I hope you're right. I'll just add that I believe the most successful games on the 360 and PS3 had strong online multiplayer features. I hope this is the console where Nintendo gets online multiplayer right because I don't think they'll attract serious gamers until they do.

If they can bring the first party Nintendo games I love and the cross platform games I picked up the other two consoles to play, they'll have won me back. Until we see some details, though, I remain pessimistic.

I have to say that I'm not thrilled about this. The next Nintendo console will come out in 2012 as the 360 and PS3 are reaching the end of their lifecycles. But even if this system is set up to compete with the other two consoles, I don't foresee developers flocking to develop on the console and then down rez for the PS3 and 360. If anything, this new console will get imports designed for one of the other two systems.

This also means that when the next Microsoft and Sony systems come out (rumors point to 2014), the Nintendo console will be behind in hardware again.

And if their market are the casual gamers and families? I get the feeling that they're going to lose out more and more to the mobile and web markets much in the way that the DS and PSP are. Games that require the motion controls of the Wii such as Just Dance do well, but as with the Rock Band/Guitar Heroes of the past, there will be a point where no one will want to buy a new game just for new songs.

I wish Nintendo the best of luck, but I see a long uphill battle in their future that they just can't win unless they evolve agressively.

I'd recommend checking out the April 15th episode of Weekend Confirmed or the Extra Credits episode "Consoles are the new Coin-op" for insight on where I'm coming from.

I couldn't agree more. S-E has had so many good ideas that have been mired by some glaring poor decisions. If they had just spent some time before and during development, their games would be released to fewer "WTF were they thinking" comments. They've been such a successful company and still have quite a few successful games that there's no reason they shouldn't have the budget for more marketing research, testing, and player input.

Most people were NOT paying $28 a month. If I recall, it was like $7 for 20 hours of gameplay in the "action zones". The areas where you socialize, design cars/clothes/characters, find guilds were in social zones where your subscription time wasn't used.

Actually, the monthly fee was reasonable and came out to less than $15 (the standard MMO subscription fee) for a month of gameplay depending on how many hours I put in. The audio advertisements were opt in if I recall (they were the downside of turning on HQ voice chat) and the in-game ads were billboards which added an air of realism to the game.

Depends on what you mean by cheating. The match making system drove me up the wall. I only lost against people 5x my rating because they out-geared me. But that's all I was pitted against because they purposely lowered their rank (rating determines your gear, rank determines who you fight, rating goes up as you play, rank goes up or down if you win or lose) to they could fight newbies.

And honestly, the weapons and cars are all that changed. At rank 1, you were robbing stores and stealing cars. At rank 500 you were robbing the same stores and stealing the same cars. The game failed because it was hollow gameplay.

Biometrics are still considered too intrusive by many people, but not a bad idea. Two-factor authentication using a token is fine until someone loses or breaks their token. If getting a replacement is too difficult or takes too long, you won't get people to adopt the technology. If getting a replacement is too easy, then you're back to the original issue: if they could get your token, someone would just need your PIN to access everything.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for this research.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine Decent game but still 10x better than the movie

Boston, actually, where the wind will change constantly. I'm not saying I've seen a stoplight coate don all four sides with snow, but neither will I say it's impossible.

I'm guessing you live in an area where no one has a car. Massholes where I live definitely do not know what to do when a light is out. However, the proper, legal solution is still the same: if the light is out, you stop.

If you're not sure to stop or go, the answer is "stop". I can understand if it's dark and you don't see the traffic lights because they're covered with snow, but if the lights at the intersection aren't working, that doesn't mean the light is green. It means stop and go when it's safe to.

Not at all, but we are suggesting that only humans can make a plan, execute it, and then say, "I love it when a plan comes together."

Scientists have tried with parrots, myna birds and marmots, but have thus far been unsuccessful. Many people fear that, should the succeed, the world as we know it would fall into chaos.

Who needs to enter anything? You can install plenty of malware simply by having the user click on your link. Plus, it depends on who the spam comes from. Would you really check the URL if you received an e-mail that looked like it was from a close friend that simply read, "Check out this link: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/1652236/Project-Honey-Pot-Traps-Billionth-Spam"? (Disregarding, of course, the Slashdot URL display feature)