Re:The Toshiba Box: RD-X2
on
TiVo Basic
·
· Score: 4, Informative
While revisions to that unit might indeed have the Tivo Basic functionality (according to your own link, it's not in the current list of features), it is NOT the device referenced in the press release or CNet article.
The model number of the device in the story's links is the SD-H400 which is a DVD player (not a recorder) combined with the 80GB hard drive and Tivo service (basic included, upgrade to full Tivo possible via extra money). This device is not currently listed in the Toshiba lineup (possibly because it hasn't been released yet?)
Personally, I consider $748 (the suggested price of the Toshiba device plus $299 for service upgrade) WAY too much money to spend on a progressive scan DVD player and a Tivo, one box or not.
Fortunately, it seems like the Gamespy people might have actually ASKED that very important question:
With all of these considerable graphical upgrades, we were pleased to hear that the minimum system specs are currently targeted at a 700 MHz PC with 128 MB RAM and a DX6-level video card, meaning you won't need a NASA supercomputer to run Half-Life 2.
Obviously, that will probably be running the game at its minimum detail but the success of Half-Life was never about the tech specs - it was about the fact that it's one of the best single-player FPS experiences released and the fact that modders loved it.
You're joking, right? The fact that the Dreamcast could "boot regular CD media without any mods" is one of the things that killed the system. People would buy the system and then simply download the games and/or copy games from friends.
Actually, the problem is that people wouldn't even buy five games for their Dreamcast. It pretty quickly became even easier to pirate games for the Dreamcast than the Playstation (due primarily to the fact that you had to put a mod chip in the latter but not in the former) and to add insult to injury Playstation was already ahead of any other console in nearly 10 years and the PS2 was announced with specs that made the Dreamcast look like garbage (mostly the DVD compatibility).
Had even half of the people who bought Playstations bought a Dreamcast and four [new] games, Sega would probably be announcing their intention to release a new home console next year in an effort to get a PS2-like lead. They'd be looking around at companies to invest in, rather than looking for mergers.
You said it. They'd need AT LEAST 20 more iterations to be like Capcom. It's also worth noting that several of Capcom's iterations have had such small variations as the addition/removal of just one or two characters. In this particular case, Tecmo is releasing two games that are not available at all on the console (and they are both indeed different from DOA3, particularly the first) with functionality that Xbox DOA fans will probably really enjoy. If they were simply re-releasing DOA1&2 with one additional character for the Xbox (and charging more than $30), then I might agree.
If you want to pile onto a company that's releasing multiple games in a series that are only very slightly different from each other, you should look at Nintendo. For example, their practice of releasing two Pokemon games at a time (the differences between Ruby and Sapphire could easily have fit on one cartridge) might be one of the sleaziest ways to get parents to spend money on their kids this side of "super absorbant" diapers.
I'm not a big fan of this particular move by Tecmo but they haven't sunk to Capcom depths yet. If they had, we would be playing - or ignoring - the fourth next-gen Ninja Gaiden (Now with 10% more ninjas!).
First of all, if Sega were under EA, there's every possibility that everyone in the Sega Sports division would be let go. Why? Because EA doesn't need them. The EA Sports line already eats Sega for lunch in that market and they have no fiscal reason to change that by messing a lot with their staff (note that I consider Sega's sports offerings superior but the market buys Madden and the rest based on both the EA name and the fact that Sega Sports was on Dreamcast which got crunched by PSX and PS2).
The same would be likely to happen to all of Sega's software units to one degree or another. It's relatively rare when EA takes a chance on something without a big-time brand behind it (see The Sims and Ultima Online) and, unfortunately, Sega just doesn't seem to get that brand recognition anymore. While some of us might say "Yay! Shenmue!" or "Cool! Panzer Dragoon!" the majority of EA's market would shrug and keep looking for the latest Medal of Honor game.
