Does Sony Really Understand Gaming Any Longer?

Sony was once viewed as the world’s most successful gaming company. After it launched the original PlayStation, many wondered if it could take off until, well, it did. And as we all know, the PlayStation 2 was a gaming juggernaut.

But all of that changed with the PlayStation 3. The console launched at a price that was far too expensive for what customers were getting, and it lacked the uniqueness of Nintendo’s Wii, which caught on quickly. Microsoft’s Xbox 360, while not as popular as the Wii, benefited from a strong online-gaming component.

[Image credit: Joey]

Sony, therefore, was in trouble. Its console wasn’t selling and its online featureset just couldn’t match its chief competitor.

After the PlayStation 3’s price started to fall and Sony offered up some redesigns, the console staged a comeback. Now, it’s succeeding to some degree, though it’s still far behind both of its competitors.

It’s a similar story on the mobile side where Sony’s PlayStation Portable appealed to some gamers, but eventually couldn’t quite match Nintendo’s DS. And with the PlayStation Vita on store shelves now, it appears Sony doesn’t have what it takes to match Nintendo anytime soon.

That Sony might not be able to match the Nintendo 3DS isn’t necessarily all that surprising. What is surprising is that Sony would want to jump into a gaming-handheld market that’s on the decline, due to the success of smartphones and tablets in that space. What’s even more surprising is that it took so long for Sony to even come somewhat close to matching Nintendo on motion gaming and Microsoft on online gaming in the console market.

If you look more deeply at what I just said, you might arrive at a question I’ve been asking about Sony for the last few years: does it really understand the gaming business anymore?

[aqupte]Sony can’t quite see that gaming handhelds is a lost cause[/aquote]

Honestly, I just don’t know. Sony’s mobile hopes are perhaps the most surprising to me. The company has for years evaluated divisions and made tough choices to ensure that it didn’t try to do too much in a market that was slipping away (just look at the Walkman). And yet, it can’t quite see that gaming handhelds is a lost cause.

Over the last few years, iOS and Android have secured an overwhelming portion of portable game revenue. Sony, meanwhile, has been left to pick up only scraps. Considering that was happening before the Vita launched, why would the company even consider spending all of that cash on hardware research and design? That cash could have been more effectively used elsewhere.

At what point will Sony finally see the writing on the wall and realize that it must get out of the handheld market?

Sony should in no way get out of consoles. But that it doesn’t have a more robust online-gaming offering that can match Xbox Live is puzzling to me. Sony must certainly know that online gaming and digital distribution is the future. Why wouldn’t Sony invest far more cash into that market to capitalize on the trend? After all, it’s the smart move.

But actually making the smart moves isn’t something that Sony has been doing much of in the gaming space lately. And the more we consider the moves it’s made, the more we might wonder if it truly understands the industry today.

High-powered consoles and handhelds are great and all. But success in the gaming space today takes much, much more than that. And at least so far, it doesn’t appear Sony gets that.


Does Sony Really Understand Gaming Any Longer? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Windows 8 tablets are bad business

Microsoft’s Surface Pro has company, with Lenovo revealing its own Windows 8 slate, the ThinkPad Tablet 2, targeting the all-important enterprise segment. Like the higher-spec Surface, Lenovo’s new tablet has content-creation features like a digital pen and all the remote management your IT team demands; it also has the more flexible full version of Windows 8, rather than Windows RT. And, like Microsoft, Lenovo is playing pricing cards close to its chest. One thing is already becoming clear, however: Windows 8 may well struggle to compete in business markets.

While official numbers are in short supply, Lenovo’s intentions are likely to be in keeping with Microsoft’s own estimates. The Windows maker said it planned to offer the Surface Pro at a price akin to an ultrabook, figured to mean a $699+ sticker. With similar specifications under the hood, the ThinkPad Tablet 2 will probably amount to the same, options depending.

Unfortunately, Apple’s iPad already has a head start, even if it wasn’t originally intended for business users. The iOS tablet may not have been designed with enterprise in mind – there’s no biometric security, no digital pen – but what it lacks in tailoring it makes up with ubiquity, and that counts for a lot. Individual users and IT departments alike are familiar with the iPad, and while it demands compromises, they’re already a known quantity.

“Microsoft has purposefully crippled Windows RT to leave a market for Windows 8”

Microsoft’s segment positioning may well prove the downfall to competing with all that. The entry-level Surface is expected to be competitive with the iPad – the unofficial guesstimate is around $499+ – but runs Windows RT rather than Windows 8. That version will be cheaper, certainly, but Microsoft has purposefully crippled it so as to leave a market for Windows 8 and the machines the full OS will run on.

