This kind of comment confuses me. So much of the time, film lovers lament the over-commercialization of movies and the fact that the more weird, interesting movies don't get made. Then, we have people [like you] who are down on a movie because they don't think it will make a lot of money. Perhaps you've never fit into the former group, but being a part of the latter I would ask this: Why does it matter to you if a film makes $100 million or $10 million or $1 million? Particularly when you say that you would consider going to the movie?
It puts me in mind (because I'm a geek) of people who argue about how much money a particular game console makes. It seems completely irrelevant to me since the only thing the consumer really needs to care about is if they enjoy the games.
Definitely. Oh yes, and the Hulk movie is just about a dude wandering into the bathroom to look in the mirror - that IS what the first trailer was, wasn't it?
Did I mention that the above is sarcastic? In case you're still having trouble figuring it out, movie trailers don't tell you everything you need to know in order to judge if a movie is good or bad. Of course, neither do most movie reviews. At some point, either you or a friend whose taste you trust has to take the plunge and actually watch the movie. Until then, you really need to take some deep breaths, relax and try not to judge movies based on what the marketing department believes will lead the most sheep into the theater.
Re:What really matters is quality of play and cost
on
A Tale in the Desert
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How does one get to be "insightful" while saying that Xbox Live costs $10/month? For the record, right now Xbox Live costs $50 for the Xbox Communicator with a year's subscription to the service and no prices beyond said year have been announced.
Why should I care about this? Is there some risk that a potential student is going to get confused and type in www.dawnsbeautyschool.edu instead of www.princeton.edu?
I admit that I'm not an networking engineer, so maybe there's some very complex technical issue I'm missing here. If so, enlighten me.
If the only argument against it are schools previously in the.edu domain feeling like their domain is cheapened, I say get over it. Unless there's obvious abuse like someone registering prindeton.com and trying to pass themselves off as being Princeton University, there's no issue - and that issue would seem entirely separate from which TLD the site is in.
If Dawn's Beauty School is teaching its students something (edu cating them), then they would seem to have just as strong a claim to having an.edu domain - which to a lay person who hasn't read the docs on the origins/requirements of TLDs just means "school" - as Princeton, Yale, Reed or Oregon State. Elitists should take a pill.
The question is whether you're seeing the pixels themselves or the edges of the "stray" polygons exposing particular pixels. If it's the latter, then it's an aliasing question that will be (is being) addressed over time with more powerful graphic cards, increased poly counts and more advanced forms of anti-aliasing. If it's the former, it's either because monitor resolutions [obviously] need to have higher resolutions to be closer to "reality" or you're sitting too close to the monitor.:)
Good and true points all. I would only add that Sony's feature list for the PS2 might have been nails in the coffin. Not only was it supposed to be higher performance in gaming terms but it added DVD support (both games and movies), expansion (USB and Firewire) and backward compatibility with the PS (a big deal for the many people who bought more than one PS because of hardware failure). Like a good quarterback doing a pump-fake to fool a safety, I think Sony's PS2 feature list froze a lot of consumers in a position where they were reluctant to buy a Dreamcast instead of waiting for the "next big thing."
Try this link to educate yourself a little better on console sales in Japan.
For those who don't want to click, in 2002 the PSOne sold 200,000+ units and Xbox sold 300,000+ units. It's obviously still lagging far behind the PS2, Gamecube and GBA, but it's beating the old stuff.
The "help Microsoft lose money by buying an Xbox and running third-party software on it" argument has become just as tired as it has always been ridiculous.
Here are a few things that this argument ignores:
1) Every Xbox sold adds to Microsoft's claimed installed user base, thus encouraging developers to make more games. Since games sell consoles, this is an excellent result for Microsoft in that it feeds into their potential future profit.
2) Most folks who are "geeky" (for lack of a better vocabulary) enough to buy an Xbox to hack are going to break down and buy at least a game or two since there are indeed some good Xbox games, and obviously more on the horizon. The box is already in the house, why not play a few good games?
3) This point can't be stressed enough: Microsoft loses a LOT more money for every Xbox that goes UNsold. If they don't sell them, then they get diddly/squat. Even if a store has paid Microsoft up front for the boxes, there are still more consoles being produced and sitting in warehouses waiting to be shipped. Microsoft would lose out, not only on the boxes they've actually produced but also on the infrastructure in place to make them.
