The only good launch title is Resistance:Fall of Man. The titles that are on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are better on the Xbox 360. Many of the games that were meant to come out for launch are being pushed back until there is a larger install base. There aren't that many movie titles available for the Blu Ray movie format right now. The PS3 will only get better with age. When there are a larger number of games available and there is a significant price drop, the PS3 may be a worthwhile purchase.
I'm not interested in the Wii, but I understand why people are. After seeing a video of the Wii in action I lost all interest. However a lot of message comments about the same video showed that there were many Wii fans. I think that the Wii will sell very well, I just won't buy one. At $249 with a game, it's a low risk investment in gaming. I may pick one up in a year or two if I see some games that interest me. If I was a Nintendo fan, I would buy one at launch.
It's just a matter of time before I buy an Xbox 360. It's high definition gaming at a much more reasonable price than the PS3. I don't want to watch movies on a console, so Blu Ray isn't very important to me. I am waiting for a significant price drop before I buy one.
I haven't been able to see packages like this in the U.S., but I have heard about a $100 rebate in one of the smaller chains in the U.S. I can't find a link right now.
XBox 360 Premium console, Ghost Recon:Advanced Warfighter, Xbox Live Arcade: Unplugged, Ridge Racer 6 and Gears of War for $499.99 CAN at Future Shop. $499.99 CAN is the launch price of the Xbox 360 premium console. Best Buy in Canada is offering the same deal without Ridge Racer 6. Oddly Future Shop is owned by Best Buy.
I'm hoping that the Nintendo Wii doesn't do as well as predicted at launch. Nintendo has some room to cut prices. I hope there is a price war all around.
The difference between the cost of the parts of an Xbox 360 and a low end PS3 is $482.55. Even with manufacturing costs and other costs getting the system to the store, in order for Microsoft to lose as much money per console as Sony they would have to price an Xbox 360 at $99.
Microsoft makes over 10 billion dollars a year in profit. They can afford to lose money in the short term for long term profits. Video on demand is going to be huge. Once they get a large install base, they can start providing video download services for other electronic manufacturers. You could buy a Toshiba DVD player which has video on demand provided by Microsoft. Microsoft and Toshiba would each make a few pennies for each download that the customer makes. There will be competitors, but that's business. While Sony has Blu Ray as its huge potential market, Microsoft has video on demand.
If Microsoft wanted to really screw Sony, they could have a one day sale with the Xbox 360 premium and a copy of Gear of War for $299. If they feel like it, throw in a year of Xbox Live Gold and a copy of Project Gotham Racing 3. Or a Core system with a memory card and a copy of Project Gotham Racing for $199. Nov 16 would be a great date. Right between the PS3 and Wii launch. It would cost Microsoft money, but it would steal thunder from their competitors. Of course, it's too late now.
It will be interesting to see whether the PS3 is worth $499 for the low end model. I honestly believe that people will buy the Wii regardless of what it costs or what the other console makers do. You're either a Wii fan or your not.
It sounds as if you wouldn't want the Wii at any price. Which is fair enough. I admit I've seen some video footage of it and I don't really want one. If different games are released for it, I may reconsider. The controller is interesting, but you really have to like the Nintendo style. I do understand why a lot of gamers, especially long term Nintendo fans, would want one.
My guess is that you really want a Playstation 3, but you want the price to come down. You'll probably keep on playing games on your PC and PS2 until the PS3 is $399. Then you'll probably buy one. I think most PS2 owners are in your position. And Microsoft will be waving the Xbox 360 in their face during that time. I expect a lot of high definition gamers to buy an Xbox 360 for Christmas when they can't buy a PS3.
It's not a competition between just the Wii and the PS3. In fact I would say that there are very few people who are deciding between those two systems. The PS3 and the Wii are just too far apart. You are willing to pay for high definition graphics or you are not. You either want the traditional controller scheme or you love the idea of the Wii controller. I would suggest that the competition is Wii vs. Xbox 360 and PS3 vs. Xbox 360.
First, the people who buy a PS3 before Christmas are going to be hardcore Playstation fans. The PS3 is in such short supply and costs so much, it will not be a casual purchase. Even if you're rich, you will have to track one down or pre-order it. The Wii is half the price of the PS3 and there will be an ample supply of them because Nintendo doesn't have production problems.
A price sensitive gamer will ignore the PS3. The Xbox 360 will become more affordable once Microsoft cuts it's price. Even with a price cut, the Xbox 360 will be more expensive than the Wii. But it won't be twice the price. Meaning that someone who is willing to pay for a Wii doesn't have to pay that much more for an Xbox 360. It comes down to consumer choice.
A gamer looking for high definition graphics will be comparing the PS3 and the Xbox 360. The Wii is limited to 480p, so someone who wants HD will ignore it. A gamer must decide whether they want to pay $100 to $200 extra for the PS3. There are certainly Xbox 360 games with high quality graphics. We will have to wait and see how PS3 games look.
