This can be EASILY done. There are many devices (DVD players, camcorders, etc) that have this functionality. While I agree that it would be stupid to put fill RCA jacks on the console, all they would have to do is either a small 1/8" jack (like a standard headphone jack, only with 4 poles instead of 3) or something proprietary. One little headphone jack would add next to no cost, take up next to no space, and provide a great feature. Playing a game on a handheld is fun, but wouldn't it be great to hook it up to a TV in a hotel room or at a relatives house or just at home so you don't have to look at that little screen when you have an option?
I think it's a good idea. I'd like to see it done. I DON'T like the idea of forcing me to buy a $60 adaptor (or since it's just a gameboy without the screen, for the PSP it would end up $250 or so) to make me do this. Is the PSP is really a "PS2 handheld" it should be a piece of cake. The GB on the other hand was never designed for driving a TV.
I agree, it will never happen. Between the expense, the musicians who say that their work shouldn't be tampered with, and the problems of getting a new format out there, it will probably never happen, as cool as it is.
That said, I was only proposing it becasue it's something I would like as opposed to quadraphonic CDs (which for me add nothing). They need to come up with something most people would want. You wouldn't sell more cars by giving away a free toothbrush with each one. That's about how important quadraphonic CDs are to me.
I realise it would take way more space, but the industry is trying to find reasons to push us to SACD and DVD audio, this would give consumers a REASON. As it is now, about the only way they'll get most people is to stop making CDs to force consumers.
And while an iPod may not be able to mix things together right now, by the time the industry got around to doing what I suggested (even if they started yesterday) iPods and other portables would be more than powerful enough to do it.
Yeah. You'd only be able to do it with new music that was recorded after this started, because obviously you couldn't just pop a Beatles CD in and have it have all the tracks automatically.
Yes, you'd totally have to change the way recording sessions were done, but I'd like to see it. I'd still prefer it to having two surround channels on CDs.
PS: If anyone from Sony is reading, PLEASE release another sequel in the Frequency/Amplitude series, and how 'bout releasing soundtracks for them?
I really don't care about multi-channel. I spend 95% of my time listening to music listening to my iPod (only two channels, only two ears). The rest of the time I'm listening in the car (which is noisy, and multi-channel music won't do me much good). I don't care about multi-channel music. The only thing I see it as any good for would be the BGM in computer games or something like that. I don't want it.
That said, I would LOVE multi-track audio files. I would love to be able to press a button to disable the vocal track, or turn down the volume on the guitar track, or turn up the base track, or whatever. Basically like the tracks you see in Frequency or Amplitude on the PS2. There are many times I would love to be able to turn off the vocals, or turn UP the vocals to hear them over the rest of the music.
I would love this for TV too. I would love to be able to turn up the dialog track, or turn down the sound effects. Or my idea: turn OFF THE DAMN LAUGH TRACK.
THIS is the feature I want. Give music like this and files to store it in, and I'll be happier. Don't give me something I can't use. If you want me to swallow DRM (even LIGHT DRM) give me something that I want in exchange, not something useless.
I have to say that I love X-Play. I've been watching TechTV since it was a year or so old (back then, ZDTV). I remember watching Gamespot TV (or whatever it was called).
At first I wasn't in love with X-Play. But as the times has gone on I've come to really like it. A lot of the jokes are good (some lame) but they do know videogames. X-Play is my number one source of video game reviews (I still read magazines, but my TiVo picks up every episode).
Their reviews are a few minutes long, and usually more indepth than many magazine reviews. The fact that the whole thing is VIDEO and not screenshots is great, because you can see how great a game really looks as opposed to just a few stills. You get a much better "feel" for the game. I really enjoy the show and the reviews and segments that they do. I really hope they survive the TechTV/G4 merger that may happen.
PS: As for "Game Over", it wasn't bad, but only the first episode had any real videogame references in it (like Crash Bandicoot, Abe from Oddworld, etc). If they had kept those up well, they'd have done better.
PPS: As to G4 TV, I don't get the channel so I can't comment.