Hey, if you want to go out and buy an Xbox, modchip it and run Linux, more power to you. Just don't fool yourself into believing that you're striking back against the evil monopoly. The only way to really strike Microsoft is if you're running the IT services of a large company and you stop buying their operating system and apps. Switching big companies over to OpenOffice or any other competitor will hurt Microsoft 100 times worse than modding one of their game consoles...especially since they have already PLANNED on losing money producing the latter.
Pretty simple. Of course, you're hoping that TiVo (or whoever) will be around for your lifetime (or at least the lifetime of the hardware) and that's a BIG BIG "if".
This is the same argument that people have been using against TiVo and ReplayTV since their inception. And since that time, people have had their units and even bought replacement/multiple units and the services are still there.
I've had my Showstopper (Panasonic-brand ReplayTV) for years now (I'm bad with time, but it has been since the month Panasonic put them out) and I'm still going strong. Assuming I paid an extra $150 for the unit (with its "free" service), I've paid less than $5 a month for that service and it keeps going down every month I have the box.
It's all about the interpretation you put on the word "lifetime." For a PVR you look at it several ways:
1. You can expect the service to exist for the next 40-50 years so that you can really get your money's worth. This is an unrealistic, and frankly stupid, expectation.
2. You can expect it to last the lifetime of the unit - say 10 years at the outside (probably with at least one new hard drive), barring replacement because of cooler tech. This is more reasonable and, unless the Supreme Court really goes crazy, it's realistic.
3. You can simply amortize the lifetime payment in your head and decide that if you get at least two years worth of service, you've saved money over the monthly fees. This is the route I took, meaning I'm very satisfied with what I've gotten so far.
4. You could buy a used ReplayTV/Showstopper (no fees) cheap and avoid the whole service fee issue.
5. You can just decide that PVRs have no chance, that the services are going away within the next year, and just avoid the whole thing. This is pure pessimism, IMO.
I haven't seen any indications that either TiVo or SonicBlue is going out of business, so this argument just continues to get weaker and weaker. If you're cheap, that's cool...lots of people are. Just admit it and move on. If you just don't have the interest in or need for a PVR, that's also fine. But bringing up what seems - more and more as time goes on - like FUD is just pitiful.
With a PVR, it'd be a much bigger problem, I think.
Not just "bigger." I don't think it would be hyperbole to change the word to "devastating." Simply put, if the guide ain't workin' then the PVR's 'cool' factor goes right out the window and it becomes a glorified VCR. There are [relatively infrequent] times when Tribune (the company providing listings to ReplayTV and TiVo) will have listings that are either incomplete or just dead wrong and, to me at least, it grinds everything to a halt if that information relates to a show you want.
For example, I decided to enjoy some Drew Carey reruns recently that play at 11:30 p.m. on a local station. Obviously, being a ReplayTV owner, I set the thing up and let it go it's merry way. After one week, much to my chagrin, I noticed that I had missed two days of the show. I looked at the guide and it showed "To Be Announced" in the spot that Drew Carey had occupied previously - since I had not requested the box to record "To Be Announced" I lost out on those days of the program (which I found, after I *did* set up to record TBA, was still Drew Carey). This situation, again, comes up relatively infrequently but it is still a big annoyance.
I can only imagine that with a free service (mine is free but it's the same data that others with new Replay units are paying for) the error rate would go up for the simple fact that they wouldn't feel the urgency of satisfying customers who are paying good money for the service.
If they don't make the service work properly, the word will get out and they'll have a lot of unsold boxes sitting around waiting for a software update or waiting to be dismantled so that their components can be put in something useful (more likely, they would simply drop the price like a stone and focus on the DVD recording ability).
Personally, I would avoid RCA unless the product they offered was so compelling and/or cheap that it blows other products out of the water. For example, had they announced the same product with the same timeline but with HDTV, that might be compelling enough to buy. As it is, other companies have better, time-tested products already on the market, either cheaper or similarly priced.
I can also do a prime rib cheaper than the $23.95 I might pay at a good restaurant. Then again, if I pay the $23.95, I don't have to do squat but sit down, tell the server what I want, have a nice conversation, eat, then pay. Did I spend too much money? Or did I have a pleasant evening without the muss or fuss?
Side note: I see no point to getting a new PVR until one exists that can handle HDTV. My PVR defines my viewing habits now... I am certainly not going to get HDTV gear just so I can drive home on NBC's schedule to watch some TV in HD.
