Dreamcast Mark II Prototype On Show

The good news / bad news out of Sega picks up a few details today, as reader The vm writes: "The folks over at Daily Radar are sporting an article with pictures of the new Dreamcast set top box that Pace and Sega have recently announced. So far it sounds a bit shaky since they haven't partnered with any content providers yet. Only time will tell if this 'Tivo meets Sega Channel' product will wither on the vine or grow into something with mass appeal."

Comments

Perfect timing

[thorsen]

Can someone tell me why on earth I should buy a machine that will probably have the same fate as the Dreamcast I -- they kill it completely just before launching DCII which means support for this platform is a dead end and will not be supported in a couple of years.

Contrast this with Sony support on the Playstation. Just before they launch PS2, they refit the PS1 and start shipping this. Which is a clear sign to gamemakers that the PS1 is not dead even though PS2 is out.

Sega has shown their intentions and has made sure that I for one will go for another platform if I decide to buy a console.

The controller cable issue

[gnfnrf]

I find it interesting that the article attacks the non-standard positioning of the controller ports (on the top near the back of one side) for "asthetic" reasons. I suspect that decision was made for an entirely different purpose.

As anyone who has tried to put a console system on top of a TV knows, there is a serious problem. The cables for the controller hang in front of the TV. I can only assume that the placement of the ports is an attempt to avoid this problem, though the guy on the opposite side is still probably screwed.

The solution, if you really need a set TOP box, is to have a single, short cable that runs to a secondary controller port box, which goes UNDER the TV. I don't think any other configuration will work.

Just my random musings. Continue debating the future of Sega now.
--
gnfnrf

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

[perdida]

I know that games on the traditional, stand alone dreamcast box will still be available, but what upsets me is that more and more of the console gaming in the US and the world is going to take place in a connected environment, either on the internet model or on the pay per view model.

A parent can feel safe letting their child play videogames without supervision because, unlike the internet, a parent can currently control all the access to specific videogames that a child might have. It costs a lot to buy the game, one need's parental permission to get it at the rental place.

A parent cannot feel safe when a kid can go home and download the latest new thing, without having to check with parents. Yes there are passwords and safety features, but this is a far lower level of safety than the level afforded when a clerk at the video store requires adult presence to rent certain games.

Wither on the Vine! Wither on the Vine!

[jpowers]

Sorry, but this thing is just a stock play by Sega while they reorganize for pure game dev. It's really a non-factor in their (and our) future. What's more interesting is that Sega's going to be making games for other platforms: Good games AND a decent controller. Yay!

-jpowers

Re:NetBSD is dead

[bugg]

Let's say there is about 20 times as much Linux traffic on USENET than BSD. Based on your 44,800 BSD user count, that means there are 896,000 Linux users. But http://counter.li.org/ estimates the count o be 16 million.

Or how about this? There is an infinite amount more traffic on the official freebsd user mailing list as opposed to the linux official user mailing list, hence linux has zero users.

Moral? These numbers don't prove a thing. I've seen this troll with every BSD post, and it's about time you give it up. If you believe that BSD is dead, suit yourself- there's no need to reassert it.

Of course, I shouldn't feed the troll- it just gives you the attention that your parents never did.

Realistic violence leads to real violence

[Urban Existentialist]

Reality is something that we percieve, without ever knowing whether it truly exists. Therefore, if we are participating in a 'virtual' reality (which really has just as much validity as reality), then we are just percieving a different environment in which things behave according to different laws.

Is it not then dangerous to play a console game in which agents are motivated by entirely different principles? There is no reason in evolutionary psychology to suppose that we are capable of differentiating in the long term between different representations of reality, which are all in the end subjective.I think it is dangerous that in this modern world there are so many differnt virtual universes for us to exist in. It could be that we are unnable to cope with this - our brains are made for the evolutionary plains of Africa, not the modern world of TV, books, consoles, the Internet, Radio, etc etc. We are suffering from an overload of representative realities. It has been speculated that this is the cause behind Alzhimers desease and Attention Deficit Disorder - the inability to be satisfied with just one reality.

Consoles of this hyperrealistic nature could well greatly exarcerbate the minimal problems we have in this area at the moment.

I just wish we knew more about these sorts of issues before we wantonly introduced new consoles.

This post may have seemed a littled bit off base, I suppose, and I am sorry if it appeared so. I just had to get it off my chest. It is interesting though, if slightly worrying.

You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-