Except for annexing existing and potential competition in the form of Sega, EA would end up with very little by scooping up Sega. It would probably end up as a plus in the profit column just by disbanding the majority of the development units and selling the arcade unit separately - along with a few of the brands like Virtua Cop - to another company (like Namco, Konami or even Sammy).
As for Microsoft, they too would probably prefer to sell off the arcade unit, but there the Sega software development teams would be far more likely to remain intact (at least based on history). It would give Microsoft an exclusive big-name fighter brand (Virtua), a mascot to call their own (Sonic), a solid Japanese-style RPG brand (Phantasy Star) and a sports game division that could really take off (Microsoft's own sports games aren't bad, especially for being so new; and combining those efforts could end up being brilliant). In the sports area, I could see Microsoft going multiplatform if only to make EA sweat some 44-caliber bullets.
I guess my second-favorite choice for a merger would be Namco, but that's entirely sentimental. Both companies have problems and I'd be less concerned about an arcade monopoly (even with DDR, the arcade scene in the US is abyssmal so I consider that a Japanese problem) than I would be about two troubled companies merging into one bigger troubled company. Don't get me wrong. I would be as happy as anyone to see "Soulcalibur vs. Virtua Fighter" (once - I'm looking at you, Capcom) but I really have to wonder about the advantages, at least in console terms, that particular megacompany would gain from such a merger.
Then again, I'm no business expert. I'm just a guy who plays video games and likes to think that he's smart. Kinda like Ryo Hazuki, but without the butt-kicking.
I've really got to question Tecmo's wisdom in choosing DOA1 and DOA2 to receive the Xbox Live treatment. On the one hand, I really enjoyed DOA2 (missed the first one) and this could provide some limited enjoyment with the enhanced graphics, but on the other hand if I'm already a bit sick of even DOA3 why would I play the previous version, even online?
It's even more odd that Tecmo would go in this direction considering the fact that Itagaki's (Team Ninja's head honcho) preference for the Xbox is based on the technical superiority of that system over the PS2 and Gamecube, which superiority they've used to great effect with Dead or Alive 3 and Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball (whatever you think of the latter as a game, in graphical terms it's friggin' beautiful). Going backwards and trying to get extra life out of old games/engines seems like the last thing someone so concerned about system specs would want to do.
I have no doubt that these two games will be as good as the games were originally, and maybe even better graphically. And, yes, the online component is interesting and could attract people who haven't played the games before. But the positives of online play seem to me outweighed (especially in terms of the wider market, as opposed to DOA fans) by the fact that DOA and DOA2 are now, by video game standards, ancient.
Speaking as an owner of an Xbox, DOA3 and DOA:XBV - and someone who enjoys all three - there's no way I'll buy this package unless they've improved the DOA2 engine to such a degree that it matches up with DOA3 (and if they had, wouldn't they just make it DOA3 online?). Even then, and even with online play, it'll still have a hard time getting more than 25 of my gaming dollars when Soulcalibur 2 - a game whose import version has already met with critical and gamer acclaim - is right around the corner.
Civilization woud easily make my personal top 5 games (counting it's "primary sequels" 2 and 3).
I have to say, though, that any top 100 games list that includes all platforms is ill conceived from the start. After all, I know many people who never played games on the Commodore 64 or Amiga (both of which had some great games) just as I was never into the Atari personal computer (400, 800, 1600XL, ST, etc.). Balance of Power, for example, was a great game but if you didn't play games on an old Mac or Atari ST, you'd never know it.
I liked GTA3 and GTA: Vice City quite a lot, but how do either of those games make the list of the top five games of all time? They're great games and could be in my top 10 for the past five years but they'd probably miss my top TWENTY for all time.
Unfortunately, when these lists are created, it's done by people who a) want to make a list that appeals to important marketing demographics NOW and b) have probably only played games that make the video game equivalent of the best-seller list.
At least I don't have G4 so that I won't be annoyed by the list in its entirety. After all, Ball Blazer and Pitfall! probably won't make the list and that might cause me violent thoughts.:)
Modern computer games that depict war can in fact do so much better than movies (in a sense) because YOU die.