Current distro don't do it, but the article seems to imply that they should. The way most distros do it today is fine with me. The software tells the user it's GPL in the about box, and maybe as a small bit of text on the splash screen when the user opens the program, but otherwise that's it. Some people on slashdot seem to want to go as far as telling the user almost constantly (like maybe the default message in the status bar when there is nothing else, "This is GPLed software").
I agree Aunt Tillie won't care about a small unobtrusive mention, and I think that mention should be there. But every time someone opens a program, they shouldn't get a "nagware" box that they have to click "OK" to telling them it's GPL software and it's free and such (as some people seem to want to construe the GPL to say).
In short, I agree with you. That was hyperboly, to a large degree.
I know. That's one reason Windows is so successful. When people go to buy a computer and don't know anything they may well ask for one that runs Windows.
But Windows is an established brand. To the vast majority of people, Linux means NOTHING. It's a powerful for branding right now as saying that Cambell's soup is cooked with "water" as an ingrediant so you should buy it over Progresso. It's meaningless. When Linux is much MUCH more mainstream, then branding will be more important.
It's like I said in my final paragraph. Geeks will already know it's Linux and Aunt Tillie couldn't care less. The few in the middle will find it out easily. There's no need to plaster the box and every application and screen with "Uses Linux", "Made with Linux", and such.
Besides, "Java Desktop System" is its own thing. If you have "Sun Linux" then people will see it as just another Linux distro. You're an "also ran" and going to have a HARD time getting to the head of the pack. And people who have looked as some other Linux (say RedHat) and didn't like it or didn't think it would work will write you off right there. Calling it the "Java Desktop System" does two things. First it has the word "Java" in it so it reminds people of an established standard and not something fly-by-night (there is that branding thing again). The other thing it does is differentiate you from all the other Linux offering. People who are avoiding "Linux" could still look at you, and people who are looking for "Linux" will know that JDS is Linux (and if not you can point it out to them).
Sorry, I don't see your point. You can't take advantage of branding with a brand next to no-one has heard of.
I must admit that I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. I can easily see the reasoning behind the poster's attitude because the work of many MANY people has gone into making their "OS" (really a distro) possible. I'm leaning more towards what's below.
But let me play devil's advocate.
I know a lot about computers, but over the years I have learned TONS by watching my parrents, neighbors, and sister (all MAJOR computer n00bs) interact with the things.
"I don't care if I can see the source, how can I get to Google?" That's the kind of thing that I'd hear from my parents (especially my dad). Bombarding people with information about how it's all free and it's LINUX and you can do all sorts of stuff like giving parts away that you can't with MS software and it's LINUX and blah blah blah and it's LINUX will get you nowhere. You'll just annoy the hell out of "Aunt Tillie" (to borrow a person). They want it to WORK. They don't want to be told it runs Linux constantly. They don't want to know the source is available. They could care less they could copy the bianary for the Gimp off their PC and give it to a friend because it's F/OSS.
Now, I can understand having the computer tell the user it's Linux. Maybe once (at install, or the first time a user uses their account) is fine. If the user is a power user, they will find that fact out and all the things they can do with it fast through looking on the internet, digging through help files, and poking around the file system. Letting them know that it's Linux when they go off the beaten path is fine. Let them know they have rights and such if you wish.
But please, DON'T BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. I can tell you from expiriance the the VAST majority of users won't care. They just want their computer to work. They don't need to know all that stuff. Aunt Tillie doesn't want to know, my parents don't want to know. My neighbors don't want to know, and my little sister could care less (for now, she's getting better). The other side of the Linux desktop that we'll see soon (and are seeing now) is Corporate Linux Desktops.
And you know what? As a boss (assuming I'm one, I'm not), I could CARE LESS if my employees know they're running Linux. I don't care if they know it's all GPL. I want them to DO THEIR JOBS. If they ask "Can I take a copy of this home with me?" of the IT department, THEY can tell the user that stuff (and those questions do get asked in schools and businesses). The IT department will know it's Linux and all the benefits it holds.