Apple’s price advantage and dominance of the tablet segment are therefore balanced against Microsoft and Lenovo’s more suited specifications and Windows familiarity, each of which come with a price disadvantage. Lenovo could try to upset that balance by undercutting Surface and trying to bring its Windows 8 model closer to the iPad, but that’s a considerable challenge given the hardware. Intel processors and the graphics, memory and storage to go with them generally add up to a more expensive machine than an ARM-based tablet such as Apple’s; we’re basically talking keyboardless ultrabook, with extra thrown in if you want the optional pen.

Microsoft’s two new versions of Windows might look like they increase flexibility, but OEMs may well find they’re an inadvertent pincer-movement, trapping them between locked-down consumer functionality or something that’s comes enterprise-ready but at a cost. That sort of premium is easy to explain if you’re first to the market, but Windows faces all the challenges of following not one but two high-profile platforms into a segment where some might argue that consumers have already picked their winner. It’ll take more than a stylus and a slick new UI to address that.


Windows 8 tablets are bad business is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


OUYA’s millions: Kickstarter and the lure of the rumor-mill

It may not be Pebble‘s $10m, but with OUYA‘s $8m Kickstarter has its newest standard-bearer, and around sixty thousand sets of eyes turn to the mailbox for the promised early-2013 deliveries. It’s a surprising degree of patience – however ill-suffered – considering the short-shrift we give most products, software updates or even just the regular postal service if they dare to make us wait. Immediate gratification is arguably at odds with today’s trends, but there’s another angle that makes Kickstarter so appealing: it’s the rumor-mill we can buy into.

Kickstarter isn’t a regular store: you’re not “pre-ordering” products, you’re backing a project in the hope it will succeed and, since those behind the project itself would like to encourage and thank you, you usually get a free whatever-you-backed if it makes it to production. That’s a differentiator many have forgotten amid the hype, the countdown of limited backer positions, and the glossy renders. Unfortunately, unlike a failed Amazon order, there’s no refund should your Kickstarter project of choice slump before the production lines start churning.

But even with all those risks, Kickstarter remains popular. The handful of backers putting up low-figure pledges with no real freebie in return implies some cohort of people made up in part by those with altruistic “support the little guy” motivations, but for many it seems the allure of getting in at not just ground level but when a project is still practically underground proves irresistible.

Over the past years there’s been a growing appetite for rumors and leaks, to the point where hearing about a product or service before those responsible for it would like you to know is considered arguably more interesting than post-unveil. Magnitude of speculation has become the new metric for defining company success: rather than just raw sales, which we probably won’t hear about in detail until months after launch, it’s a sign of mental stickiness among consumers and early-adopters. Samsung had therefore “made it” when the hype building up to the Galaxy S III began to resemble that in advance of a new iPhone.

“It’s like Tim Cook invited you into the Apple backroom and asked for your feedback”

Kickstarter plays on that anticipation, and even allows you to buy into it – rather than having to wait for Apple, or Samsung, or whichever mainstream company puts its products onto store shelves. For the cost of a pledge you’re an early-adopter, and you even get a say in the development of the product. It’s like Tim Cook and Jony Ive invited you into the Cupertino backroom and asked for your feedback on the latest iOS gadget; you can’t give Apple a hundred bucks if you like the sound of an iPhone nano and want them to make it, but you can feel that degree of control with a credit card and Kickstarter.

Of course, many Kickstarter projects fail – even if they’re fully funded – often because they’re too ambitious or too naive. Traditional product development filters through dozens of risk-assessments, mangers, and customer research teams, the rough edges (and some of the ingenuous charm) buffed away in the process. On Kickstarter, however, it’s easy to over-promise, either intentionally or accidentally, and under-deliver, especially when outside-the-box thinking is what’s likely to get attention for your project in the first place.

OUYA has $8m and it wanted less than $1m; humble project beginnings gave way to hype and Android enthusiasm. It also has a huge list of people counting on it to be The Next Big Thing in gaming, and 7-8 months to deliver all it promised. Whether it will achieve that is yet to be seen; what’s certain is that the glossy launch has now given way to the mundanities of bringing a product to a fast-paced and difficult marketplace, one where aftersales support and product stability are key. The appeal of the start-up only lasts as long as the Kickstarter pledge payment leaves your account.