The problem with this theory is that computer games have ALWAYS had situations where you (the player's avatar) "die." I like Donkey Kong but I don't consider it particularly "immersive" even though I, as Mario, can be killed by a barrel. Pac-Man is cool but I don't feel emotionally invested in his character because the ghosts can get me.
Player/avatar death has become even more meaningless since the advent of unlimited continues (or game saves) - it's something that sets a game like Steel Battalion (crazy controller+game from Capcom for Xbox) apart since if you die, you lose that pilot's save, whether you're one or twenty missions along in the game.
The point I was making was that, in order to get across the horror of war, the player needs to care about the deaths of OTHER characters in the game.
Yeah, hi. Quitting while losing is JUST as common in PC online as it is on the console. You likely just don't notice because you're not playing games where it would be that noticeable and/or frustrating.
Specifically, people quitting Warcraft and Starcraft games is just as common as any such problem on the console, and the same goes for virtually any two-player game.
As for your "quality of gamer" comment, that's just flamebait/trolling/etc. I quit playing FPS games online a long time ago because I was tired of the constant barrage of profanity and "leetspeak" and because I also wasn't interested in playing with the same people every time (by isolating on a few "good" servers). You have but to go to Blizzard.net and chat for five minutes to see the "quality" of gamer available on the PC.
Some people I know only play with people they know and so avoid all the jerks, but the exact same thing can be done on Xbox Live (arguably even easier with cross-game buddy lists).
Note that I'm not saying the quality is any better on the console, but it can hardly be worse. If you prefer PC gaming, more power to you, but saying that there is a higher quality of gamers playing PC online games is just a crock.
I think that given the capacity for realism in terms of graphics and sound in today's games, they shouldn't handle war games delicately at all. I think it sends the wrong message when you tone down violence and bloodshed in a purportedly realistic game. Much like movies such as Saving Private Ryan can bring home the brutality of war, games can potentially do the same given the chance.
What would be wrong, for example, with a game wherein you're part of an infantry regiment/division in Takrit and your goal is to take the city with as few civilian casualties as possible? You could be penalized for causing civilian death and even end the game court-martialed because you didn't exercise good judgement in a firefight. Such a game would include all the carnage of a real war and, handled properly, encourage the player to think about the lives lost in the process of winning or losing the game. No doubt it would be rated "M" for Mature but it might be a game that actually deserves the rating for good reasons as opposed to bad.
We all know that war games (strategic, tactical, FPS, etc.) will be made. It would be good to see a high-profile war game, though, that tried to really address the negative side of war instead of simply glorifying violence and conquest without consequences.
The fact that they've announced a new Xbox Live subscription kit (with one year, Tetris and new demos) pretty much guarantees that the yearly price will be $50 or less, probably at LEAST until December, 2004 (when the first original subscribers have their second expiration). Doing it any other way would simply increase by 50% or more the number of "unique" users on their service (when people run out and buy new Live kits with the "free" year for $50).
The problem with the tie-in number, at least as applies to Gamecube, is that it includes the games given away with their systems. Removing those games would give them a number more comparable to the Xbox. Of course, the fact that you can get another game with a GC for the same price as an Xbox doesn't hurt either.:)
I know this is what you meant, but just to clarify, Xbox doesn't have progressive DVD playback. Progressive scan works quite nicely on my HDTV in games.:)
I'm enjoying almost everything about MP so far (just got it a couple days ago) but I think there's a big problem with the game - the controls. With games like Halo (and most console FPS games since), you get to adjust your movement with the left stick and view with the right. I'm so used to it that the Metroid Prime method feels extraordinarily clumsy. This is especially odd since Samus' gun should be very easy to aim and fire with it being an extension of the arm of her suit and all.