I think that Xbox 360 demand is pretty high in the US. I only say this because there are deals being offered in Canada that are not being offered in the US. Maybe Americans tend to spend more on Christmas than Canadians.
I'd rather not make the final judgment based on one game alone especially when Xbox 360 has been out for a year already and devs have almost two years of experience on it. But yes, I'd certainly take the Xbox360 version of Tony Hawk over PS3 version (unless I'd get a PS3 with it...)
I admit it is speculation, but it is the first time we can compare apples and apples. This has demonstrated that the rumor of development problems is true. How easily they can be overcome is another issue.
The prospect of fucking excellent games in the near future is impossible to pass by. PS2 had the best game library overall of the previous gen consoles (although Xbox was clearly superior for online gaming) thanks to lots of exclusives or titles which were exclusive for a good while (like GTA) from Sony itself or Sony-committed developers.
GTA is no longer exclusive. No developer in the right mind would develop a game exclusively for the PS3 without a sack full of cash from Sony. Even if the PS3 is a success, most customers will want to buy it when it hits $299 or below. It's been proven that the Xbox 360 can deliver number one hits from time to time, even with it's small install base. Why wouldn't a developer want to also release their game on the Xbox 360? The PS2 had such a large install base, a game developer could get 60 to 75% of the market by developing just for it. That's why there were a lot of exclusives for the PS2.
The Gamecube was released on November 18, 2001 at a price of $199 and it was reduced in price to $149 on May 13, 2002.
My guess is that in May, the Xbox 360 Core version will be dropped and the premium version will be reduced to $299. The PS3 will be reduced to $399/$499 and the Wii will be reduced to $199. It may come down to one company cutting their price and the others following.
Microsoft earns over $10 billion a year in profit, while Sony and Nintendo make about $1 billion each every year. Microsoft has been making the Xbox 360 for over a year, significantly cutting manufacturing costs.
The one game that has been reviewed on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is Tony Hawk Project 8. There are two major problems with the PS3 version: lack of online support and frame rate issues. The frame rate issues are a huge problem for Sony. If someone is paying a premium price, they expect a premium product. If the PS3 version of games is inferior to the Xbox 360 version, I don't see why anyone would want to purchase a PS3. Luckily for Sony, it probably just means that people are having a difficult time developing for the platform.
The large media companies will probably want to make deals with Google. Why not make some money instead of paying lawyers for years? Google will probably set up a service similar to Microsoft's Xbox Live television sales or Apple's Itunes. And it will examine material more closely. Copyright lawsuits are mostly based on intimidation anyway. It's easy to intimidate a scared teenager. A huge corporation with the best lawyers in the world is another matter. The media companies are in the process of moving into the Internet age, they are just coming up with a new business model. And Google will be another digital cog in the new media machine.
At least the Xbox 360 was released before it was obsolete. The PS3 graphics processor is similar to the 7800 GTX if I remember correctly. When the PS3 releases people won't be saying "Buy the PS3 for the greatest graphical experience", instead they'll say "Buy the PS3 for the greatest graphical experience, expect for the PC you could have bought last week". The PS3 will probably be about as powerful as the 8600 when it's released.
I know I sound very offtopic bringing this up, but many PC gamers also play console games. They will want to compare console graphics to PC graphics.
Is your mind controlled by a wizard? Are you a zombie who not only craves brains, but also Nintendo's Wii? Have you taken an experimental formula that turns you into a half man/half ape and you require something to distract you from your loss of humanity? Or do you just hate making your own decisions? Have Gamestop decide what games and accessories you need with your Nintendo Wii. If you're very good, they'll let you purchase other games of their choosing in the future.
while you wield a baguette with a chainsaw attachment. Let the streets of Paris run red with the blood of existentialist zombies. May every mission in your tactical shooter involve a retreat. And don't forget your purse.
Re:Former Marine/Army general would have been best
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 1
The SoD's job is not to handle wars but to handle warfare policy on behalf of the President. The line between the two is fuzzy, and Rumsfeld often overruled the military advice from his generals whose job it was to know better. But in general, the job really is managerial rather than military.
Out of 300 million people, it should be possible to find a military expert who is also an excellent manager. Although I guess a bureaucrat who is willing to listen to military personnel would be better than Rumsfeld.
Gates has two years in the Air Force. I think they should have chosen someone who has a lot of experience in land warfare. Someone who understands what would be required for victory in Iraq. A military leader instead of a bureaucrat.
At the very least we have an obligation to restore the infrastructure (medical, power, water, security forces and schools) to the same levels of efficiency as before we invaded.
I think this sounds great in principle, but I don't think it will ever happen. The Sunni Arabs having lost power are practicing a scorched earth strategy. If they can't be in power, then Iraq will be a burned out grave. It seems that Iraqis would rather join militias than the security forces. It is far easier to destroy than to rebuild.