OUYA’s millions: Kickstarter and the lure of the rumor-mill is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Dear Apple: Don’t Use the iPhone As the Remote for Your TV

Although all of the talk surrounding Cupertino currently centers on Apple’s iPhone, I can’t get the company’s television out of my head. I own an iPhone and have an iPad. And although I’ll likely buy Apple’s next handset, it’s the company’s television that has me drooling.

Based on the reports surrounding Apple’s television at the moment, I can all but guarantee that I’ll be buying one. I love the idea of iCloud integration and I firmly believe that it’ll come with an App Store. Better yet, it’ll deliver high-quality visuals that should make its competition reevaluate their future decisions.

The only thing I don’t like hearing, though, is talk of Apple requiring iPhone and iPad owners use their mobile devices to control the television. Yes, it’s a forward-thinking idea, but it’s a bad one.

The fact is, we can use the iPhone and iPad as a remote right now. On my Apple TV, for example, I can control everything the device does with Apple’s nifty Remote app. But that Remote app is designed for a simple box and even simpler functionality. The remote’s featureset just won’t translate to a sophisticated television.

Like it or not, today’s remotes, as ugly and big, and old school as they might be, are a necessary evil. Physical buttons that light up at night make it easy for us to choose a channel, increase the volume, and perform other activities. And with some help from a physical keyboard built into some of those remotes, we can quickly type out just about anything.

“Using the iPhone as a remote will take us back in time”

A touchscreen-based remote, however, tends to fall short. For one thing, we’ll always need to be looking down just to find out what buttons we need to press. And our current practice of sliding our finger over to a button based on muscle memory alone will be gone. Using the iPhone or iPad as a remote in some ways will take us back in time.

That said, I can see some value in using an iDevice to control my new Apple television. I like the idea of using it to type in credentials into an application or even making it a secondary screen that delivers more information than what’s on the television. For example, if I’m watching a baseball game, it would be great if that broadcast shipped over to my iPhone – likely through an additional application running on the handset – some information on the batter, who’s up next, and other key data.

But as a remote, I don’t see much value in the iPhone and iPad. Apple can certainly create some nifty applications and I won’t deny that the company has come up with features that have blown us away. But controlling a television is very basic and needs some physical buttons. A mobile device featuring only a touchscreen just won’t get it done.

Ditch plans for the iDevices controlling your televisions, Apple. The future is still in the past with physical remotes.


Dear Apple: Don’t Use the iPhone As the Remote for Your TV is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Has functionality finally caught up with the Android spec race?

Samsung has woken up to context: the Galaxy Note 10.1 has a fast quadcore processor and twice as much memory as most rivals, but listen to Samsung’s pitch and you’d hardly know it. Instead of the usual breathless glee over hardware and technical abilities, the Note 10.1 tells you exactly what it can do with all that’s under the hood. Namely, bring the stylus back in style, and create a compellingly different approach to tableteering, distinct to what Apple’s iPad offers.

In a sense, Samsung has done what Microsoft threatened to with the Courier concept: create a tablet which is singularly at home when it comes to digital note-taking and researching. True, it doesn’t have Courier’s slick folding dual-screen design – though I can’t help but wish Samsung would bolt two Galaxy Tab 7.7 slates together, throw in some proper digitizers, and make the super-slim clamshell of my dreams – but it ticks the important boxes. Flexibility of how apps occupy the screen; precise digital inking; easy snipping and collation; and a platform that’s as useful in consuming content as it is at allowing its creation.

“Samsung has woken up to the fact that context, not cores, matters”

Samsung has wisely woken up to the fact that it’s context, not cores, that makes a device successful. I’ve written about that before, as a challenge the Android hardware industry (and the chip manufacturers whose silicon powers those devices) faces as a whole; in short, it’s easy to wax lyrical about how potent your processor is, and how many pixels it can push, but it’s a lot tougher to explain to a consumer why that should be important to them. It’s something Apple does well with the Retina display on the new iPad: not just resolution for the sake of it, but explaining why it has a positive impact on photos, text and video.

The promo video for the Galaxy Note 10.1 loses marks for not using an actual device – renders have a horrible tendency to cover up what lag actually exists – but otherwise it’s a great success. Samsung doesn’t dwell on geek-frotting elements like how many cores are present, or what the resolution is, or how much RAM is inside, unless they have a legitimate impact on usability. Instead of meaningless “lifestyle” posturing, it’s all about how the apps actually work with the hardware and provide more value than if you bought, say, an ASUS Transformer or an Acer Iconia Tab.

