hph6203

Best first two day sales numbers of any Nintendo console launch, and Zelda is the fastest selling Nintendo launch title. http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/6/14836170/nintendo-switch-broke-sales-records-americas-zelda-two-day Faster selling in Japan than the Wii, it sold 313k in Japan in its first 48 hours, Wii sold 308k, PS4 for comparison sold 322k. Fastest selling Nintendo console in North America and Europe.

More interested in N64/Gamecube style button layouts. Those are harder to match up with regular controllers.

Nintendo has tried to be non-competitive with Microsoft and Sony for the last two generations. They prefer to be viewed as a second console maker in a two console home rather than your primary source of games, at least for the mainstream gamer. The markets they go after are those that 1) People that Love Nintendo games. 2) Have a young family and don't want less violent games to play with their children. 3) People that want a unique gaming experience. It's why you can pretty much be assured that the base Nintendo console will never cost more than the base Sony/Microsoft console. Nintendo can release their console at even $200 and it won't inspire Microsoft or Sony to reduce their prices, because they aren't offering a replacement product, they're concerned with what the other big guy is selling and for how much. There are a couple of benefits to what Nintendo is doing with this machine from a competitive standpoint. It offers things that Xbox and Playstation have no interest in doing (portability) and because it's underpowered it means that the development costs should be lower on the device. If they can come to market with an affordable price (ex: $250 for the tablet with 32GB internal flash storage and the base station with 0-120GB HDD storage) and that leads to respectable sales they'll have Ubi/EA etc supporting them with their second tier (AA as opposed to AAA) type games. As long as they make the tablet storage expandable via an SD card and the base station USB expandable they'll be fine releasing something with such limited storage for the base model (larger storage options available). At $250 it's pretty much a no-brainer buy for anyone that has a Nintendo DS or loves Zelda/Mario/Pokemon games. At that point they have a defined market and just have to squeeze $20-60 at a time out of people.

Nintendo really can't compete in those terms. People that want Battlefield 1 aren't going to purchase it on an underpowered system (and this will be underpowered relative to the Xbox One and PS4), so they shouldn't go chasing that market. They need to be the go to place to play indie titles, co-op titles and first party titles. If they can drive enough console sales early enough for third parties to port their games to the system then all the better, but third party AAA titles aren't going to be this system's bread and butter. Personally, I appreciate the kind of games that Nintendo makes. I want to be able to take their "entire" back catalog on the go. Those are the kinds of games I'd want to play outside of my house. I have no interest in Fallout, Skyrim, or MGS5 while on a plane (which is where I'd get the majority of my on the go play time), but a simple platformer or co-op game? Count me in. It's a misconception that third party titles have helped sell Nintendo hardware in the past. Of the Wii's top selling games there may have been 5-7 third party titles in the top 30 games, and maybe one would have been considered modern graphics at the time of its release. I don't think the switch will do Wii numbers, but with their first party production rate and the cost of developing their kinds of games they could do very well for themselves without much third party support.

The person at fault is the person that caused the incident. Theoretically speaking if one ship were on autopilot and the other wasn't, and the non-autopilot ship incorrectly cut in front of the ship on autopilot then the non-autopilot ship is at fault. There are laws that govern our roads, and if those laws are followed then this situation shouldn't arise. Stop at stop signs, yield for pedestrians at crosswalks, stop at red lights, cross on green. If the car is properly programmed to follow these rules, then 99.999% of the time the pedestrian is at fault, and if there is no other safe alternative then the person who makes the error suffers the consequences. I don't want my car or any car to run an algorithm to weigh the life of individuals, I want it to follow the rules and I want pedestrians to do the same.

The break out box doesn't do any of the processing for the headset, it takes the image generated by the PS4 for the headset and prepared it to be displayed on the television. The PSVR uses frame doubling to meet the 90 FPS minimum for VR titles, and the native FPS for frame doubling has to be 60 FPS. You'll basically have 60 doubled to 120, 90 or 120 native on the PSVR and they'll dumb down the graphical fidelity to meet those requirements.

