That said, I own the Definitive Collection on LaserDisc, and it's beautiful for a 1977 film on LD. It's not as insane as it sounds to transfer this to DVD, just hard to buy into the idea that it was the BEST choice.
"Insane"? Probably not. Definitely an asshole move, though. Virtually no widescreen movies are released in a non-anamorphic format, and virtually all the re-releases of "big" movies are remastered in HD (1080P) and then a DVD is created from that new master. A release of the LD versions on DVD might have been acceptable in 2000, but it's in no way acceptable today.
It's a damned shame that either a) Lucasfilm and Fox are going to make a ton of money on this new release or b) George Lucas will cite poor sales as an indicator that the Special Edition versions are what the fans want. Even if I knew that buying this set of movies would ensure an eventual remastering and re-re-release of the originals in a beautiful format, I still wouldn't give them the cash. At best, they're a cash grab and worst they're a big "F*** you!" from George Lucas to the fans who hated the changes (at least the changes that weren't pure effects updates) to the original movies.
All that said, my nephew (5 years old) has watched my SE DVDs many, many times and he loves them. I do wish that I could enjoy the movies again like he does...
I believe that even that would be a mistake (again, at least early on in the life of the HD-DVD addon). Unless that extra content consisted entirely of non-game material, like interviews with developers and such, it would end up being the same problem: Two versions of the same game that people who paid $300 and up for their console couldn't access without spending more money. I don't believe that the consolidation of the two versions into one disc would help at all in ameliorating the discontent of people who bought the "first-gen" Xbox 360.
How is that people could have been "burned" by a significant increase in visual quality (over NTSC) that is fully compatible with HD hardware? I could see where people without DVI/HDMI (w/HDCP) might feel burned at some point down the road, but having 720p/1080i versus 1080p isn't a huge disadvantage given that such displays are [currently] fully compatible with Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, Xbox 360, PS3, etc. It would be like saying someone was "burned" when they bought a 1280x1024 screen for their PC because 1600x1200 screens are available.
They can't let game developers use the HD-DVD features at all, at least not anytime soon. The prospect of gamer backlash is just too great. The only way it could possibly work is if a) the new version was, say, $100-150 more expensive than the DVD version (an addition of about 75% the price of the HD-DVD addon), b) the HD-DVD addon worked with any such HD-DVD games, AND c) they wait at least 2 years after HD-DVD addon release before turning game developers loose with HD-DVD versions of games. At that point, Microsoft might have the installed base of HD-DVD-enabled Xbox 360s to get away with it and not drive owners of the DVD versions completely bonkers.
You know, I was all ready to defend the headline since it was the same headline as the referenced article, but I couldn't come up with such a defense. The right headline would have been "Bethesda Debunks Oblivion Expansion Rumor" (or "Bethesda Denies Rumored Oblivion Expansion" - or anything similar) and the/. editor should have realized that immediately.
Ah, this from someone who used "M$" in the original post. Don't worry, I will indeed find someone else with whom to have a discussion. As with most cultists, you're convinced that you're right and there's nothing that could dissuade you...
And since I doubt that, this seems like just another knee-jerk reaction to step on fans.
Yeah, because Microsoft hates everyone who buys a Halo game. They also kill puppies and kittens in ritualistic sacrifices.
The bottom line is that you don't like Microsoft and you have what you consider a perfect excuse to take shots at them. If this situation were reversed and Microsoft was creating an FPS game based on some independent developer's original RTS to distribute freely via download from their website, which side you be on? Maybe Microsoft was just a big fan of the original game!
...as though a fictional character can belong to someone the way a pencil can. Please.
Yes, that's exactly what copyright laws are designed to make possible. If I go ahead and write a series of books about a kid named Harry Potter who goes to a magic school called Hogwart's and waves a magic wand, and then I distribute those books - free or not - then I'm violating copyright [and trademark] law. Now, whether the holder of said copyright/trademark decides to come after me for it is the decision of that person/entity, but they'd be within their rights to do so and I'd lose. The owner of the copyright doesn't have to prove damages - they only have to prove that their work is protected by copyright and that the alleged violation infringes and doesn't fit under one of the exceptions included in the law (parody, criticism, etc.).
The work being discussed here isn't an evolution of some nebulous idea like "marines in space wearing armor and fighting aliens." It's a derivative work based on another work (or series of works - games, novels, etc.) protected by copyright. Just as Paramount can't run out and make their own Terminator movie, Microsoft can't run out and make their own Starcraft FPS and Stephen King can't write his own Harry Potter book (without permission from the various copyright and trademark holders) - whether they decide to do it for profit or not.