Then you'll be happy to get this news, also from the CES front.
As a longtime ReplayTV owner (Replay 2004 and Showstopper), I hope that SonicBlue gets their HD-capable device out alongside TiVo or I might have to move to that proverbial dark side...either that or finally set up a home theater PC with an HDTV card in it that will timeshift that programming for me (unfortunately, that doesn't help with satellite HD).
Xbox, in theory, supports 720p and 1080i, but most games don't support it. Unless it's rendering simple geometry, 720p and certainly 1080i is just way beyond what the Xbox can handle.
It's not "way beyond" what the Xbox can handle. Two examples off-hand: Dragon's Lair 3D supports 1080i and Tony Hawk 4 supports 720p. You're welcome to argue that the games are just "simple geometry" but then again virtually all games are just geometry. Having picked up Tony Hawk 4 a couple weeks ago I can say that it is by no means "simple" with its huge areas and very nicely rendered graphics - while it isn't cinema quality it looks very good.
While it's unlikely that we'll be seeing something looking like Unreal Tournament 2003 (PC) rendered in 720p or 1080i in the current console generation (Unreal Championship looks good but it's not UT2003 with maxed out graphics options at 1600x1200), it's absolutely certain that we'll see something like it (and many others) in the next. The tech is there and it's only getting better.
To put the final nail in this particular coffin, there's really little reaosn all Xbox games couldn't be in 720p mode. While not all would have the full 1280x720 resolution, not all high-def televisions can display that full resolution anyway. With 1080i, even the broadcast HD signals aren't going out at the full 1920x1080 (interlaced) that is possible and virtually none of the "affordable" HD televisions can display that resolution anyway. It's pretty trivial to render a game at, say, 1024x768 (well within the capabilities of the Xbox) and then output it as a 720p signal, which I would imagine is what the games marked as 720p are doing, and you still get a huge quality bump compared to rendering internally at 640x480 and outputting NTSC or even 480p.
Enjoy your laugh now. I have a strong feeling that the code will be broken soon, and the customers will be laughing last...
Which customers would those be? The customers who understand - and have understood since the Atari 2600 - that a video game console is a video game console and wants or needs no other purpose? As one of these customers, I will neither laugh nor cry...I will probably say "hey, nice job" and move on with my life...and buy some video games...you know...to play on my video game console.
Obviously (since it hasn't been released yet), I haven't heard whether or not Flash Advance cards work. However, I'll stray out onto a flimsy limb and give my prediction that it's 99% likely that they will work fine. Why? Because adding new security features could really affect the compatibility with older games (GB and already released GBA games). One other reason they would be unlikely to try to screw the Flash Advance is the most obvious one: They already own the portable market and are making money hand over fist with GBA hardware and software. Thus, they likely have few worries about GBA piracy...besides, cartridge piracy has never gotten to the level of disc piracy on any console.
On a slight tangent, I think the people who are going to be hit the worst when this thing comes out are the third-party accessory folks like Interact and MadCatz. This GBA already has integrated lighting, a rechargeable battery and even screen protection. That knocks out 80% of the accessory market leaving only the market that Nintendo already controls - link cables, card reader, etc. Consider: I paid $60 for my GBA; I then bought a rechargeable battery for $20; finally, I bought the Afterburner kit for $35. That's $115, $55 of which didn't go to Nintendo (maybe a little less if the battery was done under license). With the new $90 box, Nintendo gets $30 more and the other two companies get bupkis...
As someone who has had large hands for many years now (since that puberty thing), I never had a problem with the original GB's form factor (or that of the Pocket GB for that matter) unless I played for three or more hours without a break, which is something one shouldn't do anyway. I guess if the form factor is a deal breaker for people, they won't buy it - fortunately, there IS still the old-GBA/Afterburner/after-market battery route to get the functionality with the traditional size. Myself, I like the looks and features of the new unit enough that I'll pick up two on day one since tradition dictates that I buy one for my mom - so far, I've bought her two original GBs, a Pocket GB, a GBC, a GBA and Afterburner...more portable gaming than I've had for myself. In Soviet Oregon, Nintendo owns me...
Just because YOU don't feel there's a problem, it doesn't mean there's not a problem. For example, if someone is running Internet Explorer 4.0 with no security updates and nothing bad ever happens to their system because of it, it doesn't mean that there aren't security problems.