Now, that’s not to say that the Note 10.1′s clever split-screen software will remain its own prized possession. One thing that has become commonplace among Android devices is that fancy software quickly gets ripped and baked into unofficial ROMs, sharing the goodness among other devices. In some cases that’s even before the official implementation has hit shelves; Samsung’s own experience with its Flipboard exclusive on the Galaxy S III, ripped from a test build and shared before the new phone went on sale, springs to mind.

Samsung’s edge, though, is in the combination of hardware and software that makes the Note 10.1 special. Yes, S Note and other other custom apps will likely work – or be made to work – on non-Note tablets, but they’ll lack the precision and flexibility of the special stylus. That’s a strong motivator to buy the official product, and something – in a world of identikit hardware – we rarely see.

The Note 10.1 still has to live up to its promises – we’ll have to wait for the first reviews before we see if the stylus is accurate enough, and the hardware capable enough, to deliver true split-screen usability and replace our paper notebooks – but Samsung has given it a starting advantage few Android tablets ever manage.


Has functionality finally caught up with the Android spec race? is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Countdown to Mars: Thoughts from a NASA Curiosity engineer

This weekend we will see Curiosity attempt a dramatic Mars landing inside of Gale Crater. Its mission will be to study the Martian rocks to determine how they were formed and try to answer whether conditions on Mars once could have supported life in its most simple form – tiny, microbial cells. The rover’s intended destination after landing is a series of layered rock outcrops on the slopes of Mount Sharp. These layers were spied from orbit only a few years ago and appear to provide a geological record of Mars spanning hundreds of millions of years that Curiosity can spend months touring and reading back to us on Earth. With Curiosity’s hypersonic entry guidance, this is the first Mars rover that could safely land inside Gale and reach these layers.

As interest and enthusiasm mounts for one of the greatest exploration missions of the last decade, it is worth remembering what it took to get here and consider what should be next. We’ve been fortunate to witness a golden age of Mars exploration over the last fifteen years of orbiters, landers, and rovers. The successful international missions of Mars Global Surveyor, Pathfinder, Mars Odyssey, Mars Express, Spirit, Opportunity, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and Phoenix have helped us “follow the water”.

The assumption, given our experience here on Earth, is that where there was water on Mars there may also have been life. The probes orbiting Mars have been outfitted with a dazzling array of sensors and cameras to identify sites that may have been formed or affected by the presence of water. All this feeds into the landing site selection process using the best available data to find sites that are also safe to land at. The rovers have found proof of water in the past, confirming what we see from orbit, and Phoenix found ice just inches under the surface in the far north regions of Mars.

“Is life still there, hidden in the ground?”

As we explore Mars, we are learning how Mars formed and changed throughout its history. This will help us understand the history of the Earth better as well. Mars is right next door and formed the same time as the Earth did, but how did Mars come to be so different? And despite its differences, did life exist on Mars too? Is life still there, hidden in the ground? In ways we can never predict, we are all enlightened and benefit from discoveries in the jungles or the deep oceans of Earth, the microscopic intricacies of the human genome, the elusive Higgs particle, and delving into the puzzles and opportunities that space exploration presents.

Besides the science, why do we do this? Why spend the years of dedicated effort, the long days away from our families, the meticulous designing, building, and testing? Why do we feel that emotional rush when we attempt a nearly impossible task, or when we watch someone make such an attempt? Theodore Roosevelt offered a fitting answer. “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even through checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

It is no coincidence that as Jet Propulsion Laboratory engineers monitor Curiosity on its Mars approach and landing this weekend, only a few miles away the Mars Society is convening its 15th international conference. Enthusiastic people from all over the world and of various professions are discussing how we should reach and perhaps settle Mars this century. If you want to dare mightily, I cannot think of anything more challenging or fitting for the 21st century.

But getting humans to Mars is technically very difficult, and while we don’t yet know how to do it we have a few promising ideas. Curiosity had to give up the proven airbag technique because of its weight, and human missions will be much more massive. Curiosity has a few things important to a future human mission: it will demonstrate a hypersonic guided entry to land close to a site, and radiation sensors to inform what environment a crew and vehicle would withstand throughout the whole mission.