If the U.S. leaves there are two scenarios: the fighting dies down or it escalates to a full scale civil war.
A decrease in the violence sounds exceedingly optimistic, but it is possible. A lot of the nationalist insurgents may stop fighting once the "foreign invaders" are gone. Potential foreign fighters no longer have the promise of killing Americans if they go to Iraq. Without the backing of powerful foreign governments, the Shia dominated government may make compromises that they wouldn't otherwise. And its a brutal thing to say, but the Sunni Arabs will be cowed by the fact they will face genocide if they provoke the government too much.
Civil war will only happen if the Sunni Arab population decides that they would rather fight than live in a country in which the majority rules. They are in a terrible position if they decide to fight, the Shia Arabs outnumber them three to one and Iranians are in an ideal position to assist them.
Nintendo doesn't seem to have any production problems whatsoever with the Wii, it's very close to the Gamecube. They can easily churn them out to meet demand. Only in the mind of the most deranged Nintendo fan boy will there be a shortage. I think it will sell very well, especially in Japan. But I think that the only people camping out for a Wii will be Nintendo die hards who want to tell everyone that they camped out for one.
Within a month of Saddam's execution, U.S. troops (and the soldiers of other nations) should leave Iraq. The U.S. can declare victory and state that the Iraqi people now control their own destiny.
There is still a very good possibility that a civil war will break out in Iraq after the Coalition leaves. But I do think that there is a possibility that a peace agreement can be worked out. The Shia Arabs and Kurds have their pound of flesh with execution of Saddam meaning that their leaders can make compromises with former government officials. The Sunni Arabs no longer have any hope of re-installing Saddam as the leader of Iraq and they will no longer have foreign troops on Iraqi soil. Does anyone really think that having American troops stay longer in Iraq will increase the chance of peace? And if a civil war breaks out, was there any way to prevent it?
After the Coalition troops leave, no American/British citizens, including journalists, aid workers or diplomats, should be allowed in Iraq for five years. There are two reasons for this. First, they will require an enormous amount of security to protect them. Second, it is necessary for the Iraqi government to appear independent of American/British influence. I don't think that either that either government should have an embassy on Iraqi soil for at least five years.
I don't want a terrorist victory in Iraq. If the terrorists win in Iraq, there will only be more bombings in the West. If the Americans leave now, they can say that they have achieved all of goals. They can say that the tyrant received a fair trial and fair execution. They can also say that they couldn't leave until they were sure that Saddam couldn't return to power.
Does anyone want the U.S. and other foreign troops to stay in Iraq?
Microsoft will be moving to a 65nm process in the first quarter of 2007. This should result in a significant reduction in the heat and power consumption. It is the main reason I'm not buying one yet. Whether Microsoft will reduce the price of the console when the make the change is up in the air, but it will almost certainly cut the price at some time.
Microsoft's pricing strategy leaves room for the Wii to really take off. The Xbox 360 is not just competing with the PS3, it is also competing with Nintendo's console. High definition graphics don't matter to the majority of people who are currently using standard definition televisions. I don't think that demand for Zelda/Mario/Metroid is as high as the Nintendo faithful would have you believe, but the Wii will sell very well if its competitors prices are sky high.
Why doesn't Microsoft kick Sony while it's down? I don't believe that the Playstation brand name will guarantee Sony's victory, but it is a massive advantage. Microsoft needs to sell as many Xbox 360s as they can before Sony works out its production issues. The more consoles sold, the greater the number of games released for the console. No developer in their right mind wants to develop a game exclusively for the PS3 without a bundle of cash from Sony. But if Sony can cut their production costs and start to turn out a large number of PS3s, Microsoft will be in a terrible position. Microsoft shouldn't wait until this happens, they need to start screwing over Sony now.
In Canada it seems that the Xbox 360 is staying the same price, but games are being added. Recently I saw a bundle which included the Xbox 360 premium system, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, Ridge Racer 6 and Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged for $499.99 CAN. A direct link to the bundle didn't work, go to futureshop.ca and look at the Xbox 360 console bundles. $499.99 CAN is the standard price for the Xbox 360 premium console in Canada. When I look at the American Best Buy site, I don't see similar bundles being offered.
I'm not saying that Bully should be banned. But there should be full disclosure of homosexual content. This would allow gamers and parents buying games for their children to make a fully informed decision. Just as Gears of War should have a label stating "intense bloody violence" on it. I like games with brutal violence, but I understand that many people don't. If Mario suddenly ripped off Luigi's head and started raping the eye sockets, there are many people who would be unpleasantly surprised.
My counter-suggestion, similarly based on wild conjecture, is that most people care much less than you do. For reference: well, anything popular that has homosexuality in it somewhere. Take your pick.
