Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
Actually, you missed the funniest part of what you quoted. He calls the fellow stupid and then proceeds to vindicate the questions with the phrase "You just need enough power to be able to get the functionality you desire."
He probably felt that everyone shopping at CompUSA was stupid, either because they could get things cheaper online or he just plain hated his job.:)
It's not so much a "free ride" as long as Sega continues releasing their ESPN sports titles which are just about universally acknowledged (apart from the "fanboy" types) as being in a dead heat with the EA games in terms of quality.
Probably because they're afraid the Canadian government will require Tivo's auto-recording to always grab a specific percentage of programming that's made-in-Canada.
This collection really "does it for me." Not only are there some games here that I loved in the arcade, but some can still chug in MAME today (S.T.U.N. Runner, for example). I'll be particularly interested to see what kind of control scheme they've designed for Steel Talons, given that the arcade version had fancy helicopter controls.
Of course, what would be super-cool would be if games like Steel Talon and Cyberball 2072 supported either Internet or [Xbox] System Link play. It's obviously not going to happen. It's amazing enough that they're going to be doing high scores on Xbox Live. Adding in actual Internet play would be too costly for games that aren't going to have the huge audience that a fancy newer game would.
Short version: I'm salivating for these Atari...uhhhhh...Midway classics.:D
I'm not a fan of joint stereo myself. When I first started ripping CDs, that was really the only big quality issue I noticed (even on cheap computer speakers and headphones). I tried several CDs and always found the songs ripped in true stereo to sound much better. Of course, obviously, everyone's mileage varies.:)
You were modded funny, but it's absolutely true. That headline makes no sense at all. Here's a properly written version:
"SNK Announces Forthcoming PS2 and Xbox Ports"
It's not necessary to [attempt to] summarize the entire post in the headline - that's the kind of thing that editing should fix.
On-topic, I'll be looking forward to finally playing Metal Slug. Having been away from arcades for many, many years I just haven't gotten around to playing any of the versions, despite having heard that it's an excellent shmup series.
Yeah, but maybe Greedo was going to lead Han out of the cantina, giving Chewbacca a chance to "subdue him," blah, blah, blah. The simple fact is that it makes Han Solo's character more interesting (especially in terms of the way he changes through the three movies) if he does the preemptive strike rather than waiting for Greedo to miss from TWO GODDAMN FEET.
That's obviously the worst part of SE (with the stupid addition of the Jabba scene in the hangar coming in second IMO). That being said, I'll still buy the damned set, if only to get the 5.1 experience (and secondarily the video quality bump). I'll just close my eyes and chant during the worst of the SE "bonus" material.
So, should EA then not develop expansions for their games? People don't HAVE to buy them, you know. As has already been stated, this is freedom of choice in action. If more people are playing the company-created mods/expansions than are playing the user-created mods, then it's probably because they prefer the former. It's not like EA was necessarily stealing from the user-mod community. They would have had expansions and sequels in some stage of development for BF42 before the thing went gold.
Then again, this is the kind of mentality that's out there in many areas of the computer world. If it's put out by a company for profit then it's somehow evil - unless, of course, it's the company for which one is working.
Those are some lazy students. You've got to listen to as many radio stations, and watch as many TV stations, as possible on a potential snow day - even if the school is actually open, someone might have incorrect info and give a perfectly good excuse not to attend.
The radio station I typically listen to (a pretty good talk station in my estimation) is an Entercom-owned station and they've been playing the anti-satellite commercials, mostly in the later morning (during a local show that garners less ad revenues than the national shows). What amuses me is that in the afternoon I then proceed to hear many commercials FOR XM Satellite Radio.
For me, the anti-satellite commercials are having the opposite of the intended effect. Since I'm a fairly intelligent person, I know that the commercials are being put up by broadcast radio folks who want to stifle competition. Knowing this, all those commercials accomplish is to remind me that satellite radio exists and that I listen to enough radio to make it a worthwhile investment. Entercom will have noone to blame but themselves when I finally subscribe to Sirius and possibly stop listening to their station entirely.
I see people are accusing Steve and Apple of being arrogant in turning down a partnership with Real. I'd say it's just a wise move. Virtually all of Apple's press in terms of iPod and iTunes has been good (apart from a few technical glitches that haven't slowed down sales at all). Real, on the other hand, is perceived by most users to be a lousy program from lousy people who love nothing better than to hammer folks' desktops with garbage. The only reason anyone installs Real is because some sites insist on using their proprietary streaming system (in my case, it's for Phil Hendrie's site), and never because they have a desire to use Real's software for anything else like MP3s, MPGs, etc. Add into that the fact that Real brings nothing to the table that Apple doesn't already have, and there's no reason for Steve and company to get in bed with them.
In short, teaming up with Real can only hurt Apple, or at least the perception of Apple.