“We have never been more prepared than we are right now”

There is so much more to figure out and test. The recent Mars program has been set up to test things incrementally, to build off of what has been done before. Before we bring people to and from Mars, we can bring something from Mars back home to study. Curiosity has an incredible miniature laboratory tucked inside of it, but it can only carry so much instrumentation with it. We can use the orbiters, what Curiosity and other landers find, to help us pick out the rocks that will tell us the most about Mars. We have never been more prepared than we are right now to mount a sample return mission or begin the preparations for a human expedition.

The question facing the American administration and Congress is whether to support one now, in a time where NASA is seeing flat-lined budgets with other high-profile, billion dollar programs such as Webb Space Telescope, the heavy-lift launch vehicle, and the Orion human exploration spacecraft wrestling for those funds.

As America is dealing with large budget deficits, it is unlikely that NASA will receive enough funding to successfully finish all of these this decade, let alone a Mars sample return mission. With Congress focusing on issues of the magnitude of trillions of dollars it will be difficult to get their attention for programs on the order of billions. Expect no decision on anything of significance until after the American presidential and congressional elections this fall. If Mars exploration is to continue, public support is very important so that the politicians can accurately gauge the interest and the benefits.

There have been two grand periods of exploration of Mars. The first was led by a vanguard of American and Soviet probes in the 1960s and 1970s, radioing back amazing pictures of the largest volcanoes and canyons found in our solar system. That first period, suffering many failures as we learned how to reach to Mars, culminated in the successful Viking orbiters and landers.

And then, Mars was left alone — it seemed lifeless to our 1970s technology. The American Mars exploration team that had pulled off so many successes over those dozen years, that had engineered how to land safely on Mars, was scattered. Much of the talent and engineering knowledge from those early days of Mars exploration was lost. Today’s period of exploration had to assemble a new team, tempered by the successes and failures of recent missions, to attempt something as audacious as Curiosity.

We find ourselves again at the crossroads for Mars exploration. Dare we follow where curiosity leads us? Do we decide instead to start over again later this century?


Countdown to Mars: Thoughts from a NASA Curiosity engineer is written by Gavin Mendeck & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Stop Whining and Subscribe to HBO

I love the show Game of Thrones on HBO. The show is fantastic. It’s one of the best shows to come along in a while. It’s exciting, sexy, complicated, and it has just a touch of fantasy thrown in, mainly to keep you guessing about the possibilities of what’s to come. In the first episodes of the first season, did you really expect to see dragons? But then that platinum blond Khaleesi woman steps out of the fire completely naked with a dragon on her shoulder and it was the probably the coolest thing I have ever seen on television. Wait, have you seen Game of Thrones? If you haven’t, you should subscribe to HBO right now so you can start watching.

That’s right, I said it. Subscribe to HBO. Buy a TV to go with your fancy MacBook (disclosure: by day I work for Samsung, but I’m typing this on a fancy MacBook Pro). Subscribe to a preposterously expensive cable service. Add HBO for an extra $15 per month. Then, start watching. See? That was easy.

Whenever people get all huffy about the problems with content distribution, Game of Thrones is usually the prime culprit. This was made famous in a Web comic by The Oatmeal. The dude tries to watch the show on Netflix. Then he tries to buy it on iTunes. Then Amazon. And so on, until he ends up pirating the show.

First of all, good luck with that. I stopped downloading any pirated content about 5 years ago, when I was caught and sent a nastygram by my cable company. But it wasn’t really the cable company who caught me. It was HBO. I was trying to download The Wire. The warning I received said they were not pressing charges immediately, but they wanted me to stop and destroy my copies. They also reserved the right to sue me at any point in the future. I’m probably in the clear, but hopefully this screed will go some way to convincing HBO that I’m completely on their side. I have seen the error in my ways.

See, when you buy a CD, for instance, you probably thought you were buying the music. But actually, you were buying the plastic, and a license to play the music at certain times, and for certain audiences. Want to play the CD in your car? No problem. Want to play the CD in your bar? Now you have to pay up. There are certain allowances that the courts have approved to bend the rules. You can make one backup copy of your purchased media. You can make mix tapes with songs. You can rip music you purchased to your computer.

Unfortunately, by the time digital video went mainstream, the entertainment industry had learned its lesson. There’s gold in them thar hills. The more you restrict the license for content, the more money you can make as people are forced to sign up for more services, or buy more copies of a video.

It sucks. I won’t dispute that. I’d like to see much more free and open licensing, if not complete freedom to do with my digital purchases as I wish. If I bought Star Wars on VHS tape, I should be able to pay a small fee, for manufacturing and distribution and such, to get that movie again on DVD. Then pay a little more for Blu Ray. I paid for it once, now I should only have to pay for the plastic. And if I want a digital copy, I should pay only for the bandwidth. That would be awesome.