Homosexuals don't tend to be major characters in film and television. It's usually a gay guy who is the platonic friend of a heterosexual woman. I have heard that there are quite a number of gay independent films, but they are probably watched by a mostly gay audience. When is the last time you watched an action in which the hero and his boyfriend saved the day. Most people don't want to watch a movie in which a gay James Bond sleeps with a bunch of guys while preventing the Earth from imploding. Yet a heterosexual James Bond who sleeps with a bunch of women has resulted in 20+ movies over 50+ years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_bond/. One set of movies get made, the other doesn't see the light of day. The only popular depiction of gay sexuality is when two heterosexual women are paid money to have gay sex with each other, simulated or otherwise. And then quickly leave each other when there are men available.
Ironically enough, the Hot Coffee scandal is a completely different animal from the Bully scandal. The simulated sex games were never meant to be available to the public, while the Bully gay kissing doesn't require a mod to access. And Bully gets a Teen rating.
Very few people want homosexual content in their games. There will be quite a number of people who were going to buy Bully and now they won't. The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality. This isn't something that liberals want to hear, but it's true. This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want. The standard reaction of the consumer is not to buy it.
I'll give a non-homosexual example of where my digust for something made me regret a purchase. I watch a lot of movies in the theater. The movie Beloved had come out and I decided to go see it. There was one scene I was repulsed by. Oprah Winfrey urinating. God, I hope that was faked. It wasn't her sitting down and doing her business... it was an arc of urine coming out from beneath her dress.
So I don't like watching homosexuals kiss or watching Oprah pee. If a media product comes out which includes either, I will not purchase it.
Your wife or girlfriend's body is not for sale. However there are some people who would pay money to sleep with her. Only losers use prostitutes, but it takes bigger losers to pay real money for online equipment and characters. The fact that you have no intention of paying for it doesn't matter. It only matters that somebody would.
Since the terrorists will be using encrypted messages or coded messages which don't appear to be anything special (you know those -1 Slashdot comments are for something), this will help retrace the terrorist's online activities after people have died in a terrorist attack. My guess: lots of porn and a few messages to E-mail accounts which no longer exist.
It's just that there are so many disposable E-mail accounts available and the easy access to Internet cafes. If someone is using a disposable E-mail account and an Internet terminal which is paid for in loose change (usually used in airports), how are you going to track that person down one month later? What if the terminal is outside the United States?
Not to mention free Linksys brand wireless Internet access which is available in most areas.
Any government fighting terrorists needs to setup its own terrorist propaganda websites which make use of Microsoft Internet Explorer's many vulnerabilities. Spyware for the spies. Microsoft's poor security practices not only hurt you, they also hurt the terrorists. Of course terrorists using Firefox screws us all.
There are two possibilities: North Korea is a pawn that China has lost control of or North Korea is doing exactly what China wants it to do. If China wants North Korea to be a nuclear state then everything is going to plan.
There are some reasons why a nuclear North Korea is very painful to China. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all have reasons to develop nuclear deterents of their own now. That's an unholy trinity to China. They all currently rely on the United States for their defence and a nuclear North Korea may cause the United States to back off a bit. If one or more of these nations develops nuclear weapons, it reduces China's military influence over the region. The chance of a nuclear war goes up dramatically because the distances are much shorter than those between the U.S. and Russia. In the Cold War, people had time to think. There are cargo ships everywhere, all capable of holding a nuclear weapon. And if you were beside an unstable nation which was selling nuclear weapons, wouldn't you worry?
China is in a much better position to invade North Korea than anyone else. The Chinese army is huge and they have an enormous supply of recruits if they need them. Most of the North Korean army is along the southern border of country constantly preparing to invade South Korea. Most of the nasty artillery is aimed at Seoul (sucks for the South Koreans, but it isn't China's problem). It is much easier to convince your population of a threat that is on your border, opposed to half a world away. North Korea's nuclear weapons are still in the testing stage and probably couldn't be used.
This allows China to install a more servile puppet government in North Korea. A government which will obey orders. China gets to glorify its military as protectors of the world and stir up nationalistic feelings at home. And which governments would actually critize them for doing this?
This is much much more of a free-speech issue than any kind of right-left issue.
Atheist racially neutral economic egalitarians have killed tens of millions of people in the last hundred years. When someone suggests that the horrors of the world are due to racial strife, religion and economic inequality, it is important to keep that in mind. The Left's hands are just as bloody as the Right's. It just gets covered up by the liberal media and academia. A cover-up by omission.
Take the example of Vlaams Blok. This was a political party which had nearly 12% of the Belgian vote and was banned because the high court of Belgium decided that their anti-immigration stance was unacceptable. One of the reasons they were banned was their opposition to female circumcision. Should anyone who proposes a border fence on the southern border of the United States be thrown in jail for several years? Hate speech laws are a license for a judge to directly impose their political will on the public.
This is not the equivalent where someone goes to jail for flag burning. This is the equivalent of where someone goes to jail for proposing flag burning should be legal.