In short: The techies will know, don't worry about them. The Aunt Tillies won't care, don't worry about them. The people in the middle should know, but just a notice here or there; don't assult them. For what I understand Sun to be aiming at (Corp. desktops and maybe low cost computers for the Aunt Tillies of the world) I think they're doing fine.
We'll get there, but we're not there now. We're still at a point where more power can mean deformable objects (when someone/something gets shot, it actually gets damage instead of just a dark spot on it), more objects (who needs a cheesy grass texture when you can simulate the individual BLADES), or dynamic textures (drive your Jeep through mud and it gets muddy. But the mud is different each time, like in real life) etc. This will all be great for cinematics and such.
The other great thing about more CPU is the NON-GRAPHICS stuff you can do. You can dynamically generate large and complex landscapes, skys, etc. using fractals or other methods. You can have more enemies on screen (think a swarm of hundreds of bees, where each bee has it's own AI, they are not just a clump), or smarter enemies (like in a game like MGS the enemies would only spot you if they would be able to in real life, not just a "guess" at what they could see). You can do per-polygon hit-detection (perfectly accurate shots, no more near misses as hits or vice versa). You can do more advanced AI to better simulate people or animals or whatever. True dynamic 3D sound positioning or use text-to-speech software to give each character an individual and unique voice.
All of that is ignoring how you could use the better CPU power for voice commands or video (ala the eyeToy but better). For games, you can never* have too much CPU, becasue if it's there people will always find new and better ways of using it to make a game better.
*) Sure, Tetris can't really benefit from more CPU (maybe in 2 player), but for most all games more CPU can improve things in some ways.
The difference is MS could afford to launch the console at some special price (say $200, or $300 but that includes one game) for only 6 months. That would get them tons of sales (WAY ahead of current consoles, and cheaper than the PS3 should be) which could get them off to the head start they need. This combined with a few killer games at launch (with only Halo, MS struggled with the X-Box) and they could get a MAJOR foothold in the market and force Sony to fight them all the way. Microsoft can afford to take a large hit upfront for profit later, while Sega had to try to stay proffitable (or as close as possible) the whole time.
When entering a new market MS can learn VERY fast. Don't underestimate them with this next launch, this could be where they try to move from trailing Sony and Nintendo to moving into the left lane and FLOORING IT to win.
Really. Cool. That may have been true, but with computers where they are today it would be much more dooable than it was back when the dig was released (1995, just two years after Jurassic Park and the year of Toy Story). While writing my post about the Lucas Arts games above, I was thinking about how many of them would probably require a large amount of CG (for example, Grim Fandango would practically HAVE to be all CG just because all the characters are skeletons and such).
Yeah, that's definatly true. But even when just walking around the world, you get a great sense of how things are and what's going on. If you just cut out all the walking around and random battles the story would feel like it was missing parts.
But I agree with your second point, it's because it's YOU doing the things that the story is so much more powerful. That's why you'd NEED a powerful game (like a FF game) to make a movie that still had power left. If you were to take a mediocre game, you'd end up with nothing.
Yeah, which is why it won't happen. Too bad. The only other option would be to do it like LOTR, in a trilogy where everyone KNOWS it's a trilogy up front. I just don't think you can make a decent film on most videogame properties in just 2 hours, because most games that have any real story take much longer.
The problem with many games is they are too long, and would be much better suited to a miniseries format. That said, I agree. Let's look at some Lucas Arts games:
Monkey Island series - A comedy about an inept pirate and his odd adventures. This could be great!
Day of the Tenticle - Science fiction about genetics gone... weird. Includes bonuses like time travel, chaning the timeline, weird interpretations about historical characters (Betsy Ross, IIRC is in the game), and the time machines are PORT-A-POTTYs. It has "hit" written all over it!
The Dig - Dark sci-fi movie about people stranded on an asteroid or another planet (can't quite remember, it's been quite a while).
Sam and Max hit the road - A hilarious buddy picture with P.I. elements. You get freeks (big foot and a giraffe neck girl), a psycho hunter/animal collector, a mole man, everything! The demo for Sam and Max said "If you play only one (something) this year, make it Sam & Max Hit the Road". A great movie!