“Waaaaahhhh, HBO is evil for not giving me what I want”

But that’s not the way it works, and the arguments I have heard are stupid. Waaaaaahhhh, I can’t get the show I want, so I have to break the law. Waaaahhhh, the awesome show isn’t available on one of the four services I use, so I have to steal it. Waaaaahhhh, HBO is evil for not giving me exactly what I want, how I want it, when I want to see it.

Shut up. Grow up. Stop acting so entitled.

I would love to see Roger Waters perform “The Wall,” but the tour doesn’t come within 5 hours of my house. So, should I have someone bootleg it for me? An actor friend is in a movie that’s only showing now in New York and Los Angeles. Do I pay for a copy off the street? Do I cry because the only place to see the Mona Lisa is The Louvre?

This is how art works. Art is not just a finished product. It’s also a moment in time, and a reflection of that moment. Sometimes, you have to be there. Art also has to make money. We don’t have huge patron families like the De Medici’s funding massive cathedrals anymore. Government arts funding is not enough, especially not in the U.S. So, sometimes the best shows need to be exclusive, if they are going to be created at all. When you steal those shows, you’re slimming the chances of ever seeing content so fantastic ever again.

The best way to see Game of Thrones? Subscribe to HBO, like the rest of us. Maybe you don’t think the price of the show is worth the subscription. But there’s also a ton of other great content on that channel, and on other cable channels. I really wanted to watch the show Homeland when everyone was talking about it, but I didn’t subscribe to Showtime. So, one long weekend while I was home visiting my parents, I hunkered down in their basement and watched every show on demand. It was pretty good, though not as great as everyone says. Then I started catching up with Dexter on Netflix, and hit a wall when Netflix didn’t have the newest episodes. So, the next time I moved and started service with a new cable provider, I subscribed to HBO and Showtime. If they stop showing content I like, or if it’s too few and far between to be worthwhile, I’ll stop.

But let’s not pretend we don’t understand the game. My response is exactly what HBO wants, nothing more and nothing less. They have crunched the numbers, I’m sure. Game of Thrones is driving subscriptions. A lineup of great original content makes people want to subscribe. I have yet to hear a convincing economic argument that says they should break away from this model. If they could make more money offering the show on one of YOUR favorite services, they would do that.

Pay for the art you want to see. Don’t expect sympathy when you whine and complain that you can’t get what you want. Art is special. Art is worthwhile. But as long as artists have to make a living off of their work, art cannot be free.


Stop Whining and Subscribe to HBO is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Nintendo Wii U’s Biggest Challenge: Keeping Us Interested

When the Wii U launches later this year, I’ll be one of many people getting into line to get my hands on the latest console. Although I’m not so sure I’ll enjoy it over a long period and I still believe that the Wii U is coming out too soon and with lesser components than it should, I’m a gaming fanatic. And as a gaming fanatic, I can’t help but get my hands on the latest console.

I did the same with the Wii. I stood in line to finally get my chance at buying the console that so many people were after, and for some time, I was impressed by its technology. After awhile, however, I found that the motion gaming was a gimmick that I couldn’t stand for a long period of time. And with a sub-par game library at the time, I was bored within a couple of months.

Now, as I consider my next console purchase, I can’t help but think back at that time. The Wii seemed so appealing at launch, but it wasn’t long before it started collecting dust in a closet in my house. The Wii U seems to stink of the same scent, and I’m concerned that it might arrive at the same fate as its predecessor.

Although I’ll fully admit that many people out there are huge Wii fans and still enjoy playing the console ach day, I think there are a larger number of people that fell into a similar situation as me. The Wii was their favorite console for a while, but before long, it was ignored.

So, Nintendo has to do everything it can to make sure its latest console doesn’t end up the same way. And the only way to do that is to keep us interested.

“Keeping us interested isn’t as easy as it once was”

Keeping us interested isn’t as easy as it once was. Today’s gamer expects to not only have high-quality graphics and a deep library of titles, but also a host of entertainment options, robust online gaming, and a nice selection of digitally delivered legacy games. We’re more sophisticated now. And Microsoft, which was really the first company to acknowledge that, is successful today because of it.

However, Nintendo has proven to be the last in the gaming space to realize the changing landscape. The company wants us to believe that the old days are still here. They’re not. And that kind of mentality will kill the Wii U.