I hope that Nintendo gets off the proverbial "stick" and provides us with a good controller for their next console - at least part of the reason I never gave the N64 a fair try was because the controller was a bit of a mess (admittedly, the fact that the games cost $60-70 a piece might have been the clincher). There's a reason that the feel and function of Microsoft's Controller "S" resemble that of the DualShock...it works really well.
Good FPS games allow you to select whether you want to hold your virtual gun right- or left-handed. The person playing the game and mining the screenshots was probably left-handed and made that selection.
That may be the "official" excuse but I think the real reason was to cover the fact that they were using the exact same engine, heavy aliasing and all, and can't compete directly in terms of graphics with GC and Xbox games. If you turn off the blurring, you can see the big difference that hardware anti-aliasing would make in the game.
Me, I just want a good game. Some people, however, are real snobs in the graphics area - see anyone who buys a high-end graphics card on the first day it's available.
Mod parent up. Nintendo is actually just releasing the US version of the eReader in Japan - one of the few times that we got an improved version of a Japanese product over what the Japanese themselves got. In other words, if you want an eReader and live outside of Japan, go ahead and get one since the updated version offers nothing we don't already have.
The problem with DVD-Rs is that they're write-once/read-many where hard drives are [obviously] write-many/read-many. DVD-Rs are relatively inexpensive but DVD-RW discs are still a bit expensive, especially compared to what they will eventually replace in VHS tapes. Once DVD-RW discs are down to $3 or less a piece and DVD recorders are $300 and under, you'll see a lot more purchases. It's getting closer and closer with Panasonic now selling their DVD-R/RW recorder for $500 around here.
I have to admit, though, the tech geek in me is more interested in this fancy little unit from Toshiba. The only thing stopping me from not eating for a few months and buying one is the fact that it lacks a Tivo/Replay type of guide service (it uses the now-tacky VCR+ from Gemstar). I've been using my ReplayTV for years now and I don't know if I can go backwards in that area.
That's pricey as heck. I wouldnt mind seeing a simple add-on that let users dump shows to VCDs. Most DVD players can play VCDs, the quality is good enough for TV, and can be burned onto cheap-o CDRs.
Pricey so far but I just saw an ad in the Best Buy circular for the Panasonic DVD recorder costing $500. That's a far cry from the last time I paid attention when it was $1,000 (and a pretty good deal for people like me with HDTVs but no progressive DVD player yet). It's only a matter of time before DVD-R goes commodity - like VHS tapes but even cheaper. I expect that by this time next year, there'll be DVD recorders on the market for $300 and DVD-RW discs at $3 (or less) a piece, which would be very good compared to the price/space/quality equation of VHS tapes.
Besides, who would use a user-created Internet mod instead of a ground-up Internet-capable GTA sold by Rockstar? I'm sure that Rockstar is developing something along these lines because it's money in the bank if they release it, and no after-market user mods are going to significantly impact sales of such a product - I'd buy the real thing and so would everyone I know.
It's also possible, given that GTA3 and Vice City originated on a console, that they're more concerned with capturing the PS2 online market. That's an obvious potential cash cow given the relative scarcity of PS2 online games...
"Something original"? Let's say, for example, that I think designating a particular patch of forest for logging is a mistake because it includes the habitat of a rare animal species. Now, if a hundred (a thousand, a million, whatever) people feel the same way that I do, what "original" thing are they going to offer in their letters? Different sentence and paragraph construction? I don't think the point is that they should have to read each and every form letter and respond to each individually, or even enter each and every identical letter into a public record or database. The point is that they shouldn't toss the letters just because they says exactly the same thing. How about keeping track of how many different names appeared on the letters? How about using any of the options I described above in an earlier post?
As to your point about the main page, I must confess that I didn't realize that. I have everything but the most esoteric, technical types of stories appearing on my main page (I haven't played with those settings in over a year) and didn't even think about the fact that others may have set this type of story to be ignored. I suppose I should just be glad that I took off the bonus and left it at 1 so that the post doesn't call any more attention to my ignorance of the system.:)
I'm willing to take a drubbing to say something I consider important.