Speaking for myself, I hated the GBA's screen but I bought one anyway because there were games I "needed" to play. The same goes for every one of my friends. We all love our GBAs in SPITE of the fact that the screen is abyssmal and requires the perfect light (one friend resorted to spending most of his GBA time in the bathroom because it just happened to have the perfect light for the little bugger).
Hey, if you haven't had a problem with the GBA's screen, that's great - more power to you. But, instead of feeling somehow put upon because you don't have the same problem, you should feel a little sympathy for poor, addicted gamers who are in pain.
When I installed the Afterburner, I was amazed at how thin it was. Perhaps frontlights are so popular these days because they contribute almost nothing to the thickness of the unit.
They also contribute far less to the COST of the unit which, besides battery life, would be Nintendo's biggest concern. They don't want to wait for people to buy a bunch of games to make their profit - they want it right from the start.
Nobody can stop me from buying two of these bad boys the day they're released despite having gotten Afterburner for my GBA AND my mother's GBA...The damn things are just too pretty and integrate three features I love: Lighting, screen protection and rechargeable battery. I know a few people who would buy the old ones for a few bucks to defray the cost of buying the new ones.:)
Your argument would be valid if it hadn't already been demonstrated that the situation you describe isn't even close to the standard. Some tests have shown up an 80% success rate for minors buying M-rated games. That tells me that retailers are, in fact, NOT cooperating and another step needs to be taken.
Don't get me wrong. I'm the prototypical 30-year-old geek who's been playing video games since he was 8. I was exposed to copious video game violence from then until now, and I never had a problem with it, aside from the occasional daydream about carjacking someone since playing GTA3, which I only started having very recently.
Parents aren't necessarily to blame either. Unlike a movie - as others have pointed out - video games require more time to appreciate the nuances, and so are far more difficult for parents to judge accurately. Furthermore, a lot of parents don't care about - or understand - video games at all, so it's even harder for them to do the monitoring.
Legislation could - I repeat COULD - be a good thing, if done properly. Simply require stores to do ID checks on anyone looking under 25 whenever someone tries to buy an M-, AO- or unrated game. If they don't do the check, then fine the store. Enough fines for any store and they're going to fix the problem. Stores that are already compliant with that kind of ID check wouldn't be affected in the slightest, save perhaps adding "against the law" to their SOPs.
To me, in this scenario everyone wins. The whiners win because they got their legislation (the most hardcore fringe would probably still push for a ban, but they've tried to do that to pornography too and that hasn't worked out for them). The legislators win because they have something to show their middle class constituents. Disinterested (either in terms of their kids or video games) parents win because it's one less area they have to keep track of - they should still monitor their children but at least they know that if they give them $50 they are far less likely to be able to buy something inappropriate. 18+-year-old gamers win because we don't have to listen to as much of this crap anymore. Game developers even win because they stand far less chance of being sued by some ignoramus for putting out a violent video game that some psycho kid with a gun happened to play at some point. The only losers, really, are the kids who have been successfully putting one over on their parents by being able to buy their own M-rated video games.
I'm on board, if only because it will shut some people up.:)
Re:Pacman was da bomb! Swordquest Earthworld sucke
on
Top Ten Shameful Games
·
· Score: 2
You've hit on my pick for the worst 2600 game. I, too, got Swordquest (via a request to the grandparents) and it was just awful. I can't tell you the number of hours I spent trying to get anything at all interesting to happen, only to retreat in frustration to the comfort of my grandma's comic book collection.
It was particularly sad that the game was so awful since they had "promised" that there would be more Swordquest "action" to be had. By the time I put that game away for the last time, I was praying they wouldn't release another...mainly because I would probably have still gotten it and tried to enjoy it. I was such a sucker.
As the reviewer pointed out, Coleco had a good version of Donkey Kong on their system which would make it seem like they could have done much better than they did for the other consoles. The fact that they did such stupid things as making Donkey Kong green (!!) does make it appear that they were actively trying to hose the competing systems. There have been a lot of bad games, and which ones make a top 10 list is obviously a judgement call - I don't have any problem with that particular judgement.
Even I, despite being an avid 2600 player at the time, asked my parents for a Colecovision many, many times just because I wanted to play a good version of Donkey Kong - they wisely bought me a Commodore 64 instead.
