Good points. Certainly, I myself prefer FPS games with mouse/keyboard over a console controller. I admit that I have a tendency to play devil's advocate on this issue precisely because Halo was quite playable with a console controller once you got used to it (the fact that Halo bored me is another issue entirely).
My immersion factor doesn't go up on the monitor because I sit about 2-1/2 feet from a 17" monitor. I also usually have lights on when I'm playing a PC game. The controls also tend to take me "out of the game" in that I use the mouse and keyboard constantly for my work and so using the same controls for games at times has that association with work. On the other hand, I usually play console games in the dark and the controller is organic to the gaming experience alone with no other associations.
It all comes down to preference. We've all got 'em and it's important that we acknowledge 'em.:)
With copyrights removed everyone will be able to write better software, you wouldnt have a "Microsoft" entity who can bully people. Every programmer would have increased freedom, wouldnt it feel nice to know that any peice of code you find or see can be used in your code without being sued? No more license fees, everything open source.
Not even close. In a world without copyrights, the best an individual programmer, or a small group of programmers, could hope for is to get piece work at the whim of the big companies. If they tried to develop something on their own and then distribute it on their own, they'd be shoved out of the market the second a big company got their hands on it and released their own version of it with ZERO proceeds going to the original programmer(s). Because they already have the funding, getting rid of copyright law would only cement the positions of large companies as the big bullies on the block.
I suck. I preview every other message I post, so why couldn't I preview this one? For those who don't want to copy/paste/type, here's the link. (Damn PHPBBs confuse me brackets.):)
That's something of a rhetorical question, whose answer can be found [a href="http://games.activision.com/games/rtcw_conso le/index.html"]here[/a]. There were a couple of outside development teams involved but my point here is that the game was released under the auspices of Id and Activision, and that any potential criticism should be directed their way as well. If there is some sort of skullduggery here, Id/Activision would clearly have been involved.
Of course, there should be no criticism at all until someone gets into the downloaded file and tells us what's in it, but that would be too sensible for many Xbox detractors.
When it comes down to it though, I don't see why anyone would *choose* to play a FPS on a console instead of on their PC, given the unnatural control mechanisms offered by console controllers.
The rest of your post makes sense, so why did you have to add this - forgive me - blindly stupid paragraph? The next time I aim a real weapon using a mouse and walk forward using the "W" key on my keyboard will be the first time. Whatever you may think of console controllers, they are no more "unnatural" than a mouse/keyboard configuration.
"Crippled" is obviously a subjective evaluation. I've seen people argue that playing any game at a resolution of less than 1024x768 means that it's crippled which to me is a load unless you're talking about a strategy game.
Believe me. I'm in no way asserting that the Xbox will be able to run Half-Life 2 at full speed, all "gussied up." I merely take issue with way people immediately dismiss it (and the other recent example, Doom 3) as impossible and essentially stating that any Xbox version will suck when, clearly, that kind of judgement should be left to the developers while consumers adopt a more pragmatic "wait-and-see" attitude.
As far as your third question about how I want to play my games? I want to play my games without spending $500 or more on upgrading my PC. You give the example of watching Lord of the Rings on a 19-inch TV. Well, if the choice is between the 19-inch TV and buying a new $500 TV just for that one movie then it's obvious that I'll settle for the 19-inch. Of course, if I'm interested in the material my first viewing would have been in a theater costing me no more than $10, further invalidating that particular analogy.
To me, it comes down to what Valve wants. If they feel like the Half-Life 2 experience will be compromised too much by releasing it on the Xbox, then they shouldn't do it. They should perhaps work on doing it for the Xbox 2 (or whatever it's going to be called) and probably release PS3 and GameSphere versions too. In the meantime, the only way I'll upgrade my PC is if there are at least five games which I'm reasonably sure will hold me rapt for hours upon hours AND those five games simply won't run on my PC. Until then, I'll play the few PC games I have and enjoy and stick mostly to playing games on my Xbox, GC and PS2.