It's sad that at the time I'm writing this, there are a total of 21 comments about a REAL issue that could significantly impact the political influence of every Internet user on important governmental issues, while there are 702 comments split between two topics concerned about a convicted felon's ability to get a job (Kevin Mitnick and other data criminals). I consider it to be indicative of a sad state of affairs in the world o'the Slashdot.
I'm by no means an environmental extremist and could not even be called an environmentalist. I just think it's a damn shame that people here can't seem to tell the difference between something that could be important to anyone who cares about the way our government works and something that's at best important only to people convicted of crimes.
This soapbox isn't going to hold up under my weight any longer, so I'll step down.
I can understand the desire to simply ignore thousands of comments from one source (i.e. a single public-action website). After all, such a mass could easily be flooding by one group. Considering the number of automated spam messages I can get from one source in one day (and of course ignore), I understand it that much more.
However, the fact is that these people shouldn't be entrusted with the power to simply block opinions that they've heard before. The most relevant passage to me was the following:
"A bunch of e-mails that say the same thing with no specific comments don't tell us anything," Walsh says. "We'll take e-mails by the millions" if the correspondence becomes more specific, he adds.
"If you're going to take the time to respond and you care, then put some effort into it," Walsh advises correspondents.
Why should an individual have to formulate their own personal argument when their position is clearly stated in a form letter? Are we all supposed to quit our jobs and become full-time environmental researchers and activists? It seems to me that this would lock out petitions as well - after all, the petition is going to have one statement but will be signed as being the position of many people. Should each of those people have ignored the petition and instead written an individual letter?
The best course, in my opinion, is for the USDA to require a verified (automatically verified via a "go to this page" e-mail as message boards do) e-mail address on each web-based form letter they receive. This would allow them to weed out e-mail flooding by groups that are pretending to have thousands of people involved where it might in fact be just their staff filling in forms.
Alternatively, they could provide polls on their own website (provided to environmental action groups for linking) asking for opinions on each policy decision requiring public comments. Again, they could have an e-mail verification sent out that would have to be received and read (with a click verification) in an attempt to ensure that each vote is from a specific person.
Even simpler would be a "you've already given your vote/opinion" cookie, though this would be even easier to get around than a click-verify e-mail.
All of these would take a bit more work and there are still possibilities for abuse, but the solution they're proposing seems to be the most lazy and intellectually dishonest way possible - something too many bureaucrats love.
Slashdot Mirror
The model number of the device in the story's links is the SD-H400 which is a DVD player (not a recorder) combined with the 80GB hard drive and Tivo service (basic included, upgrade to full Tivo possible via extra money). This device is not currently listed in the Toshiba lineup (possibly because it hasn't been released yet?)
Personally, I consider $748 (the suggested price of the Toshiba device plus $299 for service upgrade) WAY too much money to spend on a progressive scan DVD player and a Tivo, one box or not.
With all of these considerable graphical upgrades, we were pleased to hear that the minimum system specs are currently targeted at a 700 MHz PC with 128 MB RAM and a DX6-level video card, meaning you won't need a NASA supercomputer to run Half-Life 2.
Obviously, that will probably be running the game at its minimum detail but the success of Half-Life was never about the tech specs - it was about the fact that it's one of the best single-player FPS experiences released and the fact that modders loved it.
You're joking, right? The fact that the Dreamcast could "boot regular CD media without any mods" is one of the things that killed the system. People would buy the system and then simply download the games and/or copy games from friends.
2) If the Sega name really sold that well, they wouldn't be in these straits.
Had even half of the people who bought Playstations bought a Dreamcast and four [new] games, Sega would probably be announcing their intention to release a new home console next year in an effort to get a PS2-like lead. They'd be looking around at companies to invest in, rather than looking for mergers.
