Actually, the main reason is to trick people into spending more than they normally would have, by making the money they spend on the XBox Arcade a Sunk Cost that people will discount.
1) People buy XBox 360 Arcade.
3) People buy the HD.
4) People buy the HD-DVD drive.
5) etc.
(or so MS is hoping)
Could have gotten a better deal by buying a different bundle/package/system, but the incremental cost for each piece is all people see (usually), not the total cost of the system, as they keep buying it to make it what it should have been in the first place.
Well... since only 6 cores per Cell are available to the Linux OS (one reserved for the Hypervisor, and one disabled for yields), that leaves only (256/8*6=) 192 GFLOPs (estimated).
8 of those gives you only ~1.536 TFLOPs
Of course there is no way of knowing wether you can assume how accurate those numbers are.. so lets assume you can only do 2/3rds the theoretical maximum... about 1 TFLOP.
Still looks like a supercomputer to me.
Not sure what all those whiners are complaining about.
Not to mention that Sony has actually been the most open of the three consoles this generation.
Standard USB-drive/Thumb-drive connectivity (or standard memory card format support on most models) for loading/saving music/pictures/video, and for moving saved games around.
Standard Bluetooth connectivity for wireless controllers.
Standard user upgradable SATA hard-drive.
Standard HDMI port built in (no funky, overpriced, Sony proprietary adapter needed).
Standard DLNA/uPnP support for streaming from any DLNA/uPnP server (running on Linux, OS X, Windows).
As opposed to the 360 version of Guitar Hero not getting a wireless controller because MS wanted mucho $$$ for their proprietary wireless protocol.
MS wanting $$$ for an overpriced hard drive upgrade for the 360.
An HDMI port requiring a new box, or an add on HD-DVD player that has gotten consistently lousy reviews (and no mention about the fact that the storage space can only be used for movies, note games).
MS's idea of multi-platform compatibility is supporting all flavors of Vista:/ (I know... an exaggeration).
Nice to know I can think about getting a 360 during the Holiday Season 2008 (three years after launch), and hopefully get a stable hardware platform.:/
I'm glad neither Sony or Nintendo are taking lessons in hardware development from MS.
There certainly are stories of various people doing all of those things, but I'm not sure of one person who did them all.
One would argue its also all a matter of ones perspective.... George Washington for instance also did all of those things... is that a bad thing? (depends who writes the story/history:) ).
Can they also explain how the races in the Covenant were 'Intelligently Designed"? I'd like to know.
Well... I'd imagine they'd start by pointing to Bungie, and how they've made a series of successful games, so they must be pretty intelligent, and, since the races in the Covenant were designed by Bungie, they are obviously the part of a product made by Intelligent Design.;)
Interesting idea, but you do realize that, traditionally, MS, being on the software side has always owned many of its own important completer apps (Windows, Office, MS-SQL, Dev Studio), so its interesting to see them take the other approach in this case. It implies a different culture, as well as an awareness of a different situation (although arguably the Windows monopoly on x86 could be argued as comparable to a hardware platform such as that from HP, or IBM).
Nobody seemed to read into MS's decisions to acquire and spin off PC studios, and that was all because MS is in a singular place in the PC gaming market.
The reason this is interesting is because the console market is NOT like the PC market where "MS is in a singular place". There is actual competition in the market, and exclusive titles (usually developed by in-house publishers), is one of the key differentiators between one console and another.
A. Windows ME (granted they has Win98 to fall back on, but they gave up on ME and abandoned anyone who went to it). (although they are releasing a new version of the Zune)
B. Definitely true.
C. Don't know, but considering some of the rumbles from Nintendo and Sony, that may not last as a differentiator.
You're right, they probably are not going to leave the market, and the 360 has already sold more units than the Zune (lots more, I know), but the real question is, can they keep up the momentum enough for the long haul.
Unlike the OS market, people have real choice here on which console they get, and MS can't play the same lock-in games they did with Windows to force a winner (making Word/Wordperfect incompatible, throwing up warning with Dr-Dos, breaking Lotus Notes, giving Businesses discounts so people get used to Windows and Office at work, and bring them home).