You posted an article with a bad interpretation of bad data, and then made a value judgement based upon that bad data and bad interpretation. You can't make an accurate assessment of the VR market based upon this data, and the assessment that was made in the article is flat out wrong even based upon the bad data given. You're responsible for that. I have no dog in this fight, but Sakkura is educating you on how to analyze your bad data, and you're taking it as a personal attack (as an aside, you cannot assume that .28% of Steam users have VR headsets, only that there is a total number of headsets equivalent to .28% assuming that the survey is representative of the whole, there is bound to be overlap and my guess would be there's a lot of it). You, and the article do not understand statistics, or didn't put in the effort to understand these statistics. Assuming a Steam market of 125,000,000 users, that the Steam market is a perfect analog for the VR market and if Oculus sold .1% of that market per month since launch, you and this article would be talking about "only" a .1% increase month over month, but in reality Oculus would have sold 625,000 headsets and they'd be burning the fucking building down about how successful it had been. Is the VR market going crazily well? No. Is it falling flat on its face? Can't tell from this data. There have been projections all over the place on how many headsets would be sold, and the best way for you to accurately benchmark whether VR is doing well or not is by looking at each individual manufacturer's expectations versus the reality at this point. That data isn't present here. My guess is that it is lagging behind projections, but may get a bump after Playstation VR launches. We'll have a much better idea of how VR is doing by the new year, today it is too early to tell, because all the players aren't present and we haven't gotten to the silly season of money spending (Black Friday/Christmas etc.).

Why do you care about your cousin's gaming preferences so much? It's not being lazy, its being judicious with your time/energy. You need to grow up, lose the narcissism, and realize that your personal preferences aren't "better" than someone else's. Not to mention that people aren't going to want to have to rely on you for maintaining shit that they own, because they don't have the knowledge necessary on their own.

Sony has an upgraded console coming out. It was probably going to be announced at E3. It was rumored to be released at the end of this year (to coincide with PSVR). It was rumored to be 2/3 as powerful as the Xbox Scorpio. Phil Spencer claims that releasing an updated console this year would be a mistake, because it wouldn't be powerful enough to provide true 4K/high detail VR. Sony now has to either deal with those comments if they do launch the console as rumored ("why are you lying to us Sony, look what Xbox had in store for us and you bring us this shit?), or they have to delay their new console launch to the same timeframe as the Xbox Scorpio, thus killing their first mover advantage. Microsoft knew Sony had them beat to the premium console market they were trying to create, so they announced specs before they have a box to show. It's why Andrew House (CEO of Playstation effectively) said he was "surprised" by the early announcement. "Surprised" in this case is code for "those son of a bitches out maneuvered us for once".

"Screwing developers." Who exactly are they screwing? Third party developers that are already creating assets for PC gamers? First party developers who are now required to create a Windows 10 version of the game (thus releasing them to create assets for the highest end GPUs)? Or indie developers that are probably already making PC versions of their games anyway. Sony will ultimately be the platform holder that is screwing developers, as they're going to be requiring their first party developers to create versions of games that will only see viability on a very small install base. As for the cost vs. performance. You can make the argument that you can build a PC that matches or beats a console, but you're ignoring key items. There's no operating system ($100, if you're legit), HDMI cables that are included in the box ($5), peripherals (Game controller: call it $30), not to mention the lack of need to build and maintain the device, which for a large portion of the consumer market is worth a lot. Your box is realistically $500, yes it has additional functionality over a console, but to be fair that computer doesn't really provide much. If anything Microsoft and Sony made an error by not refreshing their consoles sooner.

It's only marginally worse than a new line of GPUs being released. This console generation will be 3 years old by the time the upgraded Playstation is launched, and every game going forward is required to be optimized for both the original Playstation and the new system. That will almost certainly be the case until they launch the third incarnation of the Playstation 4, which will probably come 3-4 years later again (or a 6-7 year lifespan for the original Playstation 4). These systems are going to be rebranded to Playstation 4 and Playstation 4X essentially. Then they'll release the Playstation 5 and drop the requirement for support of the Playstation 4, but maintain the requirement to support the Playstation 4x. Developers will probably maintain the opportunity to release games on the "retired" consoles for as long as Sony/Microsoft support them, which probably means at least 9 years of usable life if the hardware requirements of the game aren't too extreme. It's basically the PC gaming space, but instead of asking the consumer to determine if they have good enough RAM/CPU/GPU the developers are required to optimize their game to a certain hardware spec until it is retired, so all the consumer has to know is which iteration they own. They won't have to maintain their own drivers, their security updates will be streamlined as will their OS updates (they'll be mandatory). You may look at that as a PC gamer and say it's insanity, but that's what console gamers are looking for. An appliance.