Grim Fandango - Decipt and corruption in the land of the dead. Beautiful surroundings, a great story with romance, dead stuff, mystery, and a giant orange guy who fixes cars, all as Manny Calivera searches for his love who was cheated out of her easy trip to the afterlife.
Out of all the game companies, I think Lucas Arts is sitting on a goldmine of good concepts for movies or miniseries.
Too bad the movies that DO get made are usually things like Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto (wouldn't be suprised), or abysmal adaptations that never should have been concieved (Mario Brothers).
I agree. I liked FF:The Spirits Within, but it wasn't as good as a FF game. The problem is the timespan. It can easily take 20 hours to play through a FF game, which is one of the things that makes it so deep. So even if the movie was 3 hours long, you really couldn't do the stories justice.
For Final Fantasy (and many other games) I think Hollywood shouldn't be looking at movies as much as miniseries. That would allow them to spend enough time to do a good job. There are lots of great properties too. FF 7, 9, and 10 were all fantastic.
DirecTV won't allow HMO for some reason (there is a petition out there somewhere). NO DirecTiVo has HMO. It's not TiVo's fault, DirecTV is the one you've got a beef with. DirecTV is in total controll about what version of software it runs (verison 3.1.x probably) and many other things.
As for "adding any new features or functionality", like what? I've got a second generation DirecTiVo (Phillips DSR-7000) and other than HMO, I can't think of anything that I'd like it to have. The only thing that I wish it had was more memory and a faster processor, which I assume that the new box has.
They added HDTV and you can still record two programs at once (even two HDTV programs at once). What big stuff could you want other than that?
As for the $900, for that you get a TiVo that can hold 200 hours of SD ($99 dollar TiVo plus about $250 for upgrade from 9thTee), a HDTV reciever DirecTV reciever ($300 for a Samsung from BestBuy). That's $650. But you can record TWO things at once, so throw in a second HDTV reciever to make things fair (another $300) and now we're up to $1050. Of course all this stuff is in one nice little box so you don't need nearly as many cables. The box could be considered a $150 SAVINGS over the equivelent other equiptment only it's all in one and does things that the above stuff can't (like TiVo HDTV content).
While understandable, this is really unfortunate. Coke and Pepsi are really the same thing (they taste a little different, but there nothing important different); but a TiVo and another brand of DVR are NOT.
It's like comparing a iPod to a generic MP3 player. They may serve the same function, but one has an excelent design, an exquisite and polished user interface, and more. The other... just does what it does. It's the difference between buying a BMW and a WWII Jeep. They both drive you places, but which one is more user friendly, more comforatble, etc.
This is going to be TiVos big problem going forward. I don't think they will have any problems retaining users, it's getting them in the first place that will be the challenge. Calling something a Kleenex, a Band-Aid, or a Coke doesn't do a disservice because they are very close. TiVo's problem is equivelent to calling all cars Porches. There IS a fundamental difference and TiVo needs to make people know that.
All that said, I wouldn't be TOO suprised if TiVo were to die off in it's current form eventually, and become a software company. To go from making any TiVos to simply selling their software to others to use in their DVR. Most people don't care if the box is made by "TiVo" or "Sony" or whatever, but I would bet that most people would prefer the TiVo software to some generic DVR software. I wouldn't be suprised if this is where TiVo ended up, and it wouldn't be a bad thing.
I hope the issue of calling all DVRs "TiVos" gets sorted out. I don't mind people saying "it's sorta LIKE a TiVo", but to say it IS a TiVo cheapens TiVos. If people go to someone else's house and see their new "TiVo" made by Comcrud (or whoever) and think it has problems (too slow, hard to use, whatever) it could easily turn them off of the idea of a TiVo. But if they KNEW it wasn't a TiVo, then when they saw it was bad they might not think they are all bad, just that model.
Here's to hoping the term DVR becomes very common soon, so that TiVo isn't unfairly "cheepened".