However, if you just copy it and give it away, theres no stealing and theres no way you can convince any sane person that its morally wrong to share when it benefits society to share.
SHARE, but dont STEAL, if someone wants to pay for Eminems CD, Eminem made the music and should get to profit from his work, however if someone refuses to pay for it and just wants to hear it, why not let them?
Cool. Then if you spend a year writing a piece of software, Microsoft can have as many copies as they want without compensating you even if you're trying to negotiate with, say, IBM to purchase the software. That sounds brilliant.
While I may disagree with the length of copyrights in this country, it doesn't mean that copyright itself is wrong.
Good copyright law is a good thing. Allowing someone to protect the investment they've put into their intellectual property is perfectly reasonable. If I spend a year (or two or five or twenty) working on a book, a song, a computer program or anything else that's ephemeral/easily copied, I'm entitled to profit from that product if at all possible. It's not for someone with handy access to a Xerox machine or a PC to decide that they get to do whatever they want with it until I say they can (or the copyright expires - hopefully within a reasonable period of time).
You SAY that your concept is "share, but dont steal" but then you go on to advocate the idea that people should be able to have Eminem's music whether they pay for it or not, implying that it should be permissible to do so - once everyone does it, what does that do to Eminem's ability to "profit from his work"?
There seems to be a perception - especially prevalent in terms of music - that intellectual property is everybody's property. It's not...at least not until the copyright runs out. If I write a book, you have no inherent right to it, whether it's to read (unless I've offered it to the public, either free or for sale) or copy it and offer it to others. If we do it your way, the only way I profit from writing a book is in the warm feeling I get in my heart from doing so...and that isn't going to heat my cardboard box in the winter.
Actually, all connections MUST be made through Microsoft's servers. The actual serving of the games is handled by one of the Xboxen actually involved in playing the game or on someone's dedicated server Xbox. The only game that doesn't follow this pattern so far is, of course, Phantasy Star Online.
Unless a company is looking to charge their own fee for matchmaking, it's just plain dumb to stay off Xbox Live. Why? Because Microsoft is providing the framework with their time and money, saving the developers from having to do it (providing matchmaking servers, keeping track of accounts, creating voice capability, etc.) themselves.
I haven't even read FAINT complaining about Xbox Live coming out of development circles (except for EA which has made no secret of the fact that they want to charge people money to play online and so have a fundamental problem with Xbox Live in that they would have to justify a second fee for their games when you can play MS and Sega games online for one) - in fact, every developer comment I've read about Xbox Live has been nothing but positive.
[sarcasm]I must apologize. I didn't realize that you had worked on the AI, physics and environments for Half-Life 2.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, though, my main problem with your kind of speculation is, well, that it's speculation. You're looking at trailers/demos for an unfinished videogame and making assumptions about the code driving it. Not only that, but you're doing so in a way that demonstrates a clear bias against the Xbox.
I'm well aware that there a lot of people out there (and perhaps especially here on the/.) that don't like the Xbox - usually because of a hatred of Microsoft. That's fine and dandy with me. The problem is that too many of those people (including you) decide to argue against the console on the basis of speculation instead of facts. At the very least, you could wait until Valve tells us what the minimum PC system specs (on the box, as opposed to speculation on unfinished code) for Half-Life 2 will be. Your invective might then carry some weight.
Why would shareholders be upset? They're up almost $3 at $23.68 a share since their past-year low of $20.70 last July. Their overall profits still exceeded forecasts in the last quarter, beating analyst forecasts by a penny per share (that's a lot of pennies). All this despite being in the middle of a big, toothy bear market.
Don't miss the forest while staring so intently at this one Microsoft tree.
Re:Half-Life is a 3D Video Game SDK - and a game t
on
Half-Life 2 Not On Xbox?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's not why it sold well initially. The reason it was immediately successful (and it was) was that it was an excellent single-player game. Over time it has had longevity beyond that of most single-player first-person shooters because of modifications, but it would have been successful even if there had never been a single mod.
