Current DVD tech sucks. Lousy encoding, piss-poor resolution, interlaced video... why should we continue to put up with it when better alternatives will soon be available?
Different views doesn't always mean annoyance. I consider myself a moderate conservative (I like fiscal responsibility, dislike sanctity of marriage, and hate the Shrub). I know this one girl who's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, just like her parents.
I'm marrying her, so you could surmise that she doesn't annoy me.
Another example: many of my friends love country music. I hate it with a passion. They're still my friends.
I think I screwed up and used SPE as a reference to the main core on the Cell. Whoops; thanks for catching it. This is why I should not post to/. on Vicodin. I go to point out the in-order mistake, and make one of my own.
You're right, though, the SPEs are not PPC - they've got a different instruction set.
To clarify, the difference between the SPE/Xenon and the PPC970 is that the Xenon is in-order, not out-of-order. Thus, clean code and a good compiler are going to be critical - no OoOE to hide sloppy code.
Still, I'm looking forward to getting mine. I bet the developers will find good uses for all that power, and will learn to bring it out - just not at first.
Unifying the versions was never about The One SKU. It was about maintaining a single codebase, so that effort could be spent improving the latest version of Windows instead of propping up an OS far past its prime.
No argument about having to license the (patented?) schemas.
However, the grandparent specifically said that the format is still obfuscated binary. It's not. The only binary contents are Base64-encoded embedded items such as images.
Hmm? Office 2003's XML is not some massive encoded binary dumped inside a single tag, like some have feared. It's fairly parseable, and the schemas are available from MS.
I have a long-standing reputation as being generally the weirdest person in the room. (Apologies to Neal Stephenson for the blatant lift.) When you guys came to town this weekend, you completely shot that to hell. I don't think I even broke the halfway mark.
The Purdue CS department (as well as the CPT department, if they ever get it set up) has a MSDNAA license. It's fairly cheap, and students get all sorts of software for free from it. At the same time, I know my CPT classes included Linux/Apache administration, Java programming, Oracle database programming, and analysis & design with Rational. That's a good mix of OSS and MS' commercial competitors.
Ah. I'm not a real gamer. Thanks for reminding me. I'll be sure to throw out all that stuff when I get home. After that, I'll sign up for a lobotomy to remove all those memories from my childhood. Thanks for helping me recover from this lie I've been living.
And yes, I'm an American. What, now we're all knuckle-dragging apes who need real gamers like you to tell us what games we should enjoy?
Whose 1 licensed game, oddly enough, was better than the movie. I hope his own studio (Tigon, I think) continues to make games based on his movies - Riddick was a fun game with its own story, rather than a tired rehash of the movie.
I am. Out of all three consoles this gen, I've had the most fun by far with the Xbox. That's what sold me on it.
On top of that, the original Xbox attracted Western developers. Not that Japanese developers aren't talented, but Western developers just make games that appeal to me more - Splinter Cell, for example, was much more enjoyable for me than Metal Gear Solid. Japan isn't the end-all-be-all of game development.
Besides, how would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot - if you were trying to sell something, and the government was trying to restrict how you could sell it? I'd be pretty pissed, unless there was some overwhelming reason why it was in the public's best interest (food and medicine, for example). Requiring console manufacturers to make their hardware open will at best force consumers to pay the full cost of the system up front, and at worst reduce competition in the market as companies decide it's no longer worth it to compete.
As I said before, if you don't like the idea of purchasing a restricted-use machine, don't buy a console - buy a PC. But in exchange for that extra freedom, you lose any subsidies of the manufacturing cost. Personally, I'm willing to make that tradeoff, for something that's just a game machine.
Not ten grand. $3-400. Find me a PC with the same capabilities as the Xbox 360 for $300. I've got a fairly nice PC that cost me $800 or so in parts (not counting monitor, speakers, etc, since those wouldn't be part of a console either) that could keep up with 1st-generation X360 games. Beyond that, it's toast.
Look, both MS and Sony are projected to lose about $100 per console. They're aiming to reach the 10 million console mark as soon as possible. That's 1 billion dollars. How many companies do you know that are willing to throw away a billion dollars subsidizing something that they can't recoup licensing fees from?
If you want an open gaming platform, buy a PC. Just don't expect the manufacturer to pick up part of the tab.