Yep! My 802.11g PCMCIA card from Linksys works now too. I don't think that it worked before, but it works now. I've got to run this on my little sister's PC. Her card wasn't supported before, but because of her PC's location she can 4 networks that Windows XP thinks it can associate with, I wonder how many others it can see.
Yes the computer lock up problems are gone, but it's the spyware and viruses that they should focus on.
There is a local radio show that has computer guy on every once in a while (once a month maybe?). Every time they get a caller along the lines of "I listen to you guys but you say so many scary thing about viruses and spyware and such why would I want to bring a computer into my house?". THESE are the kind of people that Apple should be going after. They aren't computer users, so you don't have to get them to "switch" from Windows. They are a part of the market with NO computers so if you can get them interested, they'll buy because of "the wonders of the internet" and such that they don't currently expiriance. Show how Macs are easy to use, and IMMUNE FROM VIRUSES AND SPYWARE. How they include all the software most people would need.
Not only will those people buy a Mac, but people who are fed up with Windows BECAUSE OF the viruses/spyware/etc will buy. My Dad doesn't know much about computers, but he HATES Microsoft because of all the crap he goes through using a computer. Crashes, programs trying to install themselves, endless annoyances. If he was going to buy a new computer, I could talk him into a Mac in a heartbeat. He only uses Windows because he "has to." (Linux would be too much of a hassle at this point). We got my little sister a comptuer for Christmas, and if wasn't for the fact that she wanted it for games, we would have bought her a Mac. Most of the games she plays are available for the Mac (the Sims, mostly) but we would have to re-purchase them which would cost too much.
If you want to get work done. Buy a Macintosh. No viruses, no spyware, no crap, just a computer that work. THAT is what Apple needs to advertise. I don't understand why Apple isn't out there advertising their computers (even just "Hey we're Apple, we make computers, check us out!"). Word of mouth is nice, but they need ads.
I was thinking about that last night. Remember the commercials that Apple used to run? There would be a guy in an office doing a presentation or something and things would go wrong. People in the audience would start shouting out "Press ctrl-alt-delete" or "c:\(blah)" and on an on. The one guy would stand up and say "Get a Macintosh!".
Those commercials would be so great right now. Have ones of people getting viruses, or spyware problems, or just the usual PC headaches too. Apple's got a great platform, they need to ADVERTISE it.
Just for reference, I saw an article today (can't remember where, probably the Register or Inquirer) that said that iPod sales are up 909% since this time last year.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a good idea. I'd like to see it done. I DON'T like the idea of forcing me to buy a $60 adaptor (or since it's just a gameboy without the screen, for the PSP it would end up $250 or so) to make me do this. Is the PSP is really a "PS2 handheld" it should be a piece of cake. The GB on the other hand was never designed for driving a TV.
:)
fizzlebop... OK
coodleschmidt... OK
sneedalbiz... OK
testripithia... OK
crumblehip... OK
skazeltank... OK
OK, all my passwords are safe. No one will ever guess 'em.
.
.
Crud!
That said, I was only proposing it becasue it's something I would like as opposed to quadraphonic CDs (which for me add nothing). They need to come up with something most people would want. You wouldn't sell more cars by giving away a free toothbrush with each one. That's about how important quadraphonic CDs are to me.
"Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that unless we have encryption on the lastest Christina Agulara singles, the terrorists will EAT US ALIVE."
Come on, get serious.
And while an iPod may not be able to mix things together right now, by the time the industry got around to doing what I suggested (even if they started yesterday) iPods and other portables would be more than powerful enough to do it.
Yes, you'd totally have to change the way recording sessions were done, but I'd like to see it. I'd still prefer it to having two surround channels on CDs.
PS: If anyone from Sony is reading, PLEASE release another sequel in the Frequency/Amplitude series, and how 'bout releasing soundtracks for them?
That said, I would LOVE multi-track audio files. I would love to be able to press a button to disable the vocal track, or turn down the volume on the guitar track, or turn up the base track, or whatever. Basically like the tracks you see in Frequency or Amplitude on the PS2. There are many times I would love to be able to turn off the vocals, or turn UP the vocals to hear them over the rest of the music.