Yes, and if graphics were the only concern then your snide, dismissive attitude would be understandable. But the first Half-Life's graphics weren't that groundbreaking even at the time it was released. What set it apart from other FPSs at the same time is that it belonged to that select group (System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief) that placed a premium on good single-player gameplay. Since most of us expect Half-Life 2 to follow in that mold, whether or not the game matches texture for texture, effect for effect, the PC version is quite beside the point.
I would further note that Doom 3's demoed graphics look even better than those of Half-Life 2 and yet Carmack is planning for what he believes will be a very good Xbox version.
If Microsoft ever had an advantage over Sony due to the built-in hard drive, that advantage may soon disappear.
The writer then goes on to describe the PSX, making that seem like it's going to contend directly with the Xbox because of it's built-in hard drive. Admittedly, he does mention that not every PS2 gamer will upgrade to the PSX but he doesn't make clear why it can never happen: Price. There's NO WAY Sony will release the PSX anywhere near the $200 and under price point of current consoles. The only people who are going to buy a PSX are those who a) want a TiVo-like device and/or b) don't already have a PS2. Even the hard drive add-on for the PS2 is never going to approach the 100% hard drive implementation of the Xbox because the majority of games aren't going to take real advantage of it before the PS2 fades in favor of the PS3.
He then hits us with this:
The old version of Xbox Live only allowed gamers to talk to one another in a central online portal area, but the new version enables them to communicate while actually playing games.
He's getting this backwards. The new functionality to be added to Xbox Live is apparently going to include the ability to chat via voice OUTSIDE of games. The voice communication capability within games has been present in Xbox Live from day one.
Finally, I would note that in regards to Half-Life 2, the author is quoting "a product manager in Microsoft's Xbox group," David Hufford. I don't know what Mr. Hufford's responsibilities are but if there was any firm announcement on there being no HL2 for the Xbox it seems logical that we would hear that either directly from Valve or from one of the "real" Xbox honchos like Jay Allard. Until we do, I wouldn't be surprised if the waffling is a result of financial wrangling between Valve and Microsoft - i.e., they may be looking for "Rockstar money" to get HL2 as an Xbox console exclusive.
In short, I think the author is stringing a lot of disparate facts (and nonfacts) together in order to bolster the hypothesis that Xbox is failing (the Xbox wasn't supposed to make money on its and MS has made this clear over and over again), and I'll wait for official word from Valve, Microsoft or both before worrying about whether or not HL2 hits the Xbox.
Indeed, indeed. That $150 number that they list as being "thought" to be accurate is the number from launch. It seems to stretch credibility that the number hasn't gone down since that time.
Of course, I don't see the reason for the story in the first place, except as an excuse to point out once again that Microsoft is losing money on Xbox consoles (something that was part of the MS plan from the beginning). Any hardware manufacturer is going to look for ways to cut production costs - those who don't are beyond stupid.
Even more amusing about that quote is the idea that the law "[protects] the safety of law enforcement officers..." I haven't seen studies showing that people who kill police officers in video games are more likely to waste a real police officer. While it is indeed a "compelling state interest" to protect public servants engaged in dangerous jobs, shouldn't laws designed to serve that interest be based in reality?
1) Mainstream retailers in Europe aren't going to do a lot of importing because it would damage the deals they get from Nintendo and others when buying high volumes of their games. Therefore, anyone who DOES sell import versions is damaging the market for the mainstream retailers because that means a lot of their customers will have no interest in the game when it's finally officially released.
2) Because Europe is still the "third string" when it comes to video game distribution, some third-party game publishers don't distribute their own games in Europe and let Nintendo or other big companies do it for them. That means that if Nintendo is publishing a game in Europe that, say, Koei published in Japan and NA, Nintendo gets a better profit margin with both the standard royalty and consideration for doing the publishing. If, however, someone imports the Koei NA version (to continue using that example - I don't know how Koei handles their European distribution) it cuts into the eventual profits of the publishing company when it's officially released.