I've never been on the ET hate bandwagon, either. I played it as a youngster and actually enjoyed it. While it could be frustrating at first, I found it became a lot more fun if you gave it some effort.
I've seen nothing since to make me buy another console, though the PS/2 is tempting thanks to the lack of a PC release for GTA: Vice City...
If you mean that you need it now, then I understand. If you mean that there is no PC version in the works, I think you might be mistaken. As far as I know, the exclusivity agreement with Sony only covers console releases, and I believe that a PC version will be out in 2003 - if I had to guess, probably in the spring.
There were rumors swirling about a possible January release, queries about which have been met with the standard "no comment." However, the last thing I read here gave a quote from Take 2 telling them to check back with them after Christmas.
In short, barring actual negative statements to the contrary from Take 2/Rockstar, I think that a PC version of Vice City in 2003 is very probable - remember, Sony sells PCs too.:)
You'd be right except for one thing: Even a master of mining can have adventuring skills. Instead of providing my own examples, I'll just say "RTFA" and provide you with the relevant quote in case you still don't want to do so:
"We've gone to very great lengths to make sure that you can try out different playstyles--and even engage in multiple different playstyles simultaneously. You get 200 skill points right now. That's enough to fully master three separate professions plus half of another one. Put another way, it's enough for you to be a Master Image Designer, Master Marksman, and Master Gunsmith--actually, probably enough where you could go beyond Marksman and master Rifle Specialist or Pistol."
It isn't just a screw-up that could cause the loss of a locally stored character. A hard drive failure can happen, a previously unknown virus could infect the computer, or some malicious script kiddie could find a way to tap into the computer through your Adelphia cable modem.
Leaving Sony/Verant with the responsibility of storing the characters at the very least offers the security of having someone else to blame. Under the best circumstances, it allows Sony/Verant the opportunity to have backup systems in place and the ability to have corporate-level security in place to protect that data.
Finally, I would note that every argument against multiple characters on a server is smokescreen for the primary two reasons: Limiting the ability to cheat in a significant way and the opportunity for greater profits from those who will want more than one character per server - NEITHER of which I personally have any problem with.
Slashdot Mirror
It puts me in mind (because I'm a geek) of people who argue about how much money a particular game console makes. It seems completely irrelevant to me since the only thing the consumer really needs to care about is if they enjoy the games.
Did I mention that the above is sarcastic? In case you're still having trouble figuring it out, movie trailers don't tell you everything you need to know in order to judge if a movie is good or bad. Of course, neither do most movie reviews. At some point, either you or a friend whose taste you trust has to take the plunge and actually watch the movie. Until then, you really need to take some deep breaths, relax and try not to judge movies based on what the marketing department believes will lead the most sheep into the theater.
How does one get to be "insightful" while saying that Xbox Live costs $10/month? For the record, right now Xbox Live costs $50 for the Xbox Communicator with a year's subscription to the service and no prices beyond said year have been announced.
I admit that I'm not an networking engineer, so maybe there's some very complex technical issue I'm missing here. If so, enlighten me.
If the only argument against it are schools previously in the .edu domain feeling like their domain is cheapened, I say get over it. Unless there's obvious abuse like someone registering prindeton.com and trying to pass themselves off as being Princeton University, there's no issue - and that issue would seem entirely separate from which TLD the site is in.
If Dawn's Beauty School is teaching its students something ( edu cating them), then they would seem to have just as strong a claim to having an .edu domain - which to a lay person who hasn't read the docs on the origins/requirements of TLDs just means "school" - as Princeton, Yale, Reed or Oregon State. Elitists should take a pill.
The question is whether you're seeing the pixels themselves or the edges of the "stray" polygons exposing particular pixels. If it's the latter, then it's an aliasing question that will be (is being) addressed over time with more powerful graphic cards, increased poly counts and more advanced forms of anti-aliasing. If it's the former, it's either because monitor resolutions [obviously] need to have higher resolutions to be closer to "reality" or you're sitting too close to the monitor. :)
Good and true points all. I would only add that Sony's feature list for the PS2 might have been nails in the coffin. Not only was it supposed to be higher performance in gaming terms but it added DVD support (both games and movies), expansion (USB and Firewire) and backward compatibility with the PS (a big deal for the many people who bought more than one PS because of hardware failure). Like a good quarterback doing a pump-fake to fool a safety, I think Sony's PS2 feature list froze a lot of consumers in a position where they were reluctant to buy a Dreamcast instead of waiting for the "next big thing."