If you want to pile onto a company that's releasing multiple games in a series that are only very slightly different from each other, you should look at Nintendo. For example, their practice of releasing two Pokemon games at a time (the differences between Ruby and Sapphire could easily have fit on one cartridge) might be one of the sleaziest ways to get parents to spend money on their kids this side of "super absorbant" diapers.
I'm not a big fan of this particular move by Tecmo but they haven't sunk to Capcom depths yet. If they had, we would be playing - or ignoring - the fourth next-gen Ninja Gaiden (Now with 10% more ninjas!).
The same would be likely to happen to all of Sega's software units to one degree or another. It's relatively rare when EA takes a chance on something without a big-time brand behind it (see The Sims and Ultima Online) and, unfortunately, Sega just doesn't seem to get that brand recognition anymore. While some of us might say "Yay! Shenmue!" or "Cool! Panzer Dragoon!" the majority of EA's market would shrug and keep looking for the latest Medal of Honor game.
Except for annexing existing and potential competition in the form of Sega, EA would end up with very little by scooping up Sega. It would probably end up as a plus in the profit column just by disbanding the majority of the development units and selling the arcade unit separately - along with a few of the brands like Virtua Cop - to another company (like Namco, Konami or even Sammy).
As for Microsoft, they too would probably prefer to sell off the arcade unit, but there the Sega software development teams would be far more likely to remain intact (at least based on history). It would give Microsoft an exclusive big-name fighter brand (Virtua), a mascot to call their own (Sonic), a solid Japanese-style RPG brand (Phantasy Star) and a sports game division that could really take off (Microsoft's own sports games aren't bad, especially for being so new; and combining those efforts could end up being brilliant). In the sports area, I could see Microsoft going multiplatform if only to make EA sweat some 44-caliber bullets.
I guess my second-favorite choice for a merger would be Namco, but that's entirely sentimental. Both companies have problems and I'd be less concerned about an arcade monopoly (even with DDR, the arcade scene in the US is abyssmal so I consider that a Japanese problem) than I would be about two troubled companies merging into one bigger troubled company. Don't get me wrong. I would be as happy as anyone to see "Soulcalibur vs. Virtua Fighter" (once - I'm looking at you, Capcom) but I really have to wonder about the advantages, at least in console terms, that particular megacompany would gain from such a merger.
Then again, I'm no business expert. I'm just a guy who plays video games and likes to think that he's smart. Kinda like Ryo Hazuki, but without the butt-kicking.
It's even more odd that Tecmo would go in this direction considering the fact that Itagaki's (Team Ninja's head honcho) preference for the Xbox is based on the technical superiority of that system over the PS2 and Gamecube, which superiority they've used to great effect with Dead or Alive 3 and Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball (whatever you think of the latter as a game, in graphical terms it's friggin' beautiful). Going backwards and trying to get extra life out of old games/engines seems like the last thing someone so concerned about system specs would want to do.
I have no doubt that these two games will be as good as the games were originally, and maybe even better graphically. And, yes, the online component is interesting and could attract people who haven't played the games before. But the positives of online play seem to me outweighed (especially in terms of the wider market, as opposed to DOA fans) by the fact that DOA and DOA2 are now, by video game standards, ancient.
Speaking as an owner of an Xbox, DOA3 and DOA:XBV - and someone who enjoys all three - there's no way I'll buy this package unless they've improved the DOA2 engine to such a degree that it matches up with DOA3 (and if they had, wouldn't they just make it DOA3 online?). Even then, and even with online play, it'll still have a hard time getting more than 25 of my gaming dollars when Soulcalibur 2 - a game whose import version has already met with critical and gamer acclaim - is right around the corner.
I have to say, though, that any top 100 games list that includes all platforms is ill conceived from the start. After all, I know many people who never played games on the Commodore 64 or Amiga (both of which had some great games) just as I was never into the Atari personal computer (400, 800, 1600XL, ST, etc.). Balance of Power, for example, was a great game but if you didn't play games on an old Mac or Atari ST, you'd never know it.