And you still fail to address the fact that cable companies are NOT likely to charge less money just because they've cut costs. Digital cable service is RIDICULOUSLY expensive compared to similar channel packages from the satellite providers (especially Dish Network), yet the majority still shell out and pay the cable tax instead of moving to the better value. Given that lack of consumer knowledge, why would cable companies cut prices at all? They know that people are willing to pay the prices they are right now. If cutting analog made them money, and they did it, they would pass that money UP the chain to executives and/or shareholders, NOT down the chain to customers.
In other words, Mr. Pompous, I read your posts and simply disagree with your conclusion.
Welcome to elitism. So people should spend money on what YOU think they should. A computer should not be a prerequisite for cable service, any more than it should be required to pay electric or gas bills. There are people who consider home computers a waste of time and/or money, and I'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument to the contrary if they don't have an interest in playing computer games or browsing the Internet.
As for your argument that analog cable should be left completely behind, I think once again you're voicing the view of someone who can, and is willing to, pay for the extra service. It's naive in the extreme to think that cable companies are going to drop their digital prices because they're saving money by not providing analog service. There are people who live right in the middle of their city who can't get television reception without cable due to environmental factors. Should they just be written off or forced to buy/rent special equipment to watch broadcast television that the guy in the penthouse CAN have for free (but doesn't since he can afford digital cable or satellite)?
Analog cable provides affordable television reception (particularly of the broadcast networks) to people who may not be able to afford even one extra cable channel. They shouldn't have to sit in the dark listening to a transistor radio when a big event is happening just because they can't afford digital cable, they're not allowed to put up an external antenna and rabbit ears don't work in their house.
The kind of tier change you're talking about is not usually a decision made by the cable/satellite provider. It's typically dictated in their contract with the content provider. This was exactly the issue that had Dish Network and Viacom locking horns recently, in that Viacom was demanding that NickToons be put in a particular lower-priced Dish package (with a concomitent price bump being paid by Dish - the more viewers who have a channel, the more Viacom charges the provider for that channel) and Dish felt it belonged on a higher-priced tier (with, obviously, fewer subscribers).
Now, I don't know what region you're in, but I know that around here (Portland, Oregon) a racing channel wouldn't be hugely popular, while in Indiana it could be the biggest thing since sliced bread. Ergo, it probably belongs in different pricing tiers based on locale - ignoring a la carte pricing, of course.
"Elements" is indeed a traditional military term used correctly in that sentence. Usually, it denotes somewhat larger numbers of troops as in "Elements of the 3rd Armored Division landed on Sicily today." It can, however, be used to describe individuals as "elements" of a squad, as in this case.
1. Look here.
2. NO big radio corporation fights the FCC on its content restrictions (even if they probably should since there's obviously a case on 1st amendment grounds) - Clear Channel isn't alone in that area. Because of that, the "offer they can't refuse" which the FCC is offering is to levy monstrous, excessive fines on them, and if they don't pay up and take corrective action then broadcast licenses can be pulled.
3. Keep your keyboard quiet if you don't know what you're talking about.
Clear Channel, like any other huge media company, doesn't have a "true" political leaning. Their only concern is making money. If conservative talk show hosts make them money, they put them on the air. If an ultra-liberal was going to make them money (before the JJ flap, they WERE carrying Howard Stern on several stations - hardly a good "Christian" program), they'd put that person on the air.
To use Rush Limbaugh as an example, he would have been just as big had he been a militant liberal for the simple fact that he and his show were entertaining. During his peak period, I listened every morning...not because I agreed with all (any?) of his opinions, but because it was good listening. These days, when I get up early enough, I listen to Don Imus [in the Morning] and disagree with at least half of his rants (many of them leftist - he's on the Kerry bandwagon at the moment). But it's a good show, so I enjoy it.
It's not always (almost never?) content that makes people listen to radio shows. It's how the show is put together and the quality of the host(s). These media companies know that better than anybody.
I haven't played the game, but the bug point seems to be key to the "op-ed" piece linked to in this story, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the D&D system and it somehow "failing" computer RPGs.
Just because someone does a shitty game based on D&D doesn't make it a failure of D&D. It's a failure of the developer. D&D rules have served quite well in many computer RPGs over the years (my first true D&D CRPG was "Eye of the Beholder," which was a blast).
Of course, this is a failure of videogame reviews in general. If a game element is poorly implemented, that means to some reviewers that the game element itself is flawed as opposed to the way it was integrated into the game.
The biggest benefit I see is that people could start running (and liking?) Linux applications without having to make "the big switch." Once they realize that they like Linux better and [hopefully] can do everything they need to under Linux, then the next computer they buy may run Linux alone. It's certainly more elegant and appealing to current Windows users than just telling them they're unsophisticated dolts for not using Linux.