You understand the concept of bulk purchases reducing the price of a good, right? Right now (or at least very soon) you can build a PC, paying retail prices, for $800ish that will be capable of playing games in VR. Microsoft won't be paying retail prices for their components, because they can guarantee manufacturers of their components sales. That's huge. You don't have that power when you build a PC, and retail PC builders are not an appropriate analog either because Microsoft's revenue may be driven by console sales, but their profits are driven by game sales. They can sell this device at cost, and turn a profit the second they sell their first game to each consumer. The new console is rumored to be four times as powerful as the current iteration, not to mention that there's testing going on right now in the VR development space that suggests that you don't even have to render the entire FOV in full resolution to get the majority of the experience, because people tend to move their head to get a better look at something rather than moving their eyes. Who knows, by the time the Xbox One-Two launches in 2017, Oculus may be a couple of months out from launching a revised headset that includes eye tracking to dynamically adjust the resolution based upon where the user's eyes are looking. This is early days in VR tech and you're going to see both hardware and software revisions that drive the compute power requirements down. Also make no mistake developers will know what the majority of those Rift devices are plugged into, and if the answer is an Xbox One that's what their target platform is going to be. There's a pretty solid chance that will be the case if they form their partnership, which certainly seems likely.

I guarantee you that Kickstarter is encouraging them to use their platform to launch these devices. It's a symbiotic marketing push for both Kickstarter and Pebble. Kickstarter puts them on the front page and promotes their device as one of the biggest Kickstarter successes and Kickstarter gets free advertising from tech sites. If anything it would be nice if more companies used Kickstarter/a Kickstarter style system to gauge interest in devices and crowd source information on desired features that may not actually get put into a final consumer device due to profit margin targets. A sort of "you've requested these features, put your money where your mouth is". Not for every device, but for fringe devices with smaller initial markets.

They're not. Last year Nintendo of America's president came out and said without caveats "VR isn't fun". That was right after E3 last year, so there's no way they've developed hardware in less than a year that supports VR. They may have built in interfaces that allow them to add VR support at a future date, but that's almost certainly not going to be what this is. Those that say Nintendo can't live off their first party alone didn't pay attention to the games that have sold well on the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U. The top 30 is littered with Nintendo developed properties, the problem with the Wii U was more than just a lack of third party support. It was that it was priced like a replacement for the PS3/Xbox 360/PS4/Xbox One, had the performance of an Xbox 360, and less utility. The Wii was priced like a companion to the Xbox 360/PS3 (Xbox 360 was $150 more at launch, the PS3 was $250 more). Nintendo has to decide if they want to compete directly with Xbox and Playstation, or work in tandem with them, by either dropping their console team or by creating a box that is affordable enough that it can live alongside those boxes ($150-$200). If Nintendo priced their console like an Nvidia Shield console, and supported all of the major streaming services they could replace the Roku/Apple TV/Fire TV as the main streaming box. Or Nintendo just bites the bullet, partners with Sony, and the new Playstation Neo is actually the Playstation NintEndO. Just kidding.

Dude is 100% against the upgraded PS4 without any context of what it will actually do/be required to do. The only requirement for the upgraded console that I've seen is that the upgraded console has to maintain the same FPS as the original console. He's going to go with one source to support his stance, and we don't even know what that source is other than it is "trusted". Until developers themselves actually have the system, and requirements for development, in their hands I'm gonna say any opinions they have are worthless. These teams, if they're developing for PC, are already building assets that can be used to enhance the experience for the PS Neo. Just seems like its a lot of whining, for something they're already doing other than optimizing for the new hardware, which seems like a small part in the process in comparison to developing the engine, developing the graphical assets, debugging the engine to make sure its coded correctly. And it would be truly shocking if the PSVR requires the PS4.5. So shocking that I can guarantee that's not the case, as it would absolutely kill that market. If anything the PS4.5 will allow you to purchase a PSVR headset as a standalone, without the post-processing box.