I think we’re all fully aware of the challenges the Wii U faces. From Nintendo’s spotty relationships with third-party publishers to the threat of the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 launching either next year or in 2014, the Wii U is facing a host of challenges. But keeping us interested over an extended period of time might just be its greatest threat.

Now more than ever, we have entertainment options available to us that will take up time and make the Wii U’s fight for our attention all the more difficult.

Given what we know now – namely that the Wii U is an iterative update over its predecessor and not a major step up – should we expect the Wii U to keep us interested over the long-term?

We can certainly hope. But I’m doubtful, to say the least.


Nintendo Wii U’s Biggest Challenge: Keeping Us Interested is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Why DVD And Blu-Ray Should Finally Die

Over the past week, I’ve spent most of my entertainment time watching movies and television shows either on demand, through Netflix and Hulu Plus, or streaming over my home network. And along the way, it got me thinking: why do I really need discs?

DVD and Blu-ray mean big money for studios. After all, the companies develop blockbuster hits, and then after printing some discs, charge a boatload of cash just so you can get your hands on them. It’s a great deal for those companies.

For us, however, I’m not so sold. The fact is, I don’t like dealing with storing DVDs and Blu-ray discs. And getting up to sift through my library, find the show or movie I want to watch, and then pop it into a player is just a pain. It’s about time physical media just dies.

Of course, I understand that what I’m saying is something that many of you might already feel. But why hasn’t the death of physical media come quicker?

For one thing, it might just be the speed of our Internet connections. Unfortunately, certain countries, like the U.S., are still far behind in terms of broadband speeds than they should be. And despite promises from Washington, I’ve yet to see a single indication made by politicians that would lead us to believe that’s going to change anytime soon.

Beyond that, I’m suspect of the cloud-based services we have now. Sure, Netflix and Hulu Plus work, but they’re not ideal. And the companies that actually own the content aren’t so willing to play nice.

Which, of course, brings us to our next issue: the content companies.

“Studios have decided that making users the enemy is just fine”

Unfortunately, for years now, the studios have decided that making services, and thus their users, the enemies is just fine. The studios seem to reason that by doing so, they’ll be able to make far more cash. And in the process, consumers will just accept that and move on.

But why should we accept that? As far as I’m concerned, it’s best for everyone to accept that discs are a thing of the past. The sooner we can all accept that and start doubling down on the digital craze, the better. It’s not only in our interests, but I would argue that if studios actually took the time and put real effort into developing a digital strategy, over time, they could make it quite profitable.

Still, we sit here hoping for a day when physical media will die a cold and lonely death. After all, once that happens, we’ll be able to throw out our entertainment centers and save space in our living rooms for furniture. And with all of our favorite shows and movies in the cloud, ready for the taking, we can reduce all of the time we waste just to find what we want to watch, pop it into a player, and then wait for it to load.

The future has been, is, and forever will be digital. It’s about time we and all of the studios accept that.


Why DVD And Blu-Ray Should Finally Die is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


Grammar Police, Arrest This Man

There is an alternate universe somewhere in which I am a lexicographer. I write dictionaries for a living. This is not the pipe dream of a grammar-obsessed former English teacher. Right out of grad school (Master’s in English), I turned down an opportunity to work for the Oxford English Dictionary. The job was for a specialist in Caribbean dialects of English. It sounded fantastic. The OED recruiters made clear this was not a stepping stone job for editors and writers. Being a lexicographer leads only to being a better, more experienced lexicographer. Instead, I took a job that involved writing and technology and pop culture, and my life was set on its course. But in an alternate world, I made a different choice and took the dictionary job, and now I sit in a dark apartment in Manhattan mumbling to myself about the horror of language on the Internet.

I’m not talking about the commenters. I’m not talking about laypeople. I’m talking about professionals who are paid to write for a living. Especially technology journalists. There are many, many excellent writers out there who work in technology. I hope they do very well, and I hope you read them thoroughly. But there are also many, perhaps a slim majority of writers, who write with prose that is simply messy, imprecise, and overwrought. I think it is a problem endemic to more than just their technology stories. The problem, at its core, is a way of thinking about how to publish on the Internet.

On the Web, you need to publish quickly if you want to succeed. This isn’t because readers remember who broke a story. Ask the average reader who got the scoop on the latest piece of iPhone jetsam to emerge from the Chinese black markets, and you’re likely to be met with a blank stare.