I absolutely agree that there is a difference between the Halo series and the GTA series, however saying it deserves a different rating is the problem that happens when you have these broad groups to pigeonhole products into.
One size fits most, but there will probably be lots of variation on what in them.
So Halo 3 is rated: "M" with Content Descriptors: "Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence"
and GTA:San Andreas (non-"Hot Coffee" version) is rated: "M" with Content Descriptors: "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs"
So... they're in the same group, by their not really the same.
Absolutely true... although I would hope you wouldn't have to listen to profanity on the headsets (it being a church sponsored event and all).
Certainly violence isn't something especially anathema to most religions, and certainly the games aren't exactly the same. I forgot to include my [/sarcasm] tag at the end.
Sorry to make it sound otherwise. As another poster pointed out, the bible would be rated "AO" or "NC-17" if it was in a different medium (due to violence, sex, nudity, and, if you take a strict interpretation of the word, Profanity:) ).
Trying to group things in broad groups always means they'll be large variation within the things at the same level.
MicroSoft has a much smaller stable of inhouse (and related) development companies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Games#In-house_studios ). They also have the split focus of providing games for the XBox 360, and providing games for Vista (though this is not mentioned). Any decrease in the inhouse development obviously puts more reliance on outside development, and as more and more games (especially from developers like EA) go cross-platform, its those in-house developers that help provide differentiation between competing products (all else being equal).
Actually, it may be silly, but it makes sense, even from the point of view of the consumer.
If there is a large and diverse catalogue of on-loine games to keep me interested, along with a few disk-only titles, then the lower cost of the on-line titles means I'll either:
a) spend the same exact amount of money on more games
b) spend less money overall on games (since the on-line titles are "cheaper", in the bargain-bin range usually)
Heck, for the consumer, if they end up following choice "b", they might even spend LESS over the life of the system despite the initial greater cost for the unit (not saying thats going to happen, just pointing it out as a possibility).
As for "hotel" coming to the PS3... wouldn't surprise me. Sony certainly seems open to innovative game design ideas for PSN games.
Why would you buy two consoles and limit yourself to only the games available on those two consoles? If you want the widest possible variety of games, you buy every console every generation.
Well... considering I usually only buy one (or maybe two) consoles any generation:
1) Price - not everyone has lots of extra income they want to spend on games. Especially considering the price of current gen games. 2) Space - not everyone has lots of extra space for spare consoles to hang out in. Especially if you are living in limited space (dorm, apartment, room at home). 3) Time - not everyone has lots of extra time to spend playing video games, that they need three consoles worth of games to fill the void. Especially if they watch television, go to movies, read books, or have friends/a real life.
Yeah, sure. Buying all consoles gets you the widest possible variety of games, but you only have X hours a day/week/month to play anyway. Its THOSE hours you need to find games to play. You don't NEED to own all the "best" games of a given generation. Yeah, you might miss a couple, so what? You will either spend more time playing another game you like (you don't have to abandon every game within 8 hours), or else you'll spend the time enjoying another recreational activity.
Either way, you don't need to buy every console of every generation.
Realistically, assuming people thought buying the "Top of the Line Game Console" A.K.A. NES was worth spending the equivalent of $500 (I'm using the number you did, I'm not trying to validate it), why isn't that relevant? Especially when we are discussing how much people will/won't pay for a console now?
Yes, every console is different, but the closest comparison (case study, etc.) that we can make, and that we can look for to understand how the market may react (may, not will), is to how previous generations of consoles sold (price, games, format, etc.).
Buying a 286 retail in the 80's still cost X dollars, that money had a purchase power separate from the object it purchased.
The product depreciates over time, but the cost can still be measured in terms of relative value, subject to inflation. That comparative buying power is what is being measured. (usually described as "it would cost X 2007 dollars to buy Y." Yeah, buying an NES for that amount of money now would be ridiculous, but you CAN say "People spent X% of their paycheck to buy it". That X% would be the equivalent of a certain amount today. It puts into perspective just how much people were willing to spend.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget paying her fine, I want to know if she's thought about Franchising Opportunities.
