A dollar buys you 1200 calories of cookies or chips but just 250 calories worth of carrots. What does this prove? 250 calories of carrots is a huge amount of carrots, where 1200 calories of cookies is less than one bag.
BIG NEWS! $1 gets you only 2 calories of iceberg lettuce, where it gets you 4000 calories of corn oil!
What's to say there won't be a few amazing gems in there? Why do you assume they'll all be generic and run of the mill? As far as I know, there's nothing preventing anyone from making fun games for the PS3.
Also, "fun over graphics" makes me roll my eyes. Get this through your heads, people - the two are not mutually exclusive. For a non-PS3 example (to avoid fanboy accusations), see Gears of War. I have had a ton of fun playing games on my Wii, but I am very frequently wishing for higher-resolution graphics.
You realize that they probably already have the patents for the non "in video games" targeted advertising, right? That one actually is novel, and while the new one may be unnecessary, you can hardly say it's bad if they're just extending what they have.
a) being advertised at during things I ALREADY FUCKING PAID OUT THE NOSE FOR?!?! (Movies, games, etc) Nobody's forcing you to watch the ads. If you don't like them, feel free to not use things that use them. They have every right to put ads wherever then want in their products, just like you have every right not to use those products.
Even if it becomes commonplace, just like with TV, if there's a market for something advertising-free, someone (like HBO, or Amazon's Unbox service) will fill that gap.
The original Hummer is actually a pretty awesome machine. The H2, on the other hand, is pretty much worthless offroad. It's the equivalent of a riced-up Civic - all show, no go.
It's basically doing more costing and anticipation instead of braking then accelerating then braking then accelerating. If you notice yourself coming up to someone on the freeway, take your foot off the gas and coast to a slower speed rather than keeping it on the gas until you're close and then hitting the brake.
The motivation is to bash Google no matter what. He says that "evil" is keeping track of your searches/emails/etc. No, that's not inherently evil. As he gets at himself, to avoid it, one just has to stop using Google products. If you use their products, you play by their rules. That is not evil unless you're being forced to use them.
So saying flat out "best search" is more about you proving you're fan boy, nothing more ... and by you typing out that huge diatribe without actually showing any examples of which sites are "better", you're proving yourself to be an anti-fan boy, nothing more. So where are we left, here?
The issue isn't with hardware support, though - it's with media support. If you've got no movies to play, there's no point in having that format.
Currently, Blu-Ray has exclusive support from five studios, as opposed to HD-DVD's two. That makes a huge difference in media sales, which will lead to support from more hardware manufacturers, etc.
Considering that you can't buy one for much under $500 and the blank media is at least $15 a disc, the question is moot, even for most of the early adopters. I seem to remember even larger prices for both CD and DVD burners (at a time when that amount of money was worth even more), and people still buying them up.
Where are the computer drives that can play and record movies for a reasonable price?" NewEgg has a Blu-ray burner for $499. That's one of three they sell for that price. Sure, that's expensive, but IIRC, CD and DVD burners were $1k+ early in the game.
People were having trouble with DVD capacity last generation. I remember a few multi-DVD PS2 games.
Insomniac's Brian Hastings had this to say about the space issue:
If you ever hear someone say "Blu-Ray isn't needed for this generation," rest assured they don't make games for a living. At Insomniac, we were filling up DVDs on the PS2, as were most of the developers in the industry. We compressed the level data, we compressed the mpeg movies, we compressed the audio, and it was still a struggle to get it to fit in 6 gigs. Now we've got 16 times as much system RAM, so the level data is 16 times bigger. And the average disc space of games only gets bigger over a console's lifespan. As games get bigger, more advanced and more complex, they necessarily take up more space. If developers were filling up DVDs last generation, there are clearly going to be some sacrifices made to fit current generation games in the same amount of space.