3) Marketing. Interest in new releases is diluted by the fact that people have already played the imports. This is a particular problem in Europe sine more Europeans speak/read English than, for example, than Americans speak/read Japanese. This dilution of interest means that marketing dollars aren't going to help out a game that might not be that good because the word of mouth has already been spread by importers. Note that this reason is the primary factor in DVD region coding because most movies are stagger-released around the world to allow for regionalized marketing, and in extreme cases a movie could be in its first month of theatrical release in India while the DVD has been out for two weeks in the US.
All that being said, I think Nintendo is making a big mistake here. While I understand the goal of making their retailers happy (probably the main reason for the crackdown), they're running the risk of alienating more customers than they already have. Nintendo would do well to work harder on getting their big releases out in both NA and Europe at the same time. After all, nothing they do is going to make the grey market disappear. They'll just force the most visible importers to work more quietly or quit while others come in and take their place.
The interview reveals that the SP started official development three months after they were done designing the GBA. However, he only mentioned that they were looking at doing a smaller GBA with the folding case. It seems that the light wasn't originally a part of the SP project but became so once Triton (a tiny company by any estimate) made it clear that people wanted it badly.
I do that sometimes. I think it comes from being a marginally literate fanboy (my fanboyism pretty much covers all video gaming instead of one particular console).:)
Thanks for making that clear enough that even a non-network person can understand. I knew that the linked articles were over-simplifying but they did so in a way that, as you pointed out, could lead to more confusion on the part of people who know diddly squat about TCP/IP. This is an example of where Slashdot pays off for the non-techies.:)
A question from a dolt to someone who seems to know about TCP:
Instead of enhancing streaming video (which is interesting but could still end up slowing down depending on server loads), wouldn't this iteration of TCP be even more useful for enhancing international links? The way I understand what they (and you) are saying, it seems that the problem they're trying to address is the potentially slow turnaround time of the ACK packet. The problem would be magnified when downloading data on a US computer from, say, a Russian site (especially since one of the two computers would always be operating in "primetime"), and this protocol change would seem to address that.
You're making it sound like people have to buy the new Sony and Microsoft boxes to play the newest games (as you had to do with Sega when they released the SegaCD and 32X). The truth is that whatever upgrades end up being present in the new PS2 and Xbox models will be so small that present owners won't be missing much if they don't buy the new consoles.
Heck, the Atari 2600 went through NUMEROUS hardware revisions throughout its life (revisions that didn't impact gameplay/compatibility) and managed to sell just fine until the NES finally killed it. Even the NES and SNES had hardware revisions to make them more "sleek," just as the Xbox is getting.
Actually, Sony isn't really releasing a playstation 2.5, they're releasing a PVR-DVD combo with PS2 compatibility.
You get partial credit for describing the recently announced "PSX" but you lose points for not knowing that there is indeed a Playstation "2.5" coming out (it's just being called Playstation 2) that is going to replace the old model. Most notably, the new Playstation 2 will have the capability of reading burned discs (CD-R, DVD-R, etc.), it comes with the network adaptor, and it will have the capability to output DVD movies in progressive scan (480p). It will retail at the pre-E3 price of $199.99.
Look for this new PS2 to start hitting North American shores in the next month or two as the old ones sell out at their "closeout" price of $179.99.
...it is also misleading for the Japanese consumer who may be lead to believe that this is a technically better version of the original Xbox.
Depending on what they redesign inside the box to make it smaller, it could indeed be a "technically better version" with a better, more streamlined motherboard/chipset, different hard drive, etc. Thus, 1.5 wouldn't be an unreasonable moniker - it would be lame and clumsy, but that's another issue entirely.:)
Slashdot Mirror
My immersion factor doesn't go up on the monitor because I sit about 2-1/2 feet from a 17" monitor. I also usually have lights on when I'm playing a PC game. The controls also tend to take me "out of the game" in that I use the mouse and keyboard constantly for my work and so using the same controls for games at times has that association with work. On the other hand, I usually play console games in the dark and the controller is organic to the gaming experience alone with no other associations.