Actually, the main reason is to trick people into spending more than they normally would have, by making the money they spend on the XBox Arcade a Sunk Cost that people will discount.
1) People buy XBox 360 Arcade.
3) People buy the HD.
4) People buy the HD-DVD drive.
5) etc.
(or so MS is hoping)
Could have gotten a better deal by buying a different bundle/package/system, but the incremental cost for each piece is all people see (usually), not the total cost of the system, as they keep buying it to make it what it should have been in the first place.
Have you heard about Digital Radio?
Granted, most radio broadcasters will not go all digital for a very long time, but we're definitely past the Point-of-Entry for the "Digital Age".
Must have had a poor signal. Maybe he'd benefit from switch to digital?
Well ... since only 6 cores per Cell are available to the Linux OS (one reserved for the Hypervisor, and one disabled for yields), that leaves only (256/8*6=) 192 GFLOPs (estimated).
.. so lets assume you can only do 2/3rds the theoretical maximum ... about 1 TFLOP.
8 of those gives you only ~1.536 TFLOPs
Of course there is no way of knowing wether you can assume how accurate those numbers are
Still looks like a supercomputer to me.
Not sure what all those whiners are complaining about.
Nice to know I can think about getting a 360 during the Holiday Season 2008 (three years after launch), and hopefully get a stable hardware platform. :/
I'm glad neither Sony or Nintendo are taking lessons in hardware development from MS.
There certainly are stories of various people doing all of those things, but I'm not sure of one person who did them all.
... George Washington for instance also did all of those things ... is that a bad thing? (depends who writes the story/history :) ).
One would argue its also all a matter of ones perspective.
Well
http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html#c6
They're not far off on the concepts and translations.
Umm
Interesting idea, but you do realize that, traditionally, MS, being on the software side has always owned many of its own important completer apps (Windows, Office, MS-SQL, Dev Studio), so its interesting to see them take the other approach in this case. It implies a different culture, as well as an awareness of a different situation (although arguably the Windows monopoly on x86 could be argued as comparable to a hardware platform such as that from HP, or IBM).
Actually I meant Lotus-1-2-3, not Lotus Notes, and yes, I'm aware that Sybase had sucky customer service (BTW when did I mention Sybase? :) )
The reason this is interesting is because the console market is NOT like the PC market where "MS is in a singular place".
There is actual competition in the market, and exclusive titles (usually developed by in-house publishers), is one of the key differentiators between one console and another.
Just a few quick points:
A. Windows ME (granted they has Win98 to fall back on, but they gave up on ME and abandoned anyone who went to it). (although they are releasing a new version of the Zune)
B. Definitely true.
C. Don't know, but considering some of the rumbles from Nintendo and Sony, that may not last as a differentiator.
You're right, they probably are not going to leave the market, and the 360 has already sold more units than the Zune (lots more, I know), but the real question is, can they keep up the momentum enough for the long haul.
Unlike the OS market, people have real choice here on which console they get, and MS can't play the same lock-in games they did with Windows to force a winner (making Word/Wordperfect incompatible, throwing up warning with Dr-Dos, breaking Lotus Notes, giving Businesses discounts so people get used to Windows and Office at work, and bring them home).
I absolutely agree that there is a difference between the Halo series and the GTA series, however saying it deserves a different rating is the problem that happens when you have these broad groups to pigeonhole products into.
... they're in the same group, by their not really the same.
One size fits most, but there will probably be lots of variation on what in them.
Thats what the "Content Descriptors" http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#descriptors that go with the ratings are for.
So Halo 3 is rated: "M" with Content Descriptors: "Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence"
and GTA:San Andreas (non-"Hot Coffee" version) is rated: "M" with Content Descriptors: "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs"
So
Absolutely true ... although I would hope you wouldn't have to listen to profanity on the headsets (it being a church sponsored event and all).
:) ).
Certainly violence isn't something especially anathema to most religions, and certainly the games aren't exactly the same. I forgot to include my [/sarcasm] tag at the end.
