyone could enjoy this game. The premise is simple: you're being hunted for some reason, and the only way to escape your situation alive is by killing the hunters. No great shakes there; it actually sounds like the basis of every other movie Hollywood has ever made. But the Manhunt difference is that when you kill a hunter, the game gives you a brief scene (5-10 seconds) showing your avatar killing the hunter. And it's graphic! One such kill in the original Manhunt involved placing a plastic bag over the hunters head and holding it tight around his neck while he suffocates, thrashing the entire time.
Why in the hell would anyone want to watch this? I mean, if there were some sort of gameplay mechanic where you were grappling with the hunter and this suffocation happened after an intense, interactive struggle, I guess I'd understand the need for the gratuitous violence. But it serves no gameplay purpose. All it does is show you a guy being murdered. Uh, yay?I love freedom of speech. I really do. But I really wish I didn't, because I would love to be among those raising a hue and a cry against this glorified snuff film of a game.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
What I don't get about video game consoles
All 3 of the next-gen video game consoles on the market today must have cost a small fortune to develop. They all have custom CPUs & GPUs, proprietary controllers, protected disc formats, blabbety blabbety. In fact, the last I heard the 'profit margin' on each PS3 sold was -$200. That's right, the best thing you could do to help Sony's bottom line right now is buy a 360 or a Wii. That's how much this stuff is costing.
So let's say you're Sony, and you've just finished the main components for your video game console. CPU jointly developed with IBM for super computers? Check. Custom GPU developed by NVidia and capable of outputting at 1080p? Check. Brand-spanking new high density optical drive that also plays high definition movies? Check. Now we just need to put ram in the system . . . wait, we're only giving it 256 megs of video ram, and 256 megs of system ram?
Microsoft is just as bad as Sony. They were a little smarter, going with a unified architecture that lets the GPU access more than 256 megs of ram if it needs it (and lets face it, most of your ram is going to be used for textures). But they still put the same suck amount of ram in their system.
So here's my question for the console designers out there: why do you guys spend so much on custom chips, and then cheap out on ram? For goodness sake, it isn't like ram is expensive. You could buy 1 gig of ram retail for $30. Assuming you didn't get any wholesale or bulk discounts on the stuff, would it really kill Sony's bottom line if they lost an extra $30 on each system?
You might be wondering why it matters so much to me. It's simple: All the fancy-pants hardware in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the system doesn't have enough ram to store high res textures. Take the ps3. It easily overpowers the 360 in terms of raw horsepower. Its CPU is the exact same as the CPU in IBM's blade servers and supercomputers. The ps3's GPU runs at a faster clock speed than that of the 360 GPU, and has more pixel and vertex shader pipes (although to be fair, the 360 uses its pipes in a more efficient way by using a unified architecture). The ps3 also uses blu-ray discs, meaning each disc can hold 40 freakin gigs more data than each 360 disc. And yet, when you compare cross platform titles between the two consoles, the 360 versions tend to look a little better.
Why is this? There are theories out there, but my guess is its all about the ram. Sony's GPU could run at double the clock speed of Microsoft's, and it wouldn't matter. If you can't store high res textures, then you can't display them. And without high res textures, all you've got is a ps2 with more polygons and bloom effects.
Oh, and let's not leave the video game wunderkind, the wii, out of this. They're clocking in at an impressive 91 megs of ram (good luck trying to figure out the way its all configured, by the way). 91 megs! All pcs built in the past 15 years have had at least 126 megs of ram. Now I realize the wii doesn't need as much ram since it only outputs in 480p, but seriously, <100 megs is ridiculous. Don't expect any wii games to blow you away any time soon.
If anyone from the console industry would like to explain why you guys prefer investing in big expensive stuff at the expense of RAM, please post here or send me an email. I'm waiting.
So let's say you're Sony, and you've just finished the main components for your video game console. CPU jointly developed with IBM for super computers? Check. Custom GPU developed by NVidia and capable of outputting at 1080p? Check. Brand-spanking new high density optical drive that also plays high definition movies? Check. Now we just need to put ram in the system . . . wait, we're only giving it 256 megs of video ram, and 256 megs of system ram?
Microsoft is just as bad as Sony. They were a little smarter, going with a unified architecture that lets the GPU access more than 256 megs of ram if it needs it (and lets face it, most of your ram is going to be used for textures). But they still put the same suck amount of ram in their system.
So here's my question for the console designers out there: why do you guys spend so much on custom chips, and then cheap out on ram? For goodness sake, it isn't like ram is expensive. You could buy 1 gig of ram retail for $30. Assuming you didn't get any wholesale or bulk discounts on the stuff, would it really kill Sony's bottom line if they lost an extra $30 on each system?
You might be wondering why it matters so much to me. It's simple: All the fancy-pants hardware in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the system doesn't have enough ram to store high res textures. Take the ps3. It easily overpowers the 360 in terms of raw horsepower. Its CPU is the exact same as the CPU in IBM's blade servers and supercomputers. The ps3's GPU runs at a faster clock speed than that of the 360 GPU, and has more pixel and vertex shader pipes (although to be fair, the 360 uses its pipes in a more efficient way by using a unified architecture). The ps3 also uses blu-ray discs, meaning each disc can hold 40 freakin gigs more data than each 360 disc. And yet, when you compare cross platform titles between the two consoles, the 360 versions tend to look a little better.
Why is this? There are theories out there, but my guess is its all about the ram. Sony's GPU could run at double the clock speed of Microsoft's, and it wouldn't matter. If you can't store high res textures, then you can't display them. And without high res textures, all you've got is a ps2 with more polygons and bloom effects.
Oh, and let's not leave the video game wunderkind, the wii, out of this. They're clocking in at an impressive 91 megs of ram (good luck trying to figure out the way its all configured, by the way). 91 megs! All pcs built in the past 15 years have had at least 126 megs of ram. Now I realize the wii doesn't need as much ram since it only outputs in 480p, but seriously, <100 megs is ridiculous. Don't expect any wii games to blow you away any time soon.
If anyone from the console industry would like to explain why you guys prefer investing in big expensive stuff at the expense of RAM, please post here or send me an email. I'm waiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)