Well, that's kind of wrong: Most people in the USA who've been jailed on laws later ruled anti-1st-amendment were Communists and Socialists prosecuted under the Smith Act and earlier sedition laws. A lot of them remain on the books as well.
The Smith Act makes it illegal to conspire to overthrow the government of the United States. I admit that I don't know that much about it, but it appears that most of the convictions were thrown out in 1957. It is extensively documented that the Communist Party of the United States collaborated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so there are several issues beyond free speech involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The only good launch title is Resistance:Fall of Man. The titles that are on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are better on the Xbox 360. Many of the games that were meant to come out for launch are being pushed back until there is a larger install base. There aren't that many movie titles available for the Blu Ray movie format right now. The PS3 will only get better with age. When there are a larger number of games available and there is a significant price drop, the PS3 may be a worthwhile purchase.
I'm not interested in the Wii, but I understand why people are. After seeing a video of the Wii in action I lost all interest. However a lot of message comments about the same video showed that there were many Wii fans. I think that the Wii will sell very well, I just won't buy one. At $249 with a game, it's a low risk investment in gaming. I may pick one up in a year or two if I see some games that interest me. If I was a Nintendo fan, I would buy one at launch.
It's just a matter of time before I buy an Xbox 360. It's high definition gaming at a much more reasonable price than the PS3. I don't want to watch movies on a console, so Blu Ray isn't very important to me. I am waiting for a significant price drop before I buy one.
I haven't been able to see packages like this in the U.S., but I have heard about a $100 rebate in one of the smaller chains in the U.S. I can't find a link right now.
XBox 360 Premium console, Ghost Recon:Advanced Warfighter, Xbox Live Arcade: Unplugged, Ridge Racer 6 and Gears of War for $499.99 CAN at Future Shop. $499.99 CAN is the launch price of the Xbox 360 premium console. Best Buy in Canada is offering the same deal without Ridge Racer 6. Oddly Future Shop is owned by Best Buy.
I'm hoping that the Nintendo Wii doesn't do as well as predicted at launch. Nintendo has some room to cut prices. I hope there is a price war all around.
The difference between the cost of the parts of an Xbox 360 and a low end PS3 is $482.55. Even with manufacturing costs and other costs getting the system to the store, in order for Microsoft to lose as much money per console as Sony they would have to price an Xbox 360 at $99.
Microsoft makes over 10 billion dollars a year in profit. They can afford to lose money in the short term for long term profits. Video on demand is going to be huge. Once they get a large install base, they can start providing video download services for other electronic manufacturers. You could buy a Toshiba DVD player which has video on demand provided by Microsoft. Microsoft and Toshiba would each make a few pennies for each download that the customer makes. There will be competitors, but that's business. While Sony has Blu Ray as its huge potential market, Microsoft has video on demand.
If Microsoft wanted to really screw Sony, they could have a one day sale with the Xbox 360 premium and a copy of Gear of War for $299. If they feel like it, throw in a year of Xbox Live Gold and a copy of Project Gotham Racing 3. Or a Core system with a memory card and a copy of Project Gotham Racing for $199. Nov 16 would be a great date. Right between the PS3 and Wii launch. It would cost Microsoft money, but it would steal thunder from their competitors. Of course, it's too late now.
It will be interesting to see whether the PS3 is worth $499 for the low end model. I honestly believe that people will buy the Wii regardless of what it costs or what the other console makers do. You're either a Wii fan or your not.
It sounds as if you wouldn't want the Wii at any price. Which is fair enough. I admit I've seen some video footage of it and I don't really want one. If different games are released for it, I may reconsider. The controller is interesting, but you really have to like the Nintendo style. I do understand why a lot of gamers, especially long term Nintendo fans, would want one.
My guess is that you really want a Playstation 3, but you want the price to come down. You'll probably keep on playing games on your PC and PS2 until the PS3 is $399. Then you'll probably buy one. I think most PS2 owners are in your position. And Microsoft will be waving the Xbox 360 in their face during that time. I expect a lot of high definition gamers to buy an Xbox 360 for Christmas when they can't buy a PS3.
It's not a competition between just the Wii and the PS3. In fact I would say that there are very few people who are deciding between those two systems. The PS3 and the Wii are just too far apart. You are willing to pay for high definition graphics or you are not. You either want the traditional controller scheme or you love the idea of the Wii controller. I would suggest that the competition is Wii vs. Xbox 360 and PS3 vs. Xbox 360.
First, the people who buy a PS3 before Christmas are going to be hardcore Playstation fans. The PS3 is in such short supply and costs so much, it will not be a casual purchase. Even if you're rich, you will have to track one down or pre-order it. The Wii is half the price of the PS3 and there will be an ample supply of them because Nintendo doesn't have production problems.