Sorry to make it sound otherwise. As another poster pointed out, the bible would be rated "AO" or "NC-17" if it was in a different medium (due to violence, sex, nudity, and, if you take a strict interpretation of the word, Profanity
Trying to group things in broad groups always means they'll be large variation within the things at the same level.
In GTA you run around breaking the law, consorting with whores and fellons, and killing people in bloody episodes.
... MUCH better ... right?
In Halo, you just run around listening to profanity on your headset and trying to get headshots.
You're right, it might be over-analyzing the trend (based on the number of points). It does look at an overlooked part of the picture though.
Nintendo has lots of development companies inhouse and exlusive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_developers ).
Even Sony has been pretty consistent about maintaining worldwide developer studios ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment#Internal_organization ). Leaving aside studios like Insomniac Games (Resistance:Fall of Man, Ratchet & Clank Series) who have "Close ties" to the studio.
MicroSoft has a much smaller stable of inhouse (and related) development companies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Games#In-house_studios ). They also have the split focus of providing games for the XBox 360, and providing games for Vista (though this is not mentioned). Any decrease in the inhouse development obviously puts more reliance on outside development, and as more and more games (especially from developers like EA) go cross-platform, its those in-house developers that help provide differentiation between competing products (all else being equal).
Actually, it may be silly, but it makes sense, even from the point of view of the consumer.
... wouldn't surprise me. Sony certainly seems open to innovative game design ideas for PSN games.
If there is a large and diverse catalogue of on-loine games to keep me interested, along with a few disk-only titles, then the lower cost of the on-line titles means I'll either:
a) spend the same exact amount of money on more games
b) spend less money overall on games (since the on-line titles are "cheaper", in the bargain-bin range usually)
Heck, for the consumer, if they end up following choice "b", they might even spend LESS over the life of the system despite the initial greater cost for the unit (not saying thats going to happen, just pointing it out as a possibility).
As for "hotel" coming to the PS3
Umm
Well
1) Price - not everyone has lots of extra income they want to spend on games. Especially considering the price of current gen games.
2) Space - not everyone has lots of extra space for spare consoles to hang out in. Especially if you are living in limited space (dorm, apartment, room at home).
3) Time - not everyone has lots of extra time to spend playing video games, that they need three consoles worth of games to fill the void. Especially if they watch television, go to movies, read books, or have friends/a real life.
Yeah, sure. Buying all consoles gets you the widest possible variety of games, but you only have X hours a day/week/month to play anyway. Its THOSE hours you need to find games to play. You don't NEED to own all the "best" games of a given generation. Yeah, you might miss a couple, so what? You will either spend more time playing another game you like (you don't have to abandon every game within 8 hours), or else you'll spend the time enjoying another recreational activity.
Either way, you don't need to buy every console of every generation.
Why does it have no bearing?
Realistically, assuming people thought buying the "Top of the Line Game Console" A.K.A. NES was worth spending the equivalent of $500 (I'm using the number you did, I'm not trying to validate it), why isn't that relevant? Especially when we are discussing how much people will/won't pay for a console now?
Yes, every console is different, but the closest comparison (case study, etc.) that we can make, and that we can look for to understand how the market may react (may, not will), is to how previous generations of consoles sold (price, games, format, etc.).
Mostly the bias in the article is in the eye of the beholder.
:)
Instead of "DS outsells PSP 3:1", try "Sony produces first commercially successful non-Nintendo handheld. Captures 25% of the market."
Of course, that wouldn't be as sensational and anti-sony as most of the Slashdot articles we've come to know and love.
Buying a 286 retail in the 80's still cost X dollars, that money had a purchase power separate from the object it purchased.
The product depreciates over time, but the cost can still be measured in terms of relative value, subject to inflation. That comparative buying power is what is being measured. (usually described as "it would cost X 2007 dollars to buy Y." Yeah, buying an NES for that amount of money now would be ridiculous, but you CAN say "People spent X% of their paycheck to buy it". That X% would be the equivalent of a certain amount today. It puts into perspective just how much people were willing to spend.