And what if the game sucked beyond belief and turned people off to the idea of a Halo RTS, reducing the sales of Microsoft's hypothetical product?
Whatever one might think of copyright laws (I find the length of copyright terms ridiculous but am pretty sanguine about everything else), they exist and they do serve a purpose. Microsoft certainly wouldn't be in business without them. Of course, neither would the majority of software development houses, book publishers, television and movie studios, etc. The major benefit of copyright law is that people who create copyrightable works get to own them. If I write a novel, someone else doesn't get to come along, copy my words and profit from them without my consent (and, of course, without me getting my cut).
My point is simple: Microsoft is not a villain in this situation. They simply decided that they don't want someone else using their properties (copyrighted, trademarked, etc.) to create a videogame. That isn't an unreasonable position to take. There are lots of reasons to despise Microsoft, but this isn't one of them.
It's 400k at launch in the US and 400k at launch in Japan, with 800k in the US and 800k in Japan by the end of December. Add those numbers up and you get 2.4 million. It's just a matter of writers mixing and matching regional numbers and total numbers.
Wow. What a batch of utter nonsense, and modded up to boot. If this was a Disney-themed RTS featuring characters whose copyrights should have expired years ago, I might be able to agree with you (apart from your ridiculous anti-corporate comments). But Halo is IP from this millenium that has, so far, had only two games.
I suspect you'd hold a different opinion if Bungie was still an independent developer that just happens to make games for Microsoft consoles...
It may not "go anywhere," but that still doesn't make it any less "niche." Even Civilization 4 (since you mentioned it) virtually requires a graphics upgrade for someone 2-3 years behind to run, and it's a turn-based strategy game!
I don't think anyone with PC gaming experience could contend that PC gaming isn't fun, but compared to console gaming it's absolutely a niche market. It has fewer games with high production values, it requires more work and money to keep up with technology and PC games are harder to play.
That was indeed my point. There were 16MB and 32MB cards that could display (2D) at up to 2048x1536x32 at high refresh rates - of course, whether the consumer PC hardware of the time could render that 2D resolution with acceptable speed is another question (to which the answer is "no") entirely. All that should be required, as you say, is that the video card can take all that data from the CPU/main memory and push it out the VGA/DVI/HDMI connection at 60Hz or better.
No. NTSC is entirely interlaced. It's an analog video standard of [about] 60 interlaced fields per second with each frame (or two fields together) consisting of 484 scan lines (there are actually more lines transmitted, but the extras are used for things like sync, closed captioning, etc.). "480p," on the other hand, is a part of the ATSC digital standard and it is either [progressive] 640x480 in 4:3 or 704x480 in 16:9. Those resolutions can also be interlaced (hence, "480i") in the digital standard, but it's not a "standard" resolution being used by anyone.
To break it down real world style, it's like this: Let's say you're hooking up an Xbox with component cables. If you hook it up in this fashion to an analog NTSC television you'll be able to get the highest-quality analog, interlaced NTSC picture possible - it will not be either 480i or 480p. If you hook it up to a digital television (and make the appropriate selections in the Xbox's configuration menus), the Xbox can transmit a 480p (or 720p or 1080i, depending on the capabilities of the software and the TV) signal over the component cables. If you hook up via S-video or composite, you'll be entirely restricted to an analog signal no matter the TV (though most digital TVs upconvert NTSC signals to 480p for display).
On S-video versus composite: Yes, the separation of S-video provides an improved picture over composite, but it can also depend on the "comb filter" in the particular TV (more expensive analog TVs can make composite connections look better, sometimes as good as S-video). The main advantage of S-video is that there is less "color bleeding" which provides a sharper picture.
As to your comment about perhaps getting a TV with component inputs, you should really only upgrade if you're planning to go digital. Upgrading from S-video to component in analog is just not very cost effective for the [relatively] small improvement in picture quality.
I don't understand these recommendations at all. First off, as others have noted, HD playback is indeed possible with single-core CPUs. Second, the video card shouldn't have to have 256MB Of memory - video cards have supported resolutions higher than 1920x1080 ("1080p") for years, so video memory should be a minor concern. Finally, unless the HD-DVD and Blu-ray consortia are putting extra restrictions on PC playback (over and above those on current HD-DVD and Blu-ray players hooked up to TVs), HDCP won't be an issue until a content provider decides to enable the ICT flag - no current releases do, and supposedly the major studios have an agreement amongst themselves not to do so for at least a few years.
In short, I find all of this information suspect and most likely just a way to get people to buy more new hardware. Since Cyberlink makes most of their money from OEM deals, they have a large incentive to do so.
I hope you're right about the pricing because $60 is ridiculous (and, as noted above, I have to have my 480p if I can get it).