A price sensitive gamer will ignore the PS3. The Xbox 360 will become more affordable once Microsoft cuts it's price. Even with a price cut, the Xbox 360 will be more expensive than the Wii. But it won't be twice the price. Meaning that someone who is willing to pay for a Wii doesn't have to pay that much more for an Xbox 360. It comes down to consumer choice.
A gamer looking for high definition graphics will be comparing the PS3 and the Xbox 360. The Wii is limited to 480p, so someone who wants HD will ignore it. A gamer must decide whether they want to pay $100 to $200 extra for the PS3. There are certainly Xbox 360 games with high quality graphics. We will have to wait and see how PS3 games look.
I think that Xbox 360 demand is pretty high in the US. I only say this because there are deals being offered in Canada that are not being offered in the US. Maybe Americans tend to spend more on Christmas than Canadians.
I admit it is speculation, but it is the first time we can compare apples and apples. This has demonstrated that the rumor of development problems is true. How easily they can be overcome is another issue.
GTA is no longer exclusive. No developer in the right mind would develop a game exclusively for the PS3 without a sack full of cash from Sony. Even if the PS3 is a success, most customers will want to buy it when it hits $299 or below. It's been proven that the Xbox 360 can deliver number one hits from time to time, even with it's small install base. Why wouldn't a developer want to also release their game on the Xbox 360? The PS2 had such a large install base, a game developer could get 60 to 75% of the market by developing just for it. That's why there were a lot of exclusives for the PS2.
The Xbox was released on November 15, 2001 at a price of $299 and it was reduced in price to $199 on May 15, 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2The PS2 was released on October 26, 2000 at a price of $299 and it was reduced in price to $199 on May 14, 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GamecubeThe Gamecube was released on November 18, 2001 at a price of $199 and it was reduced in price to $149 on May 13, 2002.
My guess is that in May, the Xbox 360 Core version will be dropped and the premium version will be reduced to $299. The PS3 will be reduced to $399/$499 and the Wii will be reduced to $199. It may come down to one company cutting their price and the others following.
Microsoft earns over $10 billion a year in profit, while Sony and Nintendo make about $1 billion each every year. Microsoft has been making the Xbox 360 for over a year, significantly cutting manufacturing costs.
The one game that has been reviewed on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is Tony Hawk Project 8. There are two major problems with the PS3 version: lack of online support and frame rate issues. The frame rate issues are a huge problem for Sony. If someone is paying a premium price, they expect a premium product. If the PS3 version of games is inferior to the Xbox 360 version, I don't see why anyone would want to purchase a PS3. Luckily for Sony, it probably just means that people are having a difficult time developing for the platform.
The large media companies will probably want to make deals with Google. Why not make some money instead of paying lawyers for years? Google will probably set up a service similar to Microsoft's Xbox Live television sales or Apple's Itunes. And it will examine material more closely. Copyright lawsuits are mostly based on intimidation anyway. It's easy to intimidate a scared teenager. A huge corporation with the best lawyers in the world is another matter. The media companies are in the process of moving into the Internet age, they are just coming up with a new business model. And Google will be another digital cog in the new media machine.
At least the Xbox 360 was released before it was obsolete. The PS3 graphics processor is similar to the 7800 GTX if I remember correctly. When the PS3 releases people won't be saying "Buy the PS3 for the greatest graphical experience", instead they'll say "Buy the PS3 for the greatest graphical experience, expect for the PC you could have bought last week". The PS3 will probably be about as powerful as the 8600 when it's released.
I know I sound very offtopic bringing this up, but many PC gamers also play console games. They will want to compare console graphics to PC graphics.
Is your mind controlled by a wizard? Are you a zombie who not only craves brains, but also Nintendo's Wii? Have you taken an experimental formula that turns you into a half man/half ape and you require something to distract you from your loss of humanity? Or do you just hate making your own decisions? Have Gamestop decide what games and accessories you need with your Nintendo Wii. If you're very good, they'll let you purchase other games of their choosing in the future.
while you wield a baguette with a chainsaw attachment. Let the streets of Paris run red with the blood of existentialist zombies. May every mission in your tactical shooter involve a retreat. And don't forget your purse.
Out of 300 million people, it should be possible to find a military expert who is also an excellent manager. Although I guess a bureaucrat who is willing to listen to military personnel would be better than Rumsfeld.
Gates has two years in the Air Force. I think they should have chosen someone who has a lot of experience in land warfare. Someone who understands what would be required for victory in Iraq. A military leader instead of a bureaucrat.
I think this sounds great in principle, but I don't think it will ever happen. The Sunni Arabs having lost power are practicing a scorched earth strategy. If they can't be in power, then Iraq will be a burned out grave. It seems that Iraqis would rather join militias than the security forces. It is far easier to destroy than to rebuild.
If the U.S. leaves there are two scenarios: the fighting dies down or it escalates to a full scale civil war.