For those who don't want to click, in 2002 the PSOne sold 200,000+ units and Xbox sold 300,000+ units. It's obviously still lagging far behind the PS2, Gamecube and GBA, but it's beating the old stuff.
Here are a few things that this argument ignores:
1) Every Xbox sold adds to Microsoft's claimed installed user base, thus encouraging developers to make more games. Since games sell consoles, this is an excellent result for Microsoft in that it feeds into their potential future profit.
2) Most folks who are "geeky" (for lack of a better vocabulary) enough to buy an Xbox to hack are going to break down and buy at least a game or two since there are indeed some good Xbox games, and obviously more on the horizon. The box is already in the house, why not play a few good games?
3) This point can't be stressed enough: Microsoft loses a LOT more money for every Xbox that goes UNsold. If they don't sell them, then they get diddly/squat. Even if a store has paid Microsoft up front for the boxes, there are still more consoles being produced and sitting in warehouses waiting to be shipped. Microsoft would lose out, not only on the boxes they've actually produced but also on the infrastructure in place to make them.
Hey, if you want to go out and buy an Xbox, modchip it and run Linux, more power to you. Just don't fool yourself into believing that you're striking back against the evil monopoly. The only way to really strike Microsoft is if you're running the IT services of a large company and you stop buying their operating system and apps. Switching big companies over to OpenOffice or any other competitor will hurt Microsoft 100 times worse than modding one of their game consoles...especially since they have already PLANNED on losing money producing the latter.
This is the same argument that people have been using against TiVo and ReplayTV since their inception. And since that time, people have had their units and even bought replacement/multiple units and the services are still there.
I've had my Showstopper (Panasonic-brand ReplayTV) for years now (I'm bad with time, but it has been since the month Panasonic put them out) and I'm still going strong. Assuming I paid an extra $150 for the unit (with its "free" service), I've paid less than $5 a month for that service and it keeps going down every month I have the box.
It's all about the interpretation you put on the word "lifetime." For a PVR you look at it several ways:
1. You can expect the service to exist for the next 40-50 years so that you can really get your money's worth. This is an unrealistic, and frankly stupid, expectation.
2. You can expect it to last the lifetime of the unit - say 10 years at the outside (probably with at least one new hard drive), barring replacement because of cooler tech. This is more reasonable and, unless the Supreme Court really goes crazy, it's realistic.
3. You can simply amortize the lifetime payment in your head and decide that if you get at least two years worth of service, you've saved money over the monthly fees. This is the route I took, meaning I'm very satisfied with what I've gotten so far.
4. You could buy a used ReplayTV/Showstopper (no fees) cheap and avoid the whole service fee issue.
5. You can just decide that PVRs have no chance, that the services are going away within the next year, and just avoid the whole thing. This is pure pessimism, IMO.
I haven't seen any indications that either TiVo or SonicBlue is going out of business, so this argument just continues to get weaker and weaker. If you're cheap, that's cool...lots of people are. Just admit it and move on. If you just don't have the interest in or need for a PVR, that's also fine. But bringing up what seems - more and more as time goes on - like FUD is just pitiful.
Not just "bigger." I don't think it would be hyperbole to change the word to "devastating." Simply put, if the guide ain't workin' then the PVR's 'cool' factor goes right out the window and it becomes a glorified VCR. There are [relatively infrequent] times when Tribune (the company providing listings to ReplayTV and TiVo) will have listings that are either incomplete or just dead wrong and, to me at least, it grinds everything to a halt if that information relates to a show you want.
For example, I decided to enjoy some Drew Carey reruns recently that play at 11:30 p.m. on a local station. Obviously, being a ReplayTV owner, I set the thing up and let it go it's merry way. After one week, much to my chagrin, I noticed that I had missed two days of the show. I looked at the guide and it showed "To Be Announced" in the spot that Drew Carey had occupied previously - since I had not requested the box to record "To Be Announced" I lost out on those days of the program (which I found, after I *did* set up to record TBA, was still Drew Carey). This situation, again, comes up relatively infrequently but it is still a big annoyance.
I can only imagine that with a free service (mine is free but it's the same data that others with new Replay units are paying for) the error rate would go up for the simple fact that they wouldn't feel the urgency of satisfying customers who are paying good money for the service.