I liked GTA3 and GTA: Vice City quite a lot, but how do either of those games make the list of the top five games of all time? They're great games and could be in my top 10 for the past five years but they'd probably miss my top TWENTY for all time.
Unfortunately, when these lists are created, it's done by people who a) want to make a list that appeals to important marketing demographics NOW and b) have probably only played games that make the video game equivalent of the best-seller list.
At least I don't have G4 so that I won't be annoyed by the list in its entirety. After all, Ball Blazer and Pitfall! probably won't make the list and that might cause me violent thoughts. :)
The problem with this theory is that computer games have ALWAYS had situations where you (the player's avatar) "die." I like Donkey Kong but I don't consider it particularly "immersive" even though I, as Mario, can be killed by a barrel. Pac-Man is cool but I don't feel emotionally invested in his character because the ghosts can get me.
Player/avatar death has become even more meaningless since the advent of unlimited continues (or game saves) - it's something that sets a game like Steel Battalion (crazy controller+game from Capcom for Xbox) apart since if you die, you lose that pilot's save, whether you're one or twenty missions along in the game.
The point I was making was that, in order to get across the horror of war, the player needs to care about the deaths of OTHER characters in the game.
Specifically, people quitting Warcraft and Starcraft games is just as common as any such problem on the console, and the same goes for virtually any two-player game.
As for your "quality of gamer" comment, that's just flamebait/trolling/etc. I quit playing FPS games online a long time ago because I was tired of the constant barrage of profanity and "leetspeak" and because I also wasn't interested in playing with the same people every time (by isolating on a few "good" servers). You have but to go to Blizzard.net and chat for five minutes to see the "quality" of gamer available on the PC.
Some people I know only play with people they know and so avoid all the jerks, but the exact same thing can be done on Xbox Live (arguably even easier with cross-game buddy lists).
Note that I'm not saying the quality is any better on the console, but it can hardly be worse. If you prefer PC gaming, more power to you, but saying that there is a higher quality of gamers playing PC online games is just a crock.
What would be wrong, for example, with a game wherein you're part of an infantry regiment/division in Takrit and your goal is to take the city with as few civilian casualties as possible? You could be penalized for causing civilian death and even end the game court-martialed because you didn't exercise good judgement in a firefight. Such a game would include all the carnage of a real war and, handled properly, encourage the player to think about the lives lost in the process of winning or losing the game. No doubt it would be rated "M" for Mature but it might be a game that actually deserves the rating for good reasons as opposed to bad.
We all know that war games (strategic, tactical, FPS, etc.) will be made. It would be good to see a high-profile war game, though, that tried to really address the negative side of war instead of simply glorifying violence and conquest without consequences.
The fact that they've announced a new Xbox Live subscription kit (with one year, Tetris and new demos) pretty much guarantees that the yearly price will be $50 or less, probably at LEAST until December, 2004 (when the first original subscribers have their second expiration). Doing it any other way would simply increase by 50% or more the number of "unique" users on their service (when people run out and buy new Live kits with the "free" year for $50).
The problem with the tie-in number, at least as applies to Gamecube, is that it includes the games given away with their systems. Removing those games would give them a number more comparable to the Xbox. Of course, the fact that you can get another game with a GC for the same price as an Xbox doesn't hurt either. :)
I know this is what you meant, but just to clarify, Xbox doesn't have progressive DVD playback. Progressive scan works quite nicely on my HDTV in games. :)
I hope that Nintendo gets off the proverbial "stick" and provides us with a good controller for their next console - at least part of the reason I never gave the N64 a fair try was because the controller was a bit of a mess (admittedly, the fact that the games cost $60-70 a piece might have been the clincher). There's a reason that the feel and function of Microsoft's Controller "S" resemble that of the DualShock...it works really well.
Good FPS games allow you to select whether you want to hold your virtual gun right- or left-handed. The person playing the game and mining the screenshots was probably left-handed and made that selection.