It's not like people can just throw up a server and provide on-line pay for free like you can with PC games.
Why not? People have been doing it from the beginning with games on the Xbox. All the games are hosted on the boxes of individuals with Xbox Live providing the service for matchmaking (and, obviously, the consistent development framework). This is true for virtually all Xbox Live games. Xbox Live is, essentially, a service like WON/Steam for Half-Life where one logs on to search out an appropriate game and then connects to said game apart from the service itself.
Oh, and people are INDEED willing to pay for Xbox Live for the continuity of experience over all their online games. I expect Nintendo could expect equivalent, or even better (especially in Japan), numbers with a similar service and a nice selection of games. The fact that they haven't tried so far is an indicator of either stupidity (I don't think so) or a desire to really stick it to consumers and get ridiculous profits (like they do when they release two almost identical Pokemon games at the same time).
EXACTLY! This is why we also shouldn't attempt to cure human ailments by cutting people open. Every last one of them would die from some kind of infection.
Sterilization isn't as difficult as you seem to think, especially when said "dirty infectious human[s]" would be encased in tough spacesuits which would be easy to sterilize chemically.
But you're talking about common sense versus commerce. Retailers don't really WANT to display M-rated games separately from the rest of their selection because the displays are intended to sell product to anyone willing to put up the cash. While some retailers are starting to do sales restrictions on M-rated material (requiring ID before selling to the young), none would have a problem selling an M-rated game to a mother or father giving in to the begging of their child who just saw the game in the display case. If the same game was inaccessible to those youthful eyes, they might not make that sale.
Short version: Of course they need a law because no retailer is going to voluntarily reduce their sales potential.
If you can't tell the difference between an original "6GB DVD" picture and the "700MB Divx" rip obtained from it, then you're obviously not going to care. I can tell the difference easily.
As for moving to different codecs, that's fine and dandy in the computer world where the interested person can simply install a little piece of software and be ready to go. Commercial DVDs, however, are for the mass market and most of those consumers aren't sitting and watching them on a computer.
Negatory. You're thinking of dual-layer (single-layer is 4.7GB and dual-layer is 9.4GB). Double-sided absolutely requires a flip, just like an LP or a laser disc.
There are [rare] DVD players (specifically, large-capacity changers) that do the flip automatically, but double-sided "flipper" DVDs (where a movie continues from one side to the other) are so rare nowadays that it's a non-issue.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably felt that everyone shopping at CompUSA was stupid, either because they could get things cheaper online or he just plain hated his job. :)
It's not so much a "free ride" as long as Sega continues releasing their ESPN sports titles which are just about universally acknowledged (apart from the "fanboy" types) as being in a dead heat with the EA games in terms of quality.
Probably because they're afraid the Canadian government will require Tivo's auto-recording to always grab a specific percentage of programming that's made-in-Canada.
Of course, what would be super-cool would be if games like Steel Talon and Cyberball 2072 supported either Internet or [Xbox] System Link play. It's obviously not going to happen. It's amazing enough that they're going to be doing high scores on Xbox Live. Adding in actual Internet play would be too costly for games that aren't going to have the huge audience that a fancy newer game would.
Short version: I'm salivating for these Atari...uhhhhh...Midway classics. :D
I'm not a fan of joint stereo myself. When I first started ripping CDs, that was really the only big quality issue I noticed (even on cheap computer speakers and headphones). I tried several CDs and always found the songs ripped in true stereo to sound much better. Of course, obviously, everyone's mileage varies. :)
Those same people also likely do not have a handy weekly chart detailing which clothes to wear every day. Wastrels, I tell you, wastrels!
"SNK Announces Forthcoming PS2 and Xbox Ports"
It's not necessary to [attempt to] summarize the entire post in the headline - that's the kind of thing that editing should fix.
On-topic, I'll be looking forward to finally playing Metal Slug. Having been away from arcades for many, many years I just haven't gotten around to playing any of the versions, despite having heard that it's an excellent shmup series.
That's obviously the worst part of SE (with the stupid addition of the Jabba scene in the hangar coming in second IMO). That being said, I'll still buy the damned set, if only to get the 5.1 experience (and secondarily the video quality bump). I'll just close my eyes and chant during the worst of the SE "bonus" material.
Then again, this is the kind of mentality that's out there in many areas of the computer world. If it's put out by a company for profit then it's somehow evil - unless, of course, it's the company for which one is working.
Those are some lazy students. You've got to listen to as many radio stations, and watch as many TV stations, as possible on a potential snow day - even if the school is actually open, someone might have incorrect info and give a perfectly good excuse not to attend.