I would love this for TV too. I would love to be able to turn up the dialog track, or turn down the sound effects. Or my idea: turn OFF THE DAMN LAUGH TRACK.
THIS is the feature I want. Give music like this and files to store it in, and I'll be happier. Don't give me something I can't use. If you want me to swallow DRM (even LIGHT DRM) give me something that I want in exchange, not something useless.
At first I wasn't in love with X-Play. But as the times has gone on I've come to really like it. A lot of the jokes are good (some lame) but they do know videogames. X-Play is my number one source of video game reviews (I still read magazines, but my TiVo picks up every episode).
Their reviews are a few minutes long, and usually more indepth than many magazine reviews. The fact that the whole thing is VIDEO and not screenshots is great, because you can see how great a game really looks as opposed to just a few stills. You get a much better "feel" for the game. I really enjoy the show and the reviews and segments that they do. I really hope they survive the TechTV/G4 merger that may happen.
PS: As for "Game Over", it wasn't bad, but only the first episode had any real videogame references in it (like Crash Bandicoot, Abe from Oddworld, etc). If they had kept those up well, they'd have done better.
PPS: As to G4 TV, I don't get the channel so I can't comment.
I agree Aunt Tillie won't care about a small unobtrusive mention, and I think that mention should be there. But every time someone opens a program, they shouldn't get a "nagware" box that they have to click "OK" to telling them it's GPL software and it's free and such (as some people seem to want to construe the GPL to say).
In short, I agree with you. That was hyperboly, to a large degree.
But Windows is an established brand. To the vast majority of people, Linux means NOTHING. It's a powerful for branding right now as saying that Cambell's soup is cooked with "water" as an ingrediant so you should buy it over Progresso. It's meaningless. When Linux is much MUCH more mainstream, then branding will be more important.
It's like I said in my final paragraph. Geeks will already know it's Linux and Aunt Tillie couldn't care less. The few in the middle will find it out easily. There's no need to plaster the box and every application and screen with "Uses Linux", "Made with Linux", and such.
Besides, "Java Desktop System" is its own thing. If you have "Sun Linux" then people will see it as just another Linux distro. You're an "also ran" and going to have a HARD time getting to the head of the pack. And people who have looked as some other Linux (say RedHat) and didn't like it or didn't think it would work will write you off right there. Calling it the "Java Desktop System" does two things. First it has the word "Java" in it so it reminds people of an established standard and not something fly-by-night (there is that branding thing again). The other thing it does is differentiate you from all the other Linux offering. People who are avoiding "Linux" could still look at you, and people who are looking for "Linux" will know that JDS is Linux (and if not you can point it out to them).
Sorry, I don't see your point. You can't take advantage of branding with a brand next to no-one has heard of.
But let me play devil's advocate.
I know a lot about computers, but over the years I have learned TONS by watching my parrents, neighbors, and sister (all MAJOR computer n00bs) interact with the things.
"I don't care if I can see the source, how can I get to Google?" That's the kind of thing that I'd hear from my parents (especially my dad). Bombarding people with information about how it's all free and it's LINUX and you can do all sorts of stuff like giving parts away that you can't with MS software and it's LINUX and blah blah blah and it's LINUX will get you nowhere. You'll just annoy the hell out of "Aunt Tillie" (to borrow a person). They want it to WORK. They don't want to be told it runs Linux constantly. They don't want to know the source is available. They could care less they could copy the bianary for the Gimp off their PC and give it to a friend because it's F/OSS.
Now, I can understand having the computer tell the user it's Linux. Maybe once (at install, or the first time a user uses their account) is fine. If the user is a power user, they will find that fact out and all the things they can do with it fast through looking on the internet, digging through help files, and poking around the file system. Letting them know that it's Linux when they go off the beaten path is fine. Let them know they have rights and such if you wish.