If they don't make the service work properly, the word will get out and they'll have a lot of unsold boxes sitting around waiting for a software update or waiting to be dismantled so that their components can be put in something useful (more likely, they would simply drop the price like a stone and focus on the DVD recording ability).
Personally, I would avoid RCA unless the product they offered was so compelling and/or cheap that it blows other products out of the water. For example, had they announced the same product with the same timeline but with HDTV, that might be compelling enough to buy. As it is, other companies have better, time-tested products already on the market, either cheaper or similarly priced.
Perspective is a bitch.
Then you'll be happy to get this news, also from the CES front.
As a longtime ReplayTV owner (Replay 2004 and Showstopper), I hope that SonicBlue gets their HD-capable device out alongside TiVo or I might have to move to that proverbial dark side...either that or finally set up a home theater PC with an HDTV card in it that will timeshift that programming for me (unfortunately, that doesn't help with satellite HD).
It's not "way beyond" what the Xbox can handle. Two examples off-hand: Dragon's Lair 3D supports 1080i and Tony Hawk 4 supports 720p. You're welcome to argue that the games are just "simple geometry" but then again virtually all games are just geometry. Having picked up Tony Hawk 4 a couple weeks ago I can say that it is by no means "simple" with its huge areas and very nicely rendered graphics - while it isn't cinema quality it looks very good.
While it's unlikely that we'll be seeing something looking like Unreal Tournament 2003 (PC) rendered in 720p or 1080i in the current console generation (Unreal Championship looks good but it's not UT2003 with maxed out graphics options at 1600x1200), it's absolutely certain that we'll see something like it (and many others) in the next. The tech is there and it's only getting better.
To put the final nail in this particular coffin, there's really little reaosn all Xbox games couldn't be in 720p mode. While not all would have the full 1280x720 resolution, not all high-def televisions can display that full resolution anyway. With 1080i, even the broadcast HD signals aren't going out at the full 1920x1080 (interlaced) that is possible and virtually none of the "affordable" HD televisions can display that resolution anyway. It's pretty trivial to render a game at, say, 1024x768 (well within the capabilities of the Xbox) and then output it as a 720p signal, which I would imagine is what the games marked as 720p are doing, and you still get a huge quality bump compared to rendering internally at 640x480 and outputting NTSC or even 480p.
Which customers would those be? The customers who understand - and have understood since the Atari 2600 - that a video game console is a video game console and wants or needs no other purpose? As one of these customers, I will neither laugh nor cry...I will probably say "hey, nice job" and move on with my life...and buy some video games...you know...to play on my video game console.
On a slight tangent, I think the people who are going to be hit the worst when this thing comes out are the third-party accessory folks like Interact and MadCatz. This GBA already has integrated lighting, a rechargeable battery and even screen protection. That knocks out 80% of the accessory market leaving only the market that Nintendo already controls - link cables, card reader, etc. Consider: I paid $60 for my GBA; I then bought a rechargeable battery for $20; finally, I bought the Afterburner kit for $35. That's $115, $55 of which didn't go to Nintendo (maybe a little less if the battery was done under license). With the new $90 box, Nintendo gets $30 more and the other two companies get bupkis...
Damn, Nintendo is SMART! :)
As someone who has had large hands for many years now (since that puberty thing), I never had a problem with the original GB's form factor (or that of the Pocket GB for that matter) unless I played for three or more hours without a break, which is something one shouldn't do anyway. I guess if the form factor is a deal breaker for people, they won't buy it - fortunately, there IS still the old-GBA/Afterburner/after-market battery route to get the functionality with the traditional size. Myself, I like the looks and features of the new unit enough that I'll pick up two on day one since tradition dictates that I buy one for my mom - so far, I've bought her two original GBs, a Pocket GB, a GBC, a GBA and Afterburner...more portable gaming than I've had for myself. In Soviet Oregon, Nintendo owns me...
Speaking for myself, I hated the GBA's screen but I bought one anyway because there were games I "needed" to play. The same goes for every one of my friends. We all love our GBAs in SPITE of the fact that the screen is abyssmal and requires the perfect light (one friend resorted to spending most of his GBA time in the bathroom because it just happened to have the perfect light for the little bugger).