For me, the anti-satellite commercials are having the opposite of the intended effect. Since I'm a fairly intelligent person, I know that the commercials are being put up by broadcast radio folks who want to stifle competition. Knowing this, all those commercials accomplish is to remind me that satellite radio exists and that I listen to enough radio to make it a worthwhile investment. Entercom will have noone to blame but themselves when I finally subscribe to Sirius and possibly stop listening to their station entirely.
In short, teaming up with Real can only hurt Apple, or at least the perception of Apple.
In other words, Mr. Pompous, I read your posts and simply disagree with your conclusion.
As for your argument that analog cable should be left completely behind, I think once again you're voicing the view of someone who can, and is willing to, pay for the extra service. It's naive in the extreme to think that cable companies are going to drop their digital prices because they're saving money by not providing analog service. There are people who live right in the middle of their city who can't get television reception without cable due to environmental factors. Should they just be written off or forced to buy/rent special equipment to watch broadcast television that the guy in the penthouse CAN have for free (but doesn't since he can afford digital cable or satellite)?
Analog cable provides affordable television reception (particularly of the broadcast networks) to people who may not be able to afford even one extra cable channel. They shouldn't have to sit in the dark listening to a transistor radio when a big event is happening just because they can't afford digital cable, they're not allowed to put up an external antenna and rabbit ears don't work in their house.
Now, I don't know what region you're in, but I know that around here (Portland, Oregon) a racing channel wouldn't be hugely popular, while in Indiana it could be the biggest thing since sliced bread. Ergo, it probably belongs in different pricing tiers based on locale - ignoring a la carte pricing, of course.
"Elements" is indeed a traditional military term used correctly in that sentence. Usually, it denotes somewhat larger numbers of troops as in "Elements of the 3rd Armored Division landed on Sicily today." It can, however, be used to describe individuals as "elements" of a squad, as in this case.
1. Look here.
2. NO big radio corporation fights the FCC on its content restrictions (even if they probably should since there's obviously a case on 1st amendment grounds) - Clear Channel isn't alone in that area. Because of that, the "offer they can't refuse" which the FCC is offering is to levy monstrous, excessive fines on them, and if they don't pay up and take corrective action then broadcast licenses can be pulled.
3. Keep your keyboard quiet if you don't know what you're talking about.
To use Rush Limbaugh as an example, he would have been just as big had he been a militant liberal for the simple fact that he and his show were entertaining. During his peak period, I listened every morning...not because I agreed with all (any?) of his opinions, but because it was good listening. These days, when I get up early enough, I listen to Don Imus [in the Morning] and disagree with at least half of his rants (many of them leftist - he's on the Kerry bandwagon at the moment). But it's a good show, so I enjoy it.
It's not always (almost never?) content that makes people listen to radio shows. It's how the show is put together and the quality of the host(s). These media companies know that better than anybody.
Just because someone does a shitty game based on D&D doesn't make it a failure of D&D. It's a failure of the developer. D&D rules have served quite well in many computer RPGs over the years (my first true D&D CRPG was "Eye of the Beholder," which was a blast).
Of course, this is a failure of videogame reviews in general. If a game element is poorly implemented, that means to some reviewers that the game element itself is flawed as opposed to the way it was integrated into the game.
The biggest benefit I see is that people could start running (and liking?) Linux applications without having to make "the big switch." Once they realize that they like Linux better and [hopefully] can do everything they need to under Linux, then the next computer they buy may run Linux alone. It's certainly more elegant and appealing to current Windows users than just telling them they're unsophisticated dolts for not using Linux.
Why not? People have been doing it from the beginning with games on the Xbox. All the games are hosted on the boxes of individuals with Xbox Live providing the service for matchmaking (and, obviously, the consistent development framework). This is true for virtually all Xbox Live games. Xbox Live is, essentially, a service like WON/Steam for Half-Life where one logs on to search out an appropriate game and then connects to said game apart from the service itself.
Oh, and people are INDEED willing to pay for Xbox Live for the continuity of experience over all their online games. I expect Nintendo could expect equivalent, or even better (especially in Japan), numbers with a similar service and a nice selection of games. The fact that they haven't tried so far is an indicator of either stupidity (I don't think so) or a desire to really stick it to consumers and get ridiculous profits (like they do when they release two almost identical Pokemon games at the same time).
Sterilization isn't as difficult as you seem to think, especially when said "dirty infectious human[s]" would be encased in tough spacesuits which would be easy to sterilize chemically.
Short version: Of course they need a law because no retailer is going to voluntarily reduce their sales potential.
As for moving to different codecs, that's fine and dandy in the computer world where the interested person can simply install a little piece of software and be ready to go. Commercial DVDs, however, are for the mass market and most of those consumers aren't sitting and watching them on a computer.
There are [rare] DVD players (specifically, large-capacity changers) that do the flip automatically, but double-sided "flipper" DVDs (where a movie continues from one side to the other) are so rare nowadays that it's a non-issue.