But please, DON'T BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. I can tell you from expiriance the the VAST majority of users won't care. They just want their computer to work. They don't need to know all that stuff. Aunt Tillie doesn't want to know, my parents don't want to know. My neighbors don't want to know, and my little sister could care less (for now, she's getting better). The other side of the Linux desktop that we'll see soon (and are seeing now) is Corporate Linux Desktops.
And you know what? As a boss (assuming I'm one, I'm not), I could CARE LESS if my employees know they're running Linux. I don't care if they know it's all GPL. I want them to DO THEIR JOBS. If they ask "Can I take a copy of this home with me?" of the IT department, THEY can tell the user that stuff (and those questions do get asked in schools and businesses). The IT department will know it's Linux and all the benefits it holds.
In short: The techies will know, don't worry about them. The Aunt Tillies won't care, don't worry about them. The people in the middle should know, but just a notice here or there; don't assult them. For what I understand Sun to be aiming at (Corp. desktops and maybe low cost computers for the Aunt Tillies of the world) I think they're doing fine.
The other great thing about more CPU is the NON-GRAPHICS stuff you can do. You can dynamically generate large and complex landscapes, skys, etc. using fractals or other methods. You can have more enemies on screen (think a swarm of hundreds of bees, where each bee has it's own AI, they are not just a clump), or smarter enemies (like in a game like MGS the enemies would only spot you if they would be able to in real life, not just a "guess" at what they could see). You can do per-polygon hit-detection (perfectly accurate shots, no more near misses as hits or vice versa). You can do more advanced AI to better simulate people or animals or whatever. True dynamic 3D sound positioning or use text-to-speech software to give each character an individual and unique voice.
All of that is ignoring how you could use the better CPU power for voice commands or video (ala the eyeToy but better). For games, you can never* have too much CPU, becasue if it's there people will always find new and better ways of using it to make a game better.
*) Sure, Tetris can't really benefit from more CPU (maybe in 2 player), but for most all games more CPU can improve things in some ways.
When entering a new market MS can learn VERY fast. Don't underestimate them with this next launch, this could be where they try to move from trailing Sony and Nintendo to moving into the left lane and FLOORING IT to win.
Really. Cool. That may have been true, but with computers where they are today it would be much more dooable than it was back when the dig was released (1995, just two years after Jurassic Park and the year of Toy Story). While writing my post about the Lucas Arts games above, I was thinking about how many of them would probably require a large amount of CG (for example, Grim Fandango would practically HAVE to be all CG just because all the characters are skeletons and such).
But I agree with your second point, it's because it's YOU doing the things that the story is so much more powerful. That's why you'd NEED a powerful game (like a FF game) to make a movie that still had power left. If you were to take a mediocre game, you'd end up with nothing.
Yeah, which is why it won't happen. Too bad. The only other option would be to do it like LOTR, in a trilogy where everyone KNOWS it's a trilogy up front. I just don't think you can make a decent film on most videogame properties in just 2 hours, because most games that have any real story take much longer.
Out of all the game companies, I think Lucas Arts is sitting on a goldmine of good concepts for movies or miniseries.
Too bad the movies that DO get made are usually things like Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto (wouldn't be suprised), or abysmal adaptations that never should have been concieved (Mario Brothers).
For Final Fantasy (and many other games) I think Hollywood shouldn't be looking at movies as much as miniseries. That would allow them to spend enough time to do a good job. There are lots of great properties too. FF 7, 9, and 10 were all fantastic.
DirecTV won't allow HMO for some reason (there is a petition out there somewhere). NO DirecTiVo has HMO. It's not TiVo's fault, DirecTV is the one you've got a beef with. DirecTV is in total controll about what version of software it runs (verison 3.1.x probably) and many other things.
As for "adding any new features or functionality", like what? I've got a second generation DirecTiVo (Phillips DSR-7000) and other than HMO, I can't think of anything that I'd like it to have. The only thing that I wish it had was more memory and a faster processor, which I assume that the new box has.
They added HDTV and you can still record two programs at once (even two HDTV programs at once). What big stuff could you want other than that?