Granted, some really great Xbox 360 games have squeezed onto a DVD9. Gears of War is a beautiful game and shows off the highest resolution textures of anything yet released, partly because of the Unreal Engine's ability to stream textures. This means that you can have much higher resolution textures than you could normally fit in your 512 MB of RAM. It also means that you're going to chew up more disc space for each level. With streamed textures, streamed geometry and streamed audio, even with compression, you can quickly approach 1 GB of data per level. That inherently limits you to a maximum of about 7 levels, and that's without multiplayer levels or mpeg cutscenes.
Sometimes people ask us, "If Resistance takes 14 gigabytes, why doesn't it look better than Gears?" Well, for one, Resistance didn't support texture streaming, so we had to make choices about where we spent our high-res textures. Resistance also had 30 single-player chapters, six multiplayer maps, uncompressed audio streaming, and high-definition mpegs. That all added up to a lot of space on the disc. Starting with Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction we are supporting texture streaming, which will make the worlds look even better, and will also consume even more space on disc.
There's no question that you can always cut more levels, compress the audio more, compress the textures more, down-res the mpeg movies, and eventually get any game to fit on a DVD. But you paid for a high-def experience, right? You want the highest resolution, best audio, most cinematic experience a developer can offer, right? That's why Blu-Ray is important for games, and why it will become more important each year of this hardware cycle.
If it's 10% of sites, I'd be blown away. 10% of pages, though... I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of pages on the net were created with the sole intent of distributing malware or viruses, let alone sites that do it unintentionally.
The event may be best known for the working breeder reactor students built for the 1999 hunt. It's too bad that if they tried that nowadays they'd probably get thrown in Gitmo.
Yes, and what you do in the game is directly in response to what you see on the screen. I can see a lot more in high detail at 1080p than I can at 480p. The difference in graphics can make quite an impact on gameplay in certain games.
I don't understand why some people are so adamant about resolution not mattering on consoles. Would you enjoy playing Half-Life 2, Simcity 4, or WoW as much if you were limited to 640x480? Not likely. Why refuse to accept that better graphics add to a far better user experience?
Clearly our right to privacy must be upheld when in public areas doing things that are completely public As long as my right to privacy in pubic areas is upheld, I'll be fine.
What's wrong with contextual menus? I think they're completely straightforward with "manipulate the object I'm clicking on" functions. Right click on a web page, and you get options relating to the web page. Right click on a graphic, and you get options relating to the graphic. Right click on highlighted text, and you get options relating to that text.
Everything has its place:
Menu bars: Control this application. Contextual menus: Control this object. Toolbars: Quick access to commonly used functions (almost always redundant with the other two).
I can't find anything wrong with that at all, as long as you grasp the application/object difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, they're still awesome. I just wish his claims had some basis in reality.
BIG NEWS! $1 gets you only 2 calories of iceberg lettuce, where it gets you 4000 calories of corn oil!
Actually, I've seen quite a few people say, "There's not much for the PS3 that I want now, but I'll probably get one when LittleBigPlanet comes out."
+5, insightful.
Sony's the "enemy" here. Microsoft is "saving us" from them.
No, they'll just report you for "hacking".
What's to say there won't be a few amazing gems in there? Why do you assume they'll all be generic and run of the mill? As far as I know, there's nothing preventing anyone from making fun games for the PS3.
Also, "fun over graphics" makes me roll my eyes. Get this through your heads, people - the two are not mutually exclusive. For a non-PS3 example (to avoid fanboy accusations), see Gears of War. I have had a ton of fun playing games on my Wii, but I am very frequently wishing for higher-resolution graphics.
You realize that they probably already have the patents for the non "in video games" targeted advertising, right? That one actually is novel, and while the new one may be unnecessary, you can hardly say it's bad if they're just extending what they have.
Even if it becomes commonplace, just like with TV, if there's a market for something advertising-free, someone (like HBO, or Amazon's Unbox service) will fill that gap.
The original Hummer is actually a pretty awesome machine. The H2, on the other hand, is pretty much worthless offroad. It's the equivalent of a riced-up Civic - all show, no go.
