First and foremost, Dreamcast is out NOW...psx2 dolphin and M$ platforms are all...whats that I read? fall/winter 2000? 10-12 months? So dreamcast has to compete against ps1 and n64 for the next year? boy do they have it tough. The advantage definitely lies in Sega's corner right now. If your a kid what are you gonna ask for for christmas? an i-o-u on psx2 or a dreamcast? The older audience may have more patience or even more $ in order to buy multiple consoles.
So when all these mighty new systems that can supposedly do anything in the world come out, sega has already had tons of market saturation and distrobution. These 3 other systems will have to compete to keep up in the market...or they will be seen as the next generation (above dreamcast) in which case sega could come out with ANOTHER system Q1 2001 and still capitalize on the market.
Second and more important, the rate of advancement in the fields of personal computer cpu's and graphics cards gives this "specialized gaming market" some intense competition. A year ago when i read about the TNT2 I was truly impressed. sadly enough, the GeForce256 doesnt impress me by such a margin as i see even better technology in the near future. Give that market 10-12 months? we may very well see the first native IA-64-intel coded games flying on fantastic 'fpu's`. Ok, so the $ is a giant issue there. Well think of it this way..if P3's and Athlon's go to 1+ Ghz at their current rate of clock speed growth (which they seem about to do) then whats to stop you from spending $500 to build a complete p3-600 system?
The market war here between these consoles seem interesting, but I see it as a last ditch effort for these companies to extend their lifetimes, while maybe allowing themselves a foothold into the PC gaming market....sure console games make more $ but unless something revolutionary happens, i dont see any real growth in that market.
I was under the impression that SST was disproved in 1997 and subsequently a new theory emerged which utilized trapezoids instead of strings, but whose properties were similar. I believe this resulted in new dimensional limit calculations, but I am really not aware of the differences in the theory, as I believe the theory is still forming, there are no books currently out about this, and I am not in a position to learn more otherwise...
When I was 14, I discovered a unique and overbearingly simple explanation for the entire nature of the Universe and all of its constituents, including us. It was magnificent; I thought I understood everything suddenly. Then someone (a smart Physics prof at a local highschool) actually took the time to listen to my theory, and didnt even laugh. He told me about 2 books that I should read, and so I picked them up. Both were of similar subject material that was more than 40 years old and both proved how these people's theories were wrong and why.
This was a History lesson for me, that not every `ingenious' new idea is a new idea, or even ingenious. I suggest to the writer of this article that he review scientific history and rethink his arguement. Not only is this `crackpot' theory old and beaten to death, but his arguement is flawed in that throughout all of his own examples of how time is all a circuit of `Platonia's Nows' he is unable to escape circuitous logic. He cannot even describe the universe or his probability mist without reverting to conceptions and interpretations of time which he has been struggling to refute. The fact that this article was posted so blazenly as a new scientific theory by newscientist.com hints at the fact that they aren't interested in real science, but rather an interpreted medium whereby they can attract readers with intruiging metaphysical theoretical babbel. Since I have never read any of their other articles, I must delay judgement on this.
I still like to come up with crackpot theories, but I give the suggestion of subjecting these theories to informed and knowledgable people before releasing them to the general public as real scientific theory.
Slashdot Mirror
So when all these mighty new systems that can supposedly do anything in the world come out, sega has already had tons of market saturation and distrobution. These 3 other systems will have to compete to keep up in the market...or they will be seen as the next generation (above dreamcast) in which case sega could come out with ANOTHER system Q1 2001 and still capitalize on the market.
Second and more important, the rate of advancement in the fields of personal computer cpu's and graphics cards gives this "specialized gaming market" some intense competition. A year ago when i read about the TNT2 I was truly impressed. sadly enough, the GeForce256 doesnt impress me by such a margin as i see even better technology in the near future. Give that market 10-12 months? we may very well see the first native IA-64-intel coded games flying on fantastic 'fpu's`. Ok, so the $ is a giant issue there. Well think of it this way..if P3's and Athlon's go to 1+ Ghz at their current rate of clock speed growth (which they seem about to do) then whats to stop you from spending $500 to build a complete p3-600 system?
The market war here between these consoles seem interesting, but I see it as a last ditch effort for these companies to extend their lifetimes, while maybe allowing themselves a foothold into the PC gaming market....sure console games make more $ but unless something revolutionary happens, i dont see any real growth in that market.
Daedalus III
Daedalus III
This was a History lesson for me, that not every `ingenious' new idea is a new idea, or even ingenious. I suggest to the writer of this article that he review scientific history and rethink his arguement. Not only is this `crackpot' theory old and beaten to death, but his arguement is flawed in that throughout all of his own examples of how time is all a circuit of `Platonia's Nows' he is unable to escape circuitous logic. He cannot even describe the universe or his probability mist without reverting to conceptions and interpretations of time which he has been struggling to refute. The fact that this article was posted so blazenly as a new scientific theory by newscientist.com hints at the fact that they aren't interested in real science, but rather an interpreted medium whereby they can attract readers with intruiging metaphysical theoretical babbel. Since I have never read any of their other articles, I must delay judgement on this.
I still like to come up with crackpot theories, but I give the suggestion of subjecting these theories to informed and knowledgable people before releasing them to the general public as real scientific theory.
Daedalus III