Because the console manufacturers expect to make their money off of licensing fees like these. An open system would have to sell at a price that would recoup costs and provide a profit.
See the 3DO, which was somewhat along these lines. It sold for a ridiculous price.
Is there really an overwhelming majority of gamers who do not like console FPS games?
Also, I thought Gears was a 1st/3rd person mix.
Your comment raises one very good point, however: MS needs to build up their franchises. They've got Forza, which in my opinion beats Gran Turismo by a healthy margin. They've got GTA cross-platform, and they need to do pretty much whatever Rockstar wants in order to keep it that way. Still, they need to make sure that gamers don't just know they can get "as good or better" titles - instead, MS needs to get gamers to want the Xbox franchises instead of the PS ones.
Under such a model, creative professionals would have to add to their risk analysis the serious risk of rampant copying. As a result, when making pricing decisions, they'd have to price the product higher in order to recoup the desired return on their time and money. Assuming that (as you keep repeating) the currently artificially inflated prices will be lowered, the return from creative work is less likely to recoup its cost (including opportunity cost).
Now, there are ways around this dilemma - you can offer software as a service rather than a packaged product (which is how I make my living), you can have an ironclad license agreement that will hold up in court with significant penalties for redistribution, of you can just work for someone who is willing to front the entire cost of development (my fiancee, a graphic artist, makes her money from this one). However, if the law does not provide a level of protection which the owner of a creative work considers sufficient, then I think it's up to the owner to step in with technology such as DRM to reduce the risks of unauthorized duplication. To me, that's a good thing - instead of relying on the law, get solid technology and use it to protect your own interests. Consumers have the freedom to choose whether your system is too draconian to accept, or whether they're willing to deal with the restrictions in order to gain access to what you're offering.
Slashdot Mirror
Did Congress actually say that e-commerce sales taxes were illegal? I know they put a moratorium on it, but that isn't permanent.
From TFA:
"I'll arrive in my Ford Bronto "
Freudian slip, or intentional humor?
Current DVD tech sucks. Lousy encoding, piss-poor resolution, interlaced video... why should we continue to put up with it when better alternatives will soon be available?
Different views doesn't always mean annoyance. I consider myself a moderate conservative (I like fiscal responsibility, dislike sanctity of marriage, and hate the Shrub). I know this one girl who's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, just like her parents.
I'm marrying her, so you could surmise that she doesn't annoy me.
Another example: many of my friends love country music. I hate it with a passion. They're still my friends.
As OSS gets more popular, expect the number of people not smart enough to not run as root to increase.
You can have the best technology in the world, but people are inherently insecure.
I think I screwed up and used SPE as a reference to the main core on the Cell. Whoops; thanks for catching it. This is why I should not post to /. on Vicodin. I go to point out the in-order mistake, and make one of my own.
You're right, though, the SPEs are not PPC - they've got a different instruction set.
Such as?
To clarify, the difference between the SPE/Xenon and the PPC970 is that the Xenon is in-order, not out-of-order. Thus, clean code and a good compiler are going to be critical - no OoOE to hide sloppy code.
Still, I'm looking forward to getting mine. I bet the developers will find good uses for all that power, and will learn to bring it out - just not at first.
Unifying the versions was never about The One SKU. It was about maintaining a single codebase, so that effort could be spent improving the latest version of Windows instead of propping up an OS far past its prime.
Politeness in the face of "opportunities" such as this is, in my opinion, a significant part of professionalism.
How does Ballmer's unprofessional conduct in any way excuse Raymond's?
No argument about having to license the (patented?) schemas.
However, the grandparent specifically said that the format is still obfuscated binary. It's not. The only binary contents are Base64-encoded embedded items such as images.
Hmm? Office 2003's XML is not some massive encoded binary dumped inside a single tag, like some have feared. It's fairly parseable, and the schemas are available from MS.
I have a long-standing reputation as being generally the weirdest person in the room. (Apologies to Neal Stephenson for the blatant lift.) When you guys came to town this weekend, you completely shot that to hell. I don't think I even broke the halfway mark.
The Purdue CS department (as well as the CPT department, if they ever get it set up) has a MSDNAA license. It's fairly cheap, and students get all sorts of software for free from it. At the same time, I know my CPT classes included Linux/Apache administration, Java programming, Oracle database programming, and analysis & design with Rational. That's a good mix of OSS and MS' commercial competitors.