Me, I just want a good game. Some people, however, are real snobs in the graphics area - see anyone who buys a high-end graphics card on the first day it's available.
Mod parent up. Nintendo is actually just releasing the US version of the eReader in Japan - one of the few times that we got an improved version of a Japanese product over what the Japanese themselves got. In other words, if you want an eReader and live outside of Japan, go ahead and get one since the updated version offers nothing we don't already have.
I have to admit, though, the tech geek in me is more interested in this fancy little unit from Toshiba. The only thing stopping me from not eating for a few months and buying one is the fact that it lacks a Tivo/Replay type of guide service (it uses the now-tacky VCR+ from Gemstar). I've been using my ReplayTV for years now and I don't know if I can go backwards in that area.
Pricey so far but I just saw an ad in the Best Buy circular for the Panasonic DVD recorder costing $500. That's a far cry from the last time I paid attention when it was $1,000 (and a pretty good deal for people like me with HDTVs but no progressive DVD player yet). It's only a matter of time before DVD-R goes commodity - like VHS tapes but even cheaper. I expect that by this time next year, there'll be DVD recorders on the market for $300 and DVD-RW discs at $3 (or less) a piece, which would be very good compared to the price/space/quality equation of VHS tapes.
It's also possible, given that GTA3 and Vice City originated on a console, that they're more concerned with capturing the PS2 online market. That's an obvious potential cash cow given the relative scarcity of PS2 online games...
As to your point about the main page, I must confess that I didn't realize that. I have everything but the most esoteric, technical types of stories appearing on my main page (I haven't played with those settings in over a year) and didn't even think about the fact that others may have set this type of story to be ignored. I suppose I should just be glad that I took off the bonus and left it at 1 so that the post doesn't call any more attention to my ignorance of the system. :)
It's sad that at the time I'm writing this, there are a total of 21 comments about a REAL issue that could significantly impact the political influence of every Internet user on important governmental issues, while there are 702 comments split between two topics concerned about a convicted felon's ability to get a job (Kevin Mitnick and other data criminals). I consider it to be indicative of a sad state of affairs in the world o'the Slashdot.
I'm by no means an environmental extremist and could not even be called an environmentalist. I just think it's a damn shame that people here can't seem to tell the difference between something that could be important to anyone who cares about the way our government works and something that's at best important only to people convicted of crimes.
This soapbox isn't going to hold up under my weight any longer, so I'll step down.
However, the fact is that these people shouldn't be entrusted with the power to simply block opinions that they've heard before. The most relevant passage to me was the following:
"A bunch of e-mails that say the same thing with no specific comments don't tell us anything," Walsh says. "We'll take e-mails by the millions" if the correspondence becomes more specific, he adds.
"If you're going to take the time to respond and you care, then put some effort into it," Walsh advises correspondents.
Why should an individual have to formulate their own personal argument when their position is clearly stated in a form letter? Are we all supposed to quit our jobs and become full-time environmental researchers and activists? It seems to me that this would lock out petitions as well - after all, the petition is going to have one statement but will be signed as being the position of many people. Should each of those people have ignored the petition and instead written an individual letter?
The best course, in my opinion, is for the USDA to require a verified (automatically verified via a "go to this page" e-mail as message boards do) e-mail address on each web-based form letter they receive. This would allow them to weed out e-mail flooding by groups that are pretending to have thousands of people involved where it might in fact be just their staff filling in forms.
Alternatively, they could provide polls on their own website (provided to environmental action groups for linking) asking for opinions on each policy decision requiring public comments. Again, they could have an e-mail verification sent out that would have to be received and read (with a click verification) in an attempt to ensure that each vote is from a specific person.
Even simpler would be a "you've already given your vote/opinion" cookie, though this would be even easier to get around than a click-verify e-mail.
All of these would take a bit more work and there are still possibilities for abuse, but the solution they're proposing seems to be the most lazy and intellectually dishonest way possible - something too many bureaucrats love.