It all comes down to preference. We've all got 'em and it's important that we acknowledge 'em. :)
Not even close. In a world without copyrights, the best an individual programmer, or a small group of programmers, could hope for is to get piece work at the whim of the big companies. If they tried to develop something on their own and then distribute it on their own, they'd be shoved out of the market the second a big company got their hands on it and released their own version of it with ZERO proceeds going to the original programmer(s). Because they already have the funding, getting rid of copyright law would only cement the positions of large companies as the big bullies on the block.
I suck. I preview every other message I post, so why couldn't I preview this one? For those who don't want to copy/paste/type, here's the link. (Damn PHPBBs confuse me brackets.) :)
Of course, there should be no criticism at all until someone gets into the downloaded file and tells us what's in it, but that would be too sensible for many Xbox detractors.
The rest of your post makes sense, so why did you have to add this - forgive me - blindly stupid paragraph? The next time I aim a real weapon using a mouse and walk forward using the "W" key on my keyboard will be the first time. Whatever you may think of console controllers, they are no more "unnatural" than a mouse/keyboard configuration.
Believe me. I'm in no way asserting that the Xbox will be able to run Half-Life 2 at full speed, all "gussied up." I merely take issue with way people immediately dismiss it (and the other recent example, Doom 3) as impossible and essentially stating that any Xbox version will suck when, clearly, that kind of judgement should be left to the developers while consumers adopt a more pragmatic "wait-and-see" attitude.
As far as your third question about how I want to play my games? I want to play my games without spending $500 or more on upgrading my PC. You give the example of watching Lord of the Rings on a 19-inch TV. Well, if the choice is between the 19-inch TV and buying a new $500 TV just for that one movie then it's obvious that I'll settle for the 19-inch. Of course, if I'm interested in the material my first viewing would have been in a theater costing me no more than $10, further invalidating that particular analogy.
To me, it comes down to what Valve wants. If they feel like the Half-Life 2 experience will be compromised too much by releasing it on the Xbox, then they shouldn't do it. They should perhaps work on doing it for the Xbox 2 (or whatever it's going to be called) and probably release PS3 and GameSphere versions too. In the meantime, the only way I'll upgrade my PC is if there are at least five games which I'm reasonably sure will hold me rapt for hours upon hours AND those five games simply won't run on my PC. Until then, I'll play the few PC games I have and enjoy and stick mostly to playing games on my Xbox, GC and PS2.
Cool. Then if you spend a year writing a piece of software, Microsoft can have as many copies as they want without compensating you even if you're trying to negotiate with, say, IBM to purchase the software. That sounds brilliant.
While I may disagree with the length of copyrights in this country, it doesn't mean that copyright itself is wrong.
Good copyright law is a good thing. Allowing someone to protect the investment they've put into their intellectual property is perfectly reasonable. If I spend a year (or two or five or twenty) working on a book, a song, a computer program or anything else that's ephemeral/easily copied, I'm entitled to profit from that product if at all possible. It's not for someone with handy access to a Xerox machine or a PC to decide that they get to do whatever they want with it until I say they can (or the copyright expires - hopefully within a reasonable period of time).
You SAY that your concept is "share, but dont steal" but then you go on to advocate the idea that people should be able to have Eminem's music whether they pay for it or not, implying that it should be permissible to do so - once everyone does it, what does that do to Eminem's ability to "profit from his work"?
There seems to be a perception - especially prevalent in terms of music - that intellectual property is everybody's property. It's not...at least not until the copyright runs out. If I write a book, you have no inherent right to it, whether it's to read (unless I've offered it to the public, either free or for sale) or copy it and offer it to others. If we do it your way, the only way I profit from writing a book is in the warm feeling I get in my heart from doing so...and that isn't going to heat my cardboard box in the winter.
Unless a company is looking to charge their own fee for matchmaking, it's just plain dumb to stay off Xbox Live. Why? Because Microsoft is providing the framework with their time and money, saving the developers from having to do it (providing matchmaking servers, keeping track of accounts, creating voice capability, etc.) themselves.