As for what we refer to as component connections (technically, S-video is classified as a "component" connector because it divides the analog video signal into two components), those debuted at the consumer level in the late 1990s (with DVD). My first DVD player in 1999 had the connectors and I bought my first TV with component inputs in 2000 (an NTSC widescreen Toshiba).
Well, S-video doesn't transmit 480p at all. It carries NTSC signals (sometimes, incorrectly, referred to as "480i"). It looks significantly better than most composite connections and marginally worse than an NTSC component connection. 480p via component trumps any NTSC signal, and then 480p via DVI/HDMI would usually be a bit better than that.
Anyway, $60 for a component connection is ridiculous ($30-40 has been bad enough). That's the sort of thing that could make me go from buying the Wii at launch (it would be my first time doing so) to waiting until the price comes down. I'm certainly not going to go back to NTSC if the console is capable of 480p. Fortunately for people without digital TVs (and Nintendo), it won't matter to them.
From what I've read - at least from UK Interweb posters - most new (particularly digital) TVs over there will support both NTSC and PAL. It's certainly not a concern for someone willing to pay a premium to import a game console.
The lower the shipping (and, hence, sales since most are assuming the thing will sell out) numbers, the less chance any given person will actually see a PS3 playing on someone's TV this year and well into the next.
The real question to me is why this kind of domain filtering happens at the ISP level. It's one thing to have good contextual filters but filtering domains, especially ones that are by in large legitimate, seems draconian. My ISP uses SpamAssassin to identify spam, tags e-mails as such, and sends a message through to me which tells me what has been filtered (and why), offering me a chance to view the message anyway if I so choose. It's not perfect, of course, but I don't think any spam filter can be perfect.
If a consumer (sysadmin or individual user) wants to apply domain filters to e-mail, that option is available in most e-mail programs and it's pretty easy to set up.
I might have to use Comcast when I move in about a month, and I dread that eventuality. I'd far and away prefer DSL+satellite to take care of my Internet and TV needs.
Yeah. I guess I consider that a pretty marginal advantage given the way people have been willing to put up with PS2 load times. Frankly, since modding my Xbox and playing my games from the HD I can't even tolerate Gamecube load times which are generally shorter than those in a stock Xbox (which, of course, is faster than those in a PS2).:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Insane"? Probably not. Definitely an asshole move, though. Virtually no widescreen movies are released in a non-anamorphic format, and virtually all the re-releases of "big" movies are remastered in HD (1080P) and then a DVD is created from that new master. A release of the LD versions on DVD might have been acceptable in 2000, but it's in no way acceptable today.
It's a damned shame that either a) Lucasfilm and Fox are going to make a ton of money on this new release or b) George Lucas will cite poor sales as an indicator that the Special Edition versions are what the fans want. Even if I knew that buying this set of movies would ensure an eventual remastering and re-re-release of the originals in a beautiful format, I still wouldn't give them the cash. At best, they're a cash grab and worst they're a big "F*** you!" from George Lucas to the fans who hated the changes (at least the changes that weren't pure effects updates) to the original movies.
All that said, my nephew (5 years old) has watched my SE DVDs many, many times and he loves them. I do wish that I could enjoy the movies again like he does...
I believe that even that would be a mistake (again, at least early on in the life of the HD-DVD addon). Unless that extra content consisted entirely of non-game material, like interviews with developers and such, it would end up being the same problem: Two versions of the same game that people who paid $300 and up for their console couldn't access without spending more money. I don't believe that the consolidation of the two versions into one disc would help at all in ameliorating the discontent of people who bought the "first-gen" Xbox 360.
Okay, those would be reasons to feel burned by HDTV in general, not reasons to feel burned for buying 720p/1080i versus buying 1080p.
How is that people could have been "burned" by a significant increase in visual quality (over NTSC) that is fully compatible with HD hardware? I could see where people without DVI/HDMI (w/HDCP) might feel burned at some point down the road, but having 720p/1080i versus 1080p isn't a huge disadvantage given that such displays are [currently] fully compatible with Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, Xbox 360, PS3, etc. It would be like saying someone was "burned" when they bought a 1280x1024 screen for their PC because 1600x1200 screens are available.
They can't let game developers use the HD-DVD features at all, at least not anytime soon. The prospect of gamer backlash is just too great. The only way it could possibly work is if a) the new version was, say, $100-150 more expensive than the DVD version (an addition of about 75% the price of the HD-DVD addon), b) the HD-DVD addon worked with any such HD-DVD games, AND c) they wait at least 2 years after HD-DVD addon release before turning game developers loose with HD-DVD versions of games. At that point, Microsoft might have the installed base of HD-DVD-enabled Xbox 360s to get away with it and not drive owners of the DVD versions completely bonkers.