Even Techmeme gets it wrong, often. Techmeme republishes the most popular technology stories on the Web. Ideally, the writer who reported the story first will show up as the top link. All the Web sites who sourced that story get pushed beneath. That’s how it should be. But Techmeme often puts third-hand stories above first- and second-hand reporting. Techmeme offers a ton of traffic, especially for the top links in each topic. But publishing first does not guarantee those clicks.

“Why publish so quickly? Google knows”

So why publish so quickly? Why rush the story out the door without a proper copy edit? One word: Google. Even when Techmeme doesn’t know where a story came from, Google knows. Google search results tend to prioritize stories that came out first. Even better, Google takes into account how many other stories are linking back to the original. So, if you report on something first, even a minute earlier than the competition, you might get better Google placement.

If you want to make a living running a technology blog, you need to appear on the first page of Google search results. Return readership and feed subscribers certainly matter. But to many sites, especially smaller, up-and-coming sites, the search results will pay the bills for years while the site builds a following.

Speed is therefore of the essence. This comes at the cost of copy editing. Copy editors make everything better. They polish the prose to make it shine, without losing the author’s voice. They write headlines that are engaging and accurate. If you read a story about a gadget that is based entirely on a leak or rumor, and the headline says “Confirmed,” you can guarantee no copy editor wrote that. That was written by an editor focused more on clicks and dollars, not words and meaning.

For a very, very brief time I was a copy editor for a Web site run by the editors of PC Magazine. This was at the height of the dotcom crash. I was told that our unique project was funded for at least a year. Then I saw copy editors in other departments getting laid off. Some were rehired part time, on an hourly scale and without benefits. Finally, on a Friday afternoon, a payday in fact, I was called into a meeting with the boss. Friday afternoon meetings are always bad news. When they happen on a payday, you should probably pack up your desk before the meeting starts, just to save time. Trust me, I know from repeat experience.

The real problem is that many sites care much more about clicks than content. There are some sites I read that are simply wrong. They get everything wrong. They report rumors, then “confirm” those rumors, and by the time those rumors have been revealed as false, they have already moved on to the next big thing. I see these sites quoted and sourced over and over again, even though their accuracy percentage hovers in the low single digits.

Why are they still thriving? Speed. Clicks. Why bother asking a company for a response to a query? You usually know what they will say, especially when it has to do with unannounced devices. (Disclosure: In my day job I work in PR for Samsung Mobile). Wait for a response and you’ll be passed by all of the sites that didn’t bother. Take the time for accuracy and you’ll be out of business, while smaller sites report whatever they like with impunity.

If accuracy is a casualty of the need for fast posting, then grammar, usage, and spelling concerns are barely an afterthought. I know quite a few writers who complain frequently that their warnings about proper English and good writing go completely unheeded. Heck, I was one of those writers. I wrote for a site run by a very intelligent Norwegian who spoke a confused and somewhat garbled English as his second language. We never edited copy, I just did my best to get it right the first time. But management explicitly placed no value at all in proper English. Now the site is gone, vanished into the ether. Old stories don’t even show up in Google search results. There’s irony for you.

“Poor writing will fall heavy on your ears if you cherish the language”

How do we fix the problem? Easy. Avoid the worst offenders. Hopefully your instincts have already pushed you away from them. Even if you aren’t a grammar professional, poor writing will fall heavy on your ears if you enjoy and cherish the language.

Point out mistakes. Always. As a writer, I hate it when readers point out grammar errors in comments. But I’m mostly angry with myself for letting a mistake slip through. Harp on poor grammar on your favorite sites long enough, and they will start to take the problem seriously on an institutional level.

Most of all, though, reward good writing. Read the longer stories. You probably read 3-4 stories about the same topic, anyway. Instead, find the Web site that writes the longer version, and stick to that one. Tell them you appreciate their command of the language. Everybody reads comments. Writers, editors, bosses.

Finally, if you’re a writer, reread your own work. You would be amazed how many writers ignore this. When seconds matter, and delays cost money, it seems a waste of time to proofread. Here’s how I motivate myself to reread. I tell myself that if I can’t bear to read this story again, a story I wrote, how could I expect a stranger to read it even once? I cannot.

We all make mistakes. I’ve made plenty. English is a malleable and forgiving language. I’m not asking for perfection, I just think our profession would be a better place, with more accuracy and less nonsense, if we took the language as seriously as we take the topic.


Grammar Police, Arrest This Man is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.