All it has to do is keep all the annoying uses in Flash. Then we can just choose to not install it, and still get the stuff we want in HTML 5 capability.
Why would they? If consoles do cost as much to make as they have been, and profits aren't that high, I can't see Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony trying to jump the gun. There wouldn't be any point. If they're able to stabilize their console hardware and manage get a good stream of profits out of the machine, that's better for everyone involved.
This is why I recently bought a PS2 for $100. The used game market is flooded with great PS2 games that no longer look great, but still play just as good as any other game out on shelves. The only difference is that the PS2 games are usually less than $20 a pop, some even $5 or less.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe it would be nice to follow Sony's new "10 year console" idea. I mean, the only difference between a PS2 and a PS3 gameplay-wise is that the PS3 has a crazy level of draw distance, which does add to gameplay a bit. Aside from that, it's prettier, but I can't say Call of Duty is better on the PS3 for any reason other than graphical enhancements. Maybe if the game developers are stuck with a console more, they'll lean off of the graphics (they could make an engine and use it for the rest of the console's life - it's working on Valve's side of things) and start trying to make games better AI wise and polish the gameplay rather than make everything shiny.
Marketing. The games stink. The console stinks. It's the same old system, but Nintendo convinced people that it's "new and exciting." It's really not.
Hopefully Microsoft makes a console that can be used for a year and not break down, and hopefully Sony can make a system that can be sold without having to file an extra mortgage.
The big difference is that any additional graphical additions will not add to the gameplay. Now that games have a ridiculous draw distance on this generation (which was really the last piece of the puzzle), there are very few technological advancements that would advance gameplay in any significant way. THIS is why we have "good enough" mentalities running around. The games can look nicer, but when playing the game, it's the same thing from five years ago, only shiner and more detailed.
The Wii is not innovative. The Wii was just marketed in a way that made you think it was. the games are all the same old shit but instead of turning an analog stick you tilt your wrist.
This Microsoft fellow has it wrong. The next console generation will be defined by the marketing team, not by hardware or software.
Torrents are easier than you give them credit, and even if they were harder, people ask the plentiful nerds for help when they want a CD copied. The "DRM stops mainstream piracy" is rather dumb. No, it doesn't.
Ubisoft released a game called "Unreal" in 1990, which was unrelated to the Unreal series. The Unreal series was owned by Atari, until they were more recently bought by Midway.
Slashdot Mirror
All it has to do is keep all the annoying uses in Flash. Then we can just choose to not install it, and still get the stuff we want in HTML 5 capability.
If Battle.net is sucking up all of his bandwidth, someone can't be playing WoW after they died two minutes into an hour long match.
I like the ribbon, it's helped me convince people to use Abiword.
Updated that for you.
OpenOffice.org should just rip Abiword's icons and interface. No changes. Abiword has a nice, clean interface with good icons and easy to lean menus.
Not that I think OO.o is that bad (I don't - it looks just fine to me) but Abiword just does it better.
Also, Sidux.
You're talking about low latency work, which most normal users will never fucking have to do anyway.
You told them to mod you a troll! They're just following orders.
You drive up onto a Ford lot in your Subaru and then when you drive away they demand that you pay them for the Subaru.
There is no issue. It would just be hilarious.
Why would they? If consoles do cost as much to make as they have been, and profits aren't that high, I can't see Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony trying to jump the gun. There wouldn't be any point. If they're able to stabilize their console hardware and manage get a good stream of profits out of the machine, that's better for everyone involved.
This is why I recently bought a PS2 for $100. The used game market is flooded with great PS2 games that no longer look great, but still play just as good as any other game out on shelves. The only difference is that the PS2 games are usually less than $20 a pop, some even $5 or less.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe it would be nice to follow Sony's new "10 year console" idea. I mean, the only difference between a PS2 and a PS3 gameplay-wise is that the PS3 has a crazy level of draw distance, which does add to gameplay a bit. Aside from that, it's prettier, but I can't say Call of Duty is better on the PS3 for any reason other than graphical enhancements. Maybe if the game developers are stuck with a console more, they'll lean off of the graphics (they could make an engine and use it for the rest of the console's life - it's working on Valve's side of things) and start trying to make games better AI wise and polish the gameplay rather than make everything shiny.
I don't know why the wii won consumers
Marketing. The games stink. The console stinks. It's the same old system, but Nintendo convinced people that it's "new and exciting." It's really not.
Hopefully Microsoft makes a console that can be used for a year and not break down, and hopefully Sony can make a system that can be sold without having to file an extra mortgage.
Actually, the low-powered hardware won because it was the cheapest. Consumers jump for the intersection between price and available games.
Because you can fool people into thinking that graphical enhancements = gameplay enhancements. It's a trick that a lot of people fall into.
The big difference is that any additional graphical additions will not add to the gameplay. Now that games have a ridiculous draw distance on this generation (which was really the last piece of the puzzle), there are very few technological advancements that would advance gameplay in any significant way. THIS is why we have "good enough" mentalities running around. The games can look nicer, but when playing the game, it's the same thing from five years ago, only shiner and more detailed.
The Wii is not innovative. The Wii was just marketed in a way that made you think it was. the games are all the same old shit but instead of turning an analog stick you tilt your wrist.
This Microsoft fellow has it wrong. The next console generation will be defined by the marketing team, not by hardware or software.
And before anyone brings up the Playstation, Sony is playing the same game. They're just a bit behind.
The Linux support in the PlayStation 3 suggests that they want a PC that's not nearly as locked down as Microsoft's dream machine.
That is the user's fault. DRM's inevitable downfall, on the other hand, is completely out of their control.
Recent blogs are pointing out that LOLBOT was given "Excellent" karma on the popular website "Slashdot" automatically.
Doctor Perry Cox
Hmm. I played it on a console. I hope the PC version didn't have auto aiming; that might destroy my hope for DX3...
Torrents are easier than you give them credit, and even if they were harder, people ask the plentiful nerds for help when they want a CD copied. The "DRM stops mainstream piracy" is rather dumb. No, it doesn't.
Ubisoft released a game called "Unreal" in 1990, which was unrelated to the Unreal series. The Unreal series was owned by Atari, until they were more recently bought by Midway.
Take a look at GOG.com games. You don't see them anywhere on pirate sites. No DRM, $6 or $10, and great games.
Absolutely. The PS2 version of Double Agent was actually not too bad on this front, I might add. It was a lot closer to the old SC games.