Your last Apple was an Apple III? No wonder you have no interest in Apple products!
You know, I was all ready to defend the headline since it was the same headline as the referenced article, but I couldn't come up with such a defense. The right headline would have been "Bethesda Debunks Oblivion Expansion Rumor" (or "Bethesda Denies Rumored Oblivion Expansion" - or anything similar) and the /. editor should have realized that immediately.
Ah, this from someone who used "M$" in the original post. Don't worry, I will indeed find someone else with whom to have a discussion. As with most cultists, you're convinced that you're right and there's nothing that could dissuade you...
Yeah, because Microsoft hates everyone who buys a Halo game. They also kill puppies and kittens in ritualistic sacrifices.
The bottom line is that you don't like Microsoft and you have what you consider a perfect excuse to take shots at them. If this situation were reversed and Microsoft was creating an FPS game based on some independent developer's original RTS to distribute freely via download from their website, which side you be on? Maybe Microsoft was just a big fan of the original game!
Yes, that's exactly what copyright laws are designed to make possible. If I go ahead and write a series of books about a kid named Harry Potter who goes to a magic school called Hogwart's and waves a magic wand, and then I distribute those books - free or not - then I'm violating copyright [and trademark] law. Now, whether the holder of said copyright/trademark decides to come after me for it is the decision of that person/entity, but they'd be within their rights to do so and I'd lose. The owner of the copyright doesn't have to prove damages - they only have to prove that their work is protected by copyright and that the alleged violation infringes and doesn't fit under one of the exceptions included in the law (parody, criticism, etc.).
The work being discussed here isn't an evolution of some nebulous idea like "marines in space wearing armor and fighting aliens." It's a derivative work based on another work (or series of works - games, novels, etc.) protected by copyright. Just as Paramount can't run out and make their own Terminator movie, Microsoft can't run out and make their own Starcraft FPS and Stephen King can't write his own Harry Potter book (without permission from the various copyright and trademark holders) - whether they decide to do it for profit or not.
And what if the game sucked beyond belief and turned people off to the idea of a Halo RTS, reducing the sales of Microsoft's hypothetical product?
Whatever one might think of copyright laws (I find the length of copyright terms ridiculous but am pretty sanguine about everything else), they exist and they do serve a purpose. Microsoft certainly wouldn't be in business without them. Of course, neither would the majority of software development houses, book publishers, television and movie studios, etc. The major benefit of copyright law is that people who create copyrightable works get to own them. If I write a novel, someone else doesn't get to come along, copy my words and profit from them without my consent (and, of course, without me getting my cut).
My point is simple: Microsoft is not a villain in this situation. They simply decided that they don't want someone else using their properties (copyrighted, trademarked, etc.) to create a videogame. That isn't an unreasonable position to take. There are lots of reasons to despise Microsoft, but this isn't one of them.
Amen! "Bella and Mortimer's Excellent Adventure" was awesome!
It's 400k at launch in the US and 400k at launch in Japan, with 800k in the US and 800k in Japan by the end of December. Add those numbers up and you get 2.4 million. It's just a matter of writers mixing and matching regional numbers and total numbers.
Wow. What a batch of utter nonsense, and modded up to boot. If this was a Disney-themed RTS featuring characters whose copyrights should have expired years ago, I might be able to agree with you (apart from your ridiculous anti-corporate comments). But Halo is IP from this millenium that has, so far, had only two games.
I suspect you'd hold a different opinion if Bungie was still an independent developer that just happens to make games for Microsoft consoles...
It may not "go anywhere," but that still doesn't make it any less "niche." Even Civilization 4 (since you mentioned it) virtually requires a graphics upgrade for someone 2-3 years behind to run, and it's a turn-based strategy game!
I don't think anyone with PC gaming experience could contend that PC gaming isn't fun, but compared to console gaming it's absolutely a niche market. It has fewer games with high production values, it requires more work and money to keep up with technology and PC games are harder to play.
That was indeed my point. There were 16MB and 32MB cards that could display (2D) at up to 2048x1536x32 at high refresh rates - of course, whether the consumer PC hardware of the time could render that 2D resolution with acceptable speed is another question (to which the answer is "no") entirely. All that should be required, as you say, is that the video card can take all that data from the CPU/main memory and push it out the VGA/DVI/HDMI connection at 60Hz or better.