Played it (the Dreamcast one, not the Xbox sequel). It wasn't bad, but it certainly wasn't the best game I played that year. You were saying?
I always love how people talk trash on the Internet. Everyone's a tough guy when they're behind a keyboard.
Ah. I'm not a real gamer. Thanks for reminding me. I'll be sure to throw out all that stuff when I get home. After that, I'll sign up for a lobotomy to remove all those memories from my childhood. Thanks for helping me recover from this lie I've been living.
And yes, I'm an American. What, now we're all knuckle-dragging apes who need real gamers like you to tell us what games we should enjoy?
Whose 1 licensed game, oddly enough, was better than the movie. I hope his own studio (Tigon, I think) continues to make games based on his movies - Riddick was a fun game with its own story, rather than a tired rehash of the movie.
I am. Out of all three consoles this gen, I've had the most fun by far with the Xbox. That's what sold me on it.
On top of that, the original Xbox attracted Western developers. Not that Japanese developers aren't talented, but Western developers just make games that appeal to me more - Splinter Cell, for example, was much more enjoyable for me than Metal Gear Solid. Japan isn't the end-all-be-all of game development.
If that were the case, they'd flood P2P with their own music. They're not.
The deal was, you bought it how you saw it.
Besides, how would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot - if you were trying to sell something, and the government was trying to restrict how you could sell it? I'd be pretty pissed, unless there was some overwhelming reason why it was in the public's best interest (food and medicine, for example). Requiring console manufacturers to make their hardware open will at best force consumers to pay the full cost of the system up front, and at worst reduce competition in the market as companies decide it's no longer worth it to compete.
As I said before, if you don't like the idea of purchasing a restricted-use machine, don't buy a console - buy a PC. But in exchange for that extra freedom, you lose any subsidies of the manufacturing cost. Personally, I'm willing to make that tradeoff, for something that's just a game machine.
Not ten grand. $3-400. Find me a PC with the same capabilities as the Xbox 360 for $300. I've got a fairly nice PC that cost me $800 or so in parts (not counting monitor, speakers, etc, since those wouldn't be part of a console either) that could keep up with 1st-generation X360 games. Beyond that, it's toast.
Look, both MS and Sony are projected to lose about $100 per console. They're aiming to reach the 10 million console mark as soon as possible. That's 1 billion dollars. How many companies do you know that are willing to throw away a billion dollars subsidizing something that they can't recoup licensing fees from?
If you want an open gaming platform, buy a PC. Just don't expect the manufacturer to pick up part of the tab.
Because the console manufacturers expect to make their money off of licensing fees like these. An open system would have to sell at a price that would recoup costs and provide a profit.
See the 3DO, which was somewhat along these lines. It sold for a ridiculous price.
Is there really an overwhelming majority of gamers who do not like console FPS games?
Also, I thought Gears was a 1st/3rd person mix.
Your comment raises one very good point, however: MS needs to build up their franchises. They've got Forza, which in my opinion beats Gran Turismo by a healthy margin. They've got GTA cross-platform, and they need to do pretty much whatever Rockstar wants in order to keep it that way. Still, they need to make sure that gamers don't just know they can get "as good or better" titles - instead, MS needs to get gamers to want the Xbox franchises instead of the PS ones.
Under such a model, creative professionals would have to add to their risk analysis the serious risk of rampant copying. As a result, when making pricing decisions, they'd have to price the product higher in order to recoup the desired return on their time and money. Assuming that (as you keep repeating) the currently artificially inflated prices will be lowered, the return from creative work is less likely to recoup its cost (including opportunity cost).
Now, there are ways around this dilemma - you can offer software as a service rather than a packaged product (which is how I make my living), you can have an ironclad license agreement that will hold up in court with significant penalties for redistribution, of you can just work for someone who is willing to front the entire cost of development (my fiancee, a graphic artist, makes her money from this one). However, if the law does not provide a level of protection which the owner of a creative work considers sufficient, then I think it's up to the owner to step in with technology such as DRM to reduce the risks of unauthorized duplication. To me, that's a good thing - instead of relying on the law, get solid technology and use it to protect your own interests. Consumers have the freedom to choose whether your system is too draconian to accept, or whether they're willing to deal with the restrictions in order to gain access to what you're offering.