Hey, if you haven't had a problem with the GBA's screen, that's great - more power to you. But, instead of feeling somehow put upon because you don't have the same problem, you should feel a little sympathy for poor, addicted gamers who are in pain.
They also contribute far less to the COST of the unit which, besides battery life, would be Nintendo's biggest concern. They don't want to wait for people to buy a bunch of games to make their profit - they want it right from the start.
Nobody can stop me from buying two of these bad boys the day they're released despite having gotten Afterburner for my GBA AND my mother's GBA...The damn things are just too pretty and integrate three features I love: Lighting, screen protection and rechargeable battery. I know a few people who would buy the old ones for a few bucks to defray the cost of buying the new ones. :)
Don't get me wrong. I'm the prototypical 30-year-old geek who's been playing video games since he was 8. I was exposed to copious video game violence from then until now, and I never had a problem with it, aside from the occasional daydream about carjacking someone since playing GTA3, which I only started having very recently.
Parents aren't necessarily to blame either. Unlike a movie - as others have pointed out - video games require more time to appreciate the nuances, and so are far more difficult for parents to judge accurately. Furthermore, a lot of parents don't care about - or understand - video games at all, so it's even harder for them to do the monitoring.
Legislation could - I repeat COULD - be a good thing, if done properly. Simply require stores to do ID checks on anyone looking under 25 whenever someone tries to buy an M-, AO- or unrated game. If they don't do the check, then fine the store. Enough fines for any store and they're going to fix the problem. Stores that are already compliant with that kind of ID check wouldn't be affected in the slightest, save perhaps adding "against the law" to their SOPs.
To me, in this scenario everyone wins. The whiners win because they got their legislation (the most hardcore fringe would probably still push for a ban, but they've tried to do that to pornography too and that hasn't worked out for them). The legislators win because they have something to show their middle class constituents. Disinterested (either in terms of their kids or video games) parents win because it's one less area they have to keep track of - they should still monitor their children but at least they know that if they give them $50 they are far less likely to be able to buy something inappropriate. 18+-year-old gamers win because we don't have to listen to as much of this crap anymore. Game developers even win because they stand far less chance of being sued by some ignoramus for putting out a violent video game that some psycho kid with a gun happened to play at some point. The only losers, really, are the kids who have been successfully putting one over on their parents by being able to buy their own M-rated video games.
I'm on board, if only because it will shut some people up. :)
It was particularly sad that the game was so awful since they had "promised" that there would be more Swordquest "action" to be had. By the time I put that game away for the last time, I was praying they wouldn't release another...mainly because I would probably have still gotten it and tried to enjoy it. I was such a sucker.
Even I, despite being an avid 2600 player at the time, asked my parents for a Colecovision many, many times just because I wanted to play a good version of Donkey Kong - they wisely bought me a Commodore 64 instead.
I've never been on the ET hate bandwagon, either. I played it as a youngster and actually enjoyed it. While it could be frustrating at first, I found it became a lot more fun if you gave it some effort.
If you mean that you need it now, then I understand. If you mean that there is no PC version in the works, I think you might be mistaken. As far as I know, the exclusivity agreement with Sony only covers console releases, and I believe that a PC version will be out in 2003 - if I had to guess, probably in the spring.
There were rumors swirling about a possible January release, queries about which have been met with the standard "no comment." However, the last thing I read here gave a quote from Take 2 telling them to check back with them after Christmas.
In short, barring actual negative statements to the contrary from Take 2/Rockstar, I think that a PC version of Vice City in 2003 is very probable - remember, Sony sells PCs too. :)
"We've gone to very great lengths to make sure that you can try out different playstyles--and even engage in multiple different playstyles simultaneously. You get 200 skill points right now. That's enough to fully master three separate professions plus half of another one. Put another way, it's enough for you to be a Master Image Designer, Master Marksman, and Master Gunsmith--actually, probably enough where you could go beyond Marksman and master Rifle Specialist or Pistol."
Leaving Sony/Verant with the responsibility of storing the characters at the very least offers the security of having someone else to blame. Under the best circumstances, it allows Sony/Verant the opportunity to have backup systems in place and the ability to have corporate-level security in place to protect that data.
Finally, I would note that every argument against multiple characters on a server is smokescreen for the primary two reasons: Limiting the ability to cheat in a significant way and the opportunity for greater profits from those who will want more than one character per server - NEITHER of which I personally have any problem with.
Go Verant.