No. NTSC is entirely interlaced. It's an analog video standard of [about] 60 interlaced fields per second with each frame (or two fields together) consisting of 484 scan lines (there are actually more lines transmitted, but the extras are used for things like sync, closed captioning, etc.). "480p," on the other hand, is a part of the ATSC digital standard and it is either [progressive] 640x480 in 4:3 or 704x480 in 16:9. Those resolutions can also be interlaced (hence, "480i") in the digital standard, but it's not a "standard" resolution being used by anyone.
To break it down real world style, it's like this: Let's say you're hooking up an Xbox with component cables. If you hook it up in this fashion to an analog NTSC television you'll be able to get the highest-quality analog, interlaced NTSC picture possible - it will not be either 480i or 480p. If you hook it up to a digital television (and make the appropriate selections in the Xbox's configuration menus), the Xbox can transmit a 480p (or 720p or 1080i, depending on the capabilities of the software and the TV) signal over the component cables. If you hook up via S-video or composite, you'll be entirely restricted to an analog signal no matter the TV (though most digital TVs upconvert NTSC signals to 480p for display).
On S-video versus composite: Yes, the separation of S-video provides an improved picture over composite, but it can also depend on the "comb filter" in the particular TV (more expensive analog TVs can make composite connections look better, sometimes as good as S-video). The main advantage of S-video is that there is less "color bleeding" which provides a sharper picture.
As to your comment about perhaps getting a TV with component inputs, you should really only upgrade if you're planning to go digital. Upgrading from S-video to component in analog is just not very cost effective for the [relatively] small improvement in picture quality.
I don't understand these recommendations at all. First off, as others have noted, HD playback is indeed possible with single-core CPUs. Second, the video card shouldn't have to have 256MB Of memory - video cards have supported resolutions higher than 1920x1080 ("1080p") for years, so video memory should be a minor concern. Finally, unless the HD-DVD and Blu-ray consortia are putting extra restrictions on PC playback (over and above those on current HD-DVD and Blu-ray players hooked up to TVs), HDCP won't be an issue until a content provider decides to enable the ICT flag - no current releases do, and supposedly the major studios have an agreement amongst themselves not to do so for at least a few years.
In short, I find all of this information suspect and most likely just a way to get people to buy more new hardware. Since Cyberlink makes most of their money from OEM deals, they have a large incentive to do so.
I hope you're right about the pricing because $60 is ridiculous (and, as noted above, I have to have my 480p if I can get it).
As for what we refer to as component connections (technically, S-video is classified as a "component" connector because it divides the analog video signal into two components), those debuted at the consumer level in the late 1990s (with DVD). My first DVD player in 1999 had the connectors and I bought my first TV with component inputs in 2000 (an NTSC widescreen Toshiba).
Well, S-video doesn't transmit 480p at all. It carries NTSC signals (sometimes, incorrectly, referred to as "480i"). It looks significantly better than most composite connections and marginally worse than an NTSC component connection. 480p via component trumps any NTSC signal, and then 480p via DVI/HDMI would usually be a bit better than that.
Anyway, $60 for a component connection is ridiculous ($30-40 has been bad enough). That's the sort of thing that could make me go from buying the Wii at launch (it would be my first time doing so) to waiting until the price comes down. I'm certainly not going to go back to NTSC if the console is capable of 480p. Fortunately for people without digital TVs (and Nintendo), it won't matter to them.
Given the announced pricing for Windows Vista, I'll be severely pissed if they don't include a Zune with every purchase!
From what I've read - at least from UK Interweb posters - most new (particularly digital) TVs over there will support both NTSC and PAL. It's certainly not a concern for someone willing to pay a premium to import a game console.
The lower the shipping (and, hence, sales since most are assuming the thing will sell out) numbers, the less chance any given person will actually see a PS3 playing on someone's TV this year and well into the next.
The real question to me is why this kind of domain filtering happens at the ISP level. It's one thing to have good contextual filters but filtering domains, especially ones that are by in large legitimate, seems draconian. My ISP uses SpamAssassin to identify spam, tags e-mails as such, and sends a message through to me which tells me what has been filtered (and why), offering me a chance to view the message anyway if I so choose. It's not perfect, of course, but I don't think any spam filter can be perfect.
If a consumer (sysadmin or individual user) wants to apply domain filters to e-mail, that option is available in most e-mail programs and it's pretty easy to set up.
I might have to use Comcast when I move in about a month, and I dread that eventuality. I'd far and away prefer DSL+satellite to take care of my Internet and TV needs.
Yeah. I guess I consider that a pretty marginal advantage given the way people have been willing to put up with PS2 load times. Frankly, since modding my Xbox and playing my games from the HD I can't even tolerate Gamecube load times which are generally shorter than those in a stock Xbox (which, of course, is faster than those in a PS2). :)