I haven't even read FAINT complaining about Xbox Live coming out of development circles (except for EA which has made no secret of the fact that they want to charge people money to play online and so have a fundamental problem with Xbox Live in that they would have to justify a second fee for their games when you can play MS and Sega games online for one) - in fact, every developer comment I've read about Xbox Live has been nothing but positive.
Seriously, though, my main problem with your kind of speculation is, well, that it's speculation. You're looking at trailers/demos for an unfinished videogame and making assumptions about the code driving it. Not only that, but you're doing so in a way that demonstrates a clear bias against the Xbox.
I'm well aware that there a lot of people out there (and perhaps especially here on the /.) that don't like the Xbox - usually because of a hatred of Microsoft. That's fine and dandy with me. The problem is that too many of those people (including you) decide to argue against the console on the basis of speculation instead of facts. At the very least, you could wait until Valve tells us what the minimum PC system specs (on the box, as opposed to speculation on unfinished code) for Half-Life 2 will be. Your invective might then carry some weight.
Don't miss the forest while staring so intently at this one Microsoft tree.
That's not why it sold well initially. The reason it was immediately successful (and it was) was that it was an excellent single-player game. Over time it has had longevity beyond that of most single-player first-person shooters because of modifications, but it would have been successful even if there had never been a single mod.
I would further note that Doom 3's demoed graphics look even better than those of Half-Life 2 and yet Carmack is planning for what he believes will be a very good Xbox version.
If Microsoft ever had an advantage over Sony due to the built-in hard drive, that advantage may soon disappear.
The writer then goes on to describe the PSX, making that seem like it's going to contend directly with the Xbox because of it's built-in hard drive. Admittedly, he does mention that not every PS2 gamer will upgrade to the PSX but he doesn't make clear why it can never happen: Price. There's NO WAY Sony will release the PSX anywhere near the $200 and under price point of current consoles. The only people who are going to buy a PSX are those who a) want a TiVo-like device and/or b) don't already have a PS2. Even the hard drive add-on for the PS2 is never going to approach the 100% hard drive implementation of the Xbox because the majority of games aren't going to take real advantage of it before the PS2 fades in favor of the PS3.
He then hits us with this:
The old version of Xbox Live only allowed gamers to talk to one another in a central online portal area, but the new version enables them to communicate while actually playing games.
He's getting this backwards. The new functionality to be added to Xbox Live is apparently going to include the ability to chat via voice OUTSIDE of games. The voice communication capability within games has been present in Xbox Live from day one.
Finally, I would note that in regards to Half-Life 2, the author is quoting "a product manager in Microsoft's Xbox group," David Hufford. I don't know what Mr. Hufford's responsibilities are but if there was any firm announcement on there being no HL2 for the Xbox it seems logical that we would hear that either directly from Valve or from one of the "real" Xbox honchos like Jay Allard. Until we do, I wouldn't be surprised if the waffling is a result of financial wrangling between Valve and Microsoft - i.e., they may be looking for "Rockstar money" to get HL2 as an Xbox console exclusive.
In short, I think the author is stringing a lot of disparate facts (and nonfacts) together in order to bolster the hypothesis that Xbox is failing (the Xbox wasn't supposed to make money on its and MS has made this clear over and over again), and I'll wait for official word from Valve, Microsoft or both before worrying about whether or not HL2 hits the Xbox.
Of course, I don't see the reason for the story in the first place, except as an excuse to point out once again that Microsoft is losing money on Xbox consoles (something that was part of the MS plan from the beginning). Any hardware manufacturer is going to look for ways to cut production costs - those who don't are beyond stupid.
Even more amusing about that quote is the idea that the law "[protects] the safety of law enforcement officers..." I haven't seen studies showing that people who kill police officers in video games are more likely to waste a real police officer. While it is indeed a "compelling state interest" to protect public servants engaged in dangerous jobs, shouldn't laws designed to serve that interest be based in reality?
The Last Starfighter is what it's all about.