A decrease in the violence sounds exceedingly optimistic, but it is possible. A lot of the nationalist insurgents may stop fighting once the "foreign invaders" are gone. Potential foreign fighters no longer have the promise of killing Americans if they go to Iraq. Without the backing of powerful foreign governments, the Shia dominated government may make compromises that they wouldn't otherwise. And its a brutal thing to say, but the Sunni Arabs will be cowed by the fact they will face genocide if they provoke the government too much.
Civil war will only happen if the Sunni Arab population decides that they would rather fight than live in a country in which the majority rules. They are in a terrible position if they decide to fight, the Shia Arabs outnumber them three to one and Iranians are in an ideal position to assist them.
Nintendo doesn't seem to have any production problems whatsoever with the Wii, it's very close to the Gamecube. They can easily churn them out to meet demand. Only in the mind of the most deranged Nintendo fan boy will there be a shortage. I think it will sell very well, especially in Japan. But I think that the only people camping out for a Wii will be Nintendo die hards who want to tell everyone that they camped out for one.
Within a month of Saddam's execution, U.S. troops (and the soldiers of other nations) should leave Iraq. The U.S. can declare victory and state that the Iraqi people now control their own destiny.
There is still a very good possibility that a civil war will break out in Iraq after the Coalition leaves. But I do think that there is a possibility that a peace agreement can be worked out. The Shia Arabs and Kurds have their pound of flesh with execution of Saddam meaning that their leaders can make compromises with former government officials. The Sunni Arabs no longer have any hope of re-installing Saddam as the leader of Iraq and they will no longer have foreign troops on Iraqi soil. Does anyone really think that having American troops stay longer in Iraq will increase the chance of peace? And if a civil war breaks out, was there any way to prevent it?
After the Coalition troops leave, no American/British citizens, including journalists, aid workers or diplomats, should be allowed in Iraq for five years. There are two reasons for this. First, they will require an enormous amount of security to protect them. Second, it is necessary for the Iraqi government to appear independent of American/British influence. I don't think that either that either government should have an embassy on Iraqi soil for at least five years.
I don't want a terrorist victory in Iraq. If the terrorists win in Iraq, there will only be more bombings in the West. If the Americans leave now, they can say that they have achieved all of goals. They can say that the tyrant received a fair trial and fair execution. They can also say that they couldn't leave until they were sure that Saddam couldn't return to power.
Does anyone want the U.S. and other foreign troops to stay in Iraq?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148098.html/
Microsoft will be moving to a 65nm process in the first quarter of 2007. This should result in a significant reduction in the heat and power consumption. It is the main reason I'm not buying one yet. Whether Microsoft will reduce the price of the console when the make the change is up in the air, but it will almost certainly cut the price at some time.
Microsoft's pricing strategy leaves room for the Wii to really take off. The Xbox 360 is not just competing with the PS3, it is also competing with Nintendo's console. High definition graphics don't matter to the majority of people who are currently using standard definition televisions. I don't think that demand for Zelda/Mario/Metroid is as high as the Nintendo faithful would have you believe, but the Wii will sell very well if its competitors prices are sky high.
Why doesn't Microsoft kick Sony while it's down? I don't believe that the Playstation brand name will guarantee Sony's victory, but it is a massive advantage. Microsoft needs to sell as many Xbox 360s as they can before Sony works out its production issues. The more consoles sold, the greater the number of games released for the console. No developer in their right mind wants to develop a game exclusively for the PS3 without a bundle of cash from Sony. But if Sony can cut their production costs and start to turn out a large number of PS3s, Microsoft will be in a terrible position. Microsoft shouldn't wait until this happens, they need to start screwing over Sony now.
In Canada it seems that the Xbox 360 is staying the same price, but games are being added. Recently I saw a bundle which included the Xbox 360 premium system, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, Ridge Racer 6 and Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged for $499.99 CAN. A direct link to the bundle didn't work, go to futureshop.ca and look at the Xbox 360 console bundles. $499.99 CAN is the standard price for the Xbox 360 premium console in Canada. When I look at the American Best Buy site, I don't see similar bundles being offered.
I'm not saying that Bully should be banned. But there should be full disclosure of homosexual content. This would allow gamers and parents buying games for their children to make a fully informed decision. Just as Gears of War should have a label stating "intense bloody violence" on it. I like games with brutal violence, but I understand that many people don't. If Mario suddenly ripped off Luigi's head and started raping the eye sockets, there are many people who would be unpleasantly surprised.
Homosexuals don't tend to be major characters in film and television. It's usually a gay guy who is the platonic friend of a heterosexual woman. I have heard that there are quite a number of gay independent films, but they are probably watched by a mostly gay audience. When is the last time you watched an action in which the hero and his boyfriend saved the day. Most people don't want to watch a movie in which a gay James Bond sleeps with a bunch of guys while preventing the Earth from imploding. Yet a heterosexual James Bond who sleeps with a bunch of women has resulted in 20+ movies over 50+ years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_bond/. One set of movies get made, the other doesn't see the light of day. The only popular depiction of gay sexuality is when two heterosexual women are paid money to have gay sex with each other, simulated or otherwise. And then quickly leave each other when there are men available.