It's basically doing more costing and anticipation instead of braking then accelerating then braking then accelerating. If you notice yourself coming up to someone on the freeway, take your foot off the gas and coast to a slower speed rather than keeping it on the gas until you're close and then hitting the brake.
The motivation is to bash Google no matter what. He says that "evil" is keeping track of your searches/emails/etc. No, that's not inherently evil. As he gets at himself, to avoid it, one just has to stop using Google products. If you use their products, you play by their rules. That is not evil unless you're being forced to use them.
You mean like Google's Web History? :)
The issue isn't with hardware support, though - it's with media support. If you've got no movies to play, there's no point in having that format.
Currently, Blu-Ray has exclusive support from five studios, as opposed to HD-DVD's two. That makes a huge difference in media sales, which will lead to support from more hardware manufacturers, etc.
Insomniac's Brian Hastings had this to say about the space issue: If you ever hear someone say "Blu-Ray isn't needed for this generation," rest assured they don't make games for a living. At Insomniac, we were filling up DVDs on the PS2, as were most of the developers in the industry. We compressed the level data, we compressed the mpeg movies, we compressed the audio, and it was still a struggle to get it to fit in 6 gigs. Now we've got 16 times as much system RAM, so the level data is 16 times bigger. And the average disc space of games only gets bigger over a console's lifespan. As games get bigger, more advanced and more complex, they necessarily take up more space. If developers were filling up DVDs last generation, there are clearly going to be some sacrifices made to fit current generation games in the same amount of space.
Granted, some really great Xbox 360 games have squeezed onto a DVD9. Gears of War is a beautiful game and shows off the highest resolution textures of anything yet released, partly because of the Unreal Engine's ability to stream textures. This means that you can have much higher resolution textures than you could normally fit in your 512 MB of RAM. It also means that you're going to chew up more disc space for each level. With streamed textures, streamed geometry and streamed audio, even with compression, you can quickly approach 1 GB of data per level. That inherently limits you to a maximum of about 7 levels, and that's without multiplayer levels or mpeg cutscenes.
Sometimes people ask us, "If Resistance takes 14 gigabytes, why doesn't it look better than Gears?" Well, for one, Resistance didn't support texture streaming, so we had to make choices about where we spent our high-res textures. Resistance also had 30 single-player chapters, six multiplayer maps, uncompressed audio streaming, and high-definition mpegs. That all added up to a lot of space on the disc. Starting with Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction we are supporting texture streaming, which will make the worlds look even better, and will also consume even more space on disc.
There's no question that you can always cut more levels, compress the audio more, compress the textures more, down-res the mpeg movies, and eventually get any game to fit on a DVD. But you paid for a high-def experience, right? You want the highest resolution, best audio, most cinematic experience a developer can offer, right? That's why Blu-Ray is important for games, and why it will become more important each year of this hardware cycle.
I imagine they'll implement it in the Google toolbar.
If it's 10% of sites, I'd be blown away. 10% of pages, though... I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of pages on the net were created with the sole intent of distributing malware or viruses, let alone sites that do it unintentionally.
Yes, and what you do in the game is directly in response to what you see on the screen. I can see a lot more in high detail at 1080p than I can at 480p. The difference in graphics can make quite an impact on gameplay in certain games.
I don't understand why some people are so adamant about resolution not mattering on consoles. Would you enjoy playing Half-Life 2, Simcity 4, or WoW as much if you were limited to 640x480? Not likely. Why refuse to accept that better graphics add to a far better user experience?
Yeah, because, you know, it didn't cost them millions upon millions of dollars to create the film. The only cost was the cost of the media.
What's wrong with contextual menus? I think they're completely straightforward with "manipulate the object I'm clicking on" functions. Right click on a web page, and you get options relating to the web page. Right click on a graphic, and you get options relating to the graphic. Right click on highlighted text, and you get options relating to that text.
Everything has its place:
Menu bars: Control this application.
Contextual menus: Control this object.
Toolbars: Quick access to commonly used functions (almost always redundant with the other two).
I can't find anything wrong with that at all, as long as you grasp the application/object difference.