1) Mainstream retailers in Europe aren't going to do a lot of importing because it would damage the deals they get from Nintendo and others when buying high volumes of their games. Therefore, anyone who DOES sell import versions is damaging the market for the mainstream retailers because that means a lot of their customers will have no interest in the game when it's finally officially released.
2) Because Europe is still the "third string" when it comes to video game distribution, some third-party game publishers don't distribute their own games in Europe and let Nintendo or other big companies do it for them. That means that if Nintendo is publishing a game in Europe that, say, Koei published in Japan and NA, Nintendo gets a better profit margin with both the standard royalty and consideration for doing the publishing. If, however, someone imports the Koei NA version (to continue using that example - I don't know how Koei handles their European distribution) it cuts into the eventual profits of the publishing company when it's officially released.
3) Marketing. Interest in new releases is diluted by the fact that people have already played the imports. This is a particular problem in Europe sine more Europeans speak/read English than, for example, than Americans speak/read Japanese. This dilution of interest means that marketing dollars aren't going to help out a game that might not be that good because the word of mouth has already been spread by importers. Note that this reason is the primary factor in DVD region coding because most movies are stagger-released around the world to allow for regionalized marketing, and in extreme cases a movie could be in its first month of theatrical release in India while the DVD has been out for two weeks in the US.
All that being said, I think Nintendo is making a big mistake here. While I understand the goal of making their retailers happy (probably the main reason for the crackdown), they're running the risk of alienating more customers than they already have. Nintendo would do well to work harder on getting their big releases out in both NA and Europe at the same time. After all, nothing they do is going to make the grey market disappear. They'll just force the most visible importers to work more quietly or quit while others come in and take their place.
The interview reveals that the SP started official development three months after they were done designing the GBA. However, he only mentioned that they were looking at doing a smaller GBA with the folding case. It seems that the light wasn't originally a part of the SP project but became so once Triton (a tiny company by any estimate) made it clear that people wanted it badly.
I do that sometimes. I think it comes from being a marginally literate fanboy (my fanboyism pretty much covers all video gaming instead of one particular console). :)
Thanks for making that clear enough that even a non-network person can understand. I knew that the linked articles were over-simplifying but they did so in a way that, as you pointed out, could lead to more confusion on the part of people who know diddly squat about TCP/IP. This is an example of where Slashdot pays off for the non-techies. :)
Instead of enhancing streaming video (which is interesting but could still end up slowing down depending on server loads), wouldn't this iteration of TCP be even more useful for enhancing international links? The way I understand what they (and you) are saying, it seems that the problem they're trying to address is the potentially slow turnaround time of the ACK packet. The problem would be magnified when downloading data on a US computer from, say, a Russian site (especially since one of the two computers would always be operating in "primetime"), and this protocol change would seem to address that.
Heck, the Atari 2600 went through NUMEROUS hardware revisions throughout its life (revisions that didn't impact gameplay/compatibility) and managed to sell just fine until the NES finally killed it. Even the NES and SNES had hardware revisions to make them more "sleek," just as the Xbox is getting.
You get partial credit for describing the recently announced "PSX" but you lose points for not knowing that there is indeed a Playstation "2.5" coming out (it's just being called Playstation 2) that is going to replace the old model. Most notably, the new Playstation 2 will have the capability of reading burned discs (CD-R, DVD-R, etc.), it comes with the network adaptor, and it will have the capability to output DVD movies in progressive scan (480p). It will retail at the pre-E3 price of $199.99.
Look for this new PS2 to start hitting North American shores in the next month or two as the old ones sell out at their "closeout" price of $179.99.
Depending on what they redesign inside the box to make it smaller, it could indeed be a "technically better version" with a better, more streamlined motherboard/chipset, different hard drive, etc. Thus, 1.5 wouldn't be an unreasonable moniker - it would be lame and clumsy, but that's another issue entirely. :)
Indeed! Sunday nights are filled to overflowing with gaming and other news while here we are wasting our time like this. Tsk tsk!