As for the $900, for that you get a TiVo that can hold 200 hours of SD ($99 dollar TiVo plus about $250 for upgrade from 9thTee), a HDTV reciever DirecTV reciever ($300 for a Samsung from BestBuy). That's $650. But you can record TWO things at once, so throw in a second HDTV reciever to make things fair (another $300) and now we're up to $1050. Of course all this stuff is in one nice little box so you don't need nearly as many cables. The box could be considered a $150 SAVINGS over the equivelent other equiptment only it's all in one and does things that the above stuff can't (like TiVo HDTV content).
It's like comparing a iPod to a generic MP3 player. They may serve the same function, but one has an excelent design, an exquisite and polished user interface, and more. The other... just does what it does. It's the difference between buying a BMW and a WWII Jeep. They both drive you places, but which one is more user friendly, more comforatble, etc.
This is going to be TiVos big problem going forward. I don't think they will have any problems retaining users, it's getting them in the first place that will be the challenge. Calling something a Kleenex, a Band-Aid, or a Coke doesn't do a disservice because they are very close. TiVo's problem is equivelent to calling all cars Porches. There IS a fundamental difference and TiVo needs to make people know that.
All that said, I wouldn't be TOO suprised if TiVo were to die off in it's current form eventually, and become a software company. To go from making any TiVos to simply selling their software to others to use in their DVR. Most people don't care if the box is made by "TiVo" or "Sony" or whatever, but I would bet that most people would prefer the TiVo software to some generic DVR software. I wouldn't be suprised if this is where TiVo ended up, and it wouldn't be a bad thing.
I hope the issue of calling all DVRs "TiVos" gets sorted out. I don't mind people saying "it's sorta LIKE a TiVo", but to say it IS a TiVo cheapens TiVos. If people go to someone else's house and see their new "TiVo" made by Comcrud (or whoever) and think it has problems (too slow, hard to use, whatever) it could easily turn them off of the idea of a TiVo. But if they KNEW it wasn't a TiVo, then when they saw it was bad they might not think they are all bad, just that model.
Here's to hoping the term DVR becomes very common soon, so that TiVo isn't unfairly "cheepened".
Yep! My 802.11g PCMCIA card from Linksys works now too. I don't think that it worked before, but it works now. I've got to run this on my little sister's PC. Her card wasn't supported before, but because of her PC's location she can 4 networks that Windows XP thinks it can associate with, I wonder how many others it can see.
There is a local radio show that has computer guy on every once in a while (once a month maybe?). Every time they get a caller along the lines of "I listen to you guys but you say so many scary thing about viruses and spyware and such why would I want to bring a computer into my house?". THESE are the kind of people that Apple should be going after. They aren't computer users, so you don't have to get them to "switch" from Windows. They are a part of the market with NO computers so if you can get them interested, they'll buy because of "the wonders of the internet" and such that they don't currently expiriance. Show how Macs are easy to use, and IMMUNE FROM VIRUSES AND SPYWARE. How they include all the software most people would need.
Not only will those people buy a Mac, but people who are fed up with Windows BECAUSE OF the viruses/spyware/etc will buy. My Dad doesn't know much about computers, but he HATES Microsoft because of all the crap he goes through using a computer. Crashes, programs trying to install themselves, endless annoyances. If he was going to buy a new computer, I could talk him into a Mac in a heartbeat. He only uses Windows because he "has to." (Linux would be too much of a hassle at this point). We got my little sister a comptuer for Christmas, and if wasn't for the fact that she wanted it for games, we would have bought her a Mac. Most of the games she plays are available for the Mac (the Sims, mostly) but we would have to re-purchase them which would cost too much.
If you want to get work done. Buy a Macintosh. No viruses, no spyware, no crap, just a computer that work. THAT is what Apple needs to advertise. I don't understand why Apple isn't out there advertising their computers (even just "Hey we're Apple, we make computers, check us out!"). Word of mouth is nice, but they need ads.
Those commercials would be so great right now. Have ones of people getting viruses, or spyware problems, or just the usual PC headaches too. Apple's got a great platform, they need to ADVERTISE it.
They obviously know what they are doing.