Ironically enough, the Hot Coffee scandal is a completely different animal from the Bully scandal. The simulated sex games were never meant to be available to the public, while the Bully gay kissing doesn't require a mod to access. And Bully gets a Teen rating.
Very few people want homosexual content in their games. There will be quite a number of people who were going to buy Bully and now they won't. The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality. This isn't something that liberals want to hear, but it's true. This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want. The standard reaction of the consumer is not to buy it.
... it was an arc of urine coming out from beneath her dress.
I'll give a non-homosexual example of where my digust for something made me regret a purchase. I watch a lot of movies in the theater. The movie Beloved had come out and I decided to go see it. There was one scene I was repulsed by. Oprah Winfrey urinating. God, I hope that was faked. It wasn't her sitting down and doing her business
So I don't like watching homosexuals kiss or watching Oprah pee. If a media product comes out which includes either, I will not purchase it.
Your wife or girlfriend's body is not for sale. However there are some people who would pay money to sleep with her. Only losers use prostitutes, but it takes bigger losers to pay real money for online equipment and characters. The fact that you have no intention of paying for it doesn't matter. It only matters that somebody would.
Since the terrorists will be using encrypted messages or coded messages which don't appear to be anything special (you know those -1 Slashdot comments are for something), this will help retrace the terrorist's online activities after people have died in a terrorist attack. My guess: lots of porn and a few messages to E-mail accounts which no longer exist.
It's just that there are so many disposable E-mail accounts available and the easy access to Internet cafes. If someone is using a disposable E-mail account and an Internet terminal which is paid for in loose change (usually used in airports), how are you going to track that person down one month later? What if the terminal is outside the United States?
Not to mention free Linksys brand wireless Internet access which is available in most areas.
Any government fighting terrorists needs to setup its own terrorist propaganda websites which make use of Microsoft Internet Explorer's many vulnerabilities. Spyware for the spies. Microsoft's poor security practices not only hurt you, they also hurt the terrorists. Of course terrorists using Firefox screws us all.
I can't wait until this comes out!
There are two possibilities: North Korea is a pawn that China has lost control of or North Korea is doing exactly what China wants it to do. If China wants North Korea to be a nuclear state then everything is going to plan.
There are some reasons why a nuclear North Korea is very painful to China. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all have reasons to develop nuclear deterents of their own now. That's an unholy trinity to China. They all currently rely on the United States for their defence and a nuclear North Korea may cause the United States to back off a bit. If one or more of these nations develops nuclear weapons, it reduces China's military influence over the region. The chance of a nuclear war goes up dramatically because the distances are much shorter than those between the U.S. and Russia. In the Cold War, people had time to think. There are cargo ships everywhere, all capable of holding a nuclear weapon. And if you were beside an unstable nation which was selling nuclear weapons, wouldn't you worry?
China is in a much better position to invade North Korea than anyone else. The Chinese army is huge and they have an enormous supply of recruits if they need them. Most of the North Korean army is along the southern border of country constantly preparing to invade South Korea. Most of the nasty artillery is aimed at Seoul (sucks for the South Koreans, but it isn't China's problem). It is much easier to convince your population of a threat that is on your border, opposed to half a world away. North Korea's nuclear weapons are still in the testing stage and probably couldn't be used.
This allows China to install a more servile puppet government in North Korea. A government which will obey orders. China gets to glorify its military as protectors of the world and stir up nationalistic feelings at home. And which governments would actually critize them for doing this?
Atheist racially neutral economic egalitarians have killed tens of millions of people in the last hundred years. When someone suggests that the horrors of the world are due to racial strife, religion and economic inequality, it is important to keep that in mind. The Left's hands are just as bloody as the Right's. It just gets covered up by the liberal media and academia. A cover-up by omission.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/11/10/wbelg10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/11/1 0/ixportal.html/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Blok/
Take the example of Vlaams Blok. This was a political party which had nearly 12% of the Belgian vote and was banned because the high court of Belgium decided that their anti-immigration stance was unacceptable. One of the reasons they were banned was their opposition to female circumcision. Should anyone who proposes a border fence on the southern border of the United States be thrown in jail for several years? Hate speech laws are a license for a judge to directly impose their political will on the public.
This is not the equivalent where someone goes to jail for flag burning. This is the equivalent of where someone goes to jail for proposing flag burning should be legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act/
The Smith Act makes it illegal to conspire to overthrow the government of the United States. I admit that I don't know that much about it, but it appears that most of the convictions were thrown out in 1957. It is extensively documented that the Communist Party of the United States collaborated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so there are several issues beyond free speech involved.