Despite that over-hyping Second Life has received on/. it is not that popular. While they may list 230,000+ accounts, there are not nearly that amount of active users. How can you even begin to compare the 5,000 people who find Second Life interesting enough to spend time on it to the 6,000,000+ subscribers of World of Warcraft?
As I stated, there is no market for that type of thing. The people who are interested in it are a very, very small minority.
It seems to me that the author of this article is less knowledgeable of the subject at hand than one should be before climbing to the top of the mountain and shouting your opinion to the unwashed masses below.
Game evolution comes incrimentally. Not only that, it is shaped by the interest of the public.
What the author seems to want is a many thousand player MOO or MUSH. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to him, but most people just have no interest in such an open-ended environment. MOOs and MUSHes were always more niche and less popular than their MUD brethren (though there were big ones out there, don't get me wrong.) But whereas anyone is capable of typing in a few lines of text and thus creating an object in a MOO, a modern game requires the ability to create 3D Models. And not only that to animate them. And not only that to do so well enough that it warrants repetitious viewing.
The bottom line being, what we got is what we got, and it's going to evolve from there. If he is really dedicated to his "revolutionary" idea (which is as much a rehash of the past as anything on the market today), then he should put his time and effort into creating it.
Because that would be a waste of Hubble time. You can see the landing sites from the earth with a good telescope. if the moon is in the right position, anyway.
except that the XBox service will cost as much as AOL. also the home computer has uses that the XBox doesn't easily fill (word processing, researching homework, downloading pictures off of your digital camera, etc.)
not to mention that the XBox is a crappy DVD player. as the PSX2 has proven, the DVD playing capabilities is about as important to people as the CD playing capabilities of the first PlayStation. people buy it for the games, not the additional features.
the PVR capability may indeed entice people, but the XBox is going to have to come with a much much larger hard drive for that to work.
also all the PVR shit has been pure speculation thus far. in order for it to be able to act as PVR while you are playing games it is going to have to be substantially modified from its current hardware, it would cease to be the same machine.
the guy who replied to me didn't seem to realize that:
a) i was talking about people not buying it because they already have copmuters capable of chatting.
b) it doesn't matter what it costs to buy a computer that can play x-box games, because the fact is people are *not* buying the x-box, and part of that reason is that they can already play the decent games on their computers.
wow of course everyone will want to drop $200 to do what they can already do on their computer for free! gee, it's so obvious i'm surprised everyone didn't think of it!
oh wait everyone did think of it and they all dismissed it because it's the dumbest idea i've read all day. here's a free ride aboard the cluetrain: nobody's going to spend $200 for a big box to sit on their TV for stuff they can already do on their computer for $0 (or in the case of many people, $9/mo with AOL.) the proof is in the pudding, not many people are spending $200 on an X-Box to play games they can already play on their computer.
i didn't call her a nazi you dumb pile of shit, i said her (and your) dismissive attitude is what allows stuff ranging from annoying to awful to happen.
she's obviously just karmawhoring. i felt like flaming her for it. every thread has people reacting without reading articles. that's a given. posting chastising people for it is like going to a tractor pull and telling people they don't bathe enough.
seriously though, hopefuly the outcry over this will be loud enough for this fucknut to lose his job, or at least for this idea to be thrown out. even if it goes through it can be turned around... i hope:P
'i wrote this CAD program last night in my parent's basement, it's at least as good as that $50,000 package you're using! physics simulation? watch this ball bounce around..'
i explained to you that the X-Box has almost everything in common with the PCs under/on most people's desks. this is a fact. you choose to ignore it, that's fine. you can play whatever games you want with yourself. you are seriously annoying and boring me. go away little boy.
(and i was saying it was different from what i had just discribed, in case you hadn't figured that out.)
yes yes yes, everyone is familiar with the specs of both systems. i didn't go into detail because it's a waste of time (both to type and read) not because the information is not both familiar and easily available (for both systems.)
at the highest level both play games and attach to a tv.
i'd like to see a quote of when i claimed the PS2 was unique. it would appear you are the one who is confused, since i merely said the x-box is a PC-TV, you asked why and i explained it in simple words someone dumb enough to ask that question could understand. i knew you were trying to bait me into a childish little squabble but i thought i'd let you have your fun.
stop being a dipshit, i'm done with this thread. your arguments are ones i'd expect from a semi-retarded child. then again, what do i expect from/.
you're boring me now, which i appreciate since i need to get to sleep.
i could say my car is the same thing as the PS2 (or PC) because both have processors, graphics chips (and yes mine does), etc. but that's far too broad of a generalization.
the reason the X-Box is a 'TV-PC' is because it has the SAME processor, the SAME graphics engine (very, very slightly different from a GeForce3/4), the same memory, same hard drive, etc. that most of our PCs have (though the one i'm using at the moment is an AMD.)
while the PS2's architecture is totally different.
the fact that you don't already know this says to me that you are unqualified to argue about this so please don't waste my time with any kind of disagreeing retort.
how do you measure 'betterness' exactly anyway? which has more computing power? well obviously the X-Box is going to win any kind of technical comparison as it came out a year later.
but in the world of consoles, technical capabilities mean little to nothing. as i said when the x-box was first announced; it's the games. always has been in the console wars and it always will be, that determines who 'wins' sales-wise (and thus ultimately out-lasts the competition usually. this may be different this time around as MS has enough money to just keep the x-box going like a zombie if it so chooses even if it is not really turning enough of a profit to justify it.)
when discussing linux vs. windows on/. it's usually technical merits that are being discussed, not which one is more successful in the market. since the latter is a totally foolish and moot point.
you were right to second guess yourself at the end, as an x-box owner you are scrambling for reason to tell everyone they're wrong to pick on your cherished little TV-PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Riiiight.
Despite that over-hyping Second Life has received on
As I stated, there is no market for that type of thing. The people who are interested in it are a very, very small minority.
It seems to me that the author of this article is less knowledgeable of the subject at hand than one should be before climbing to the top of the mountain and shouting your opinion to the unwashed masses below.
Game evolution comes incrimentally. Not only that, it is shaped by the interest of the public.
What the author seems to want is a many thousand player MOO or MUSH. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to him, but most people just have no interest in such an open-ended environment. MOOs and MUSHes were always more niche and less popular than their MUD brethren (though there were big ones out there, don't get me wrong.) But whereas anyone is capable of typing in a few lines of text and thus creating an object in a MOO, a modern game requires the ability to create 3D Models. And not only that to animate them. And not only that to do so well enough that it warrants repetitious viewing.
The bottom line being, what we got is what we got, and it's going to evolve from there. If he is really dedicated to his "revolutionary" idea (which is as much a rehash of the past as anything on the market today), then he should put his time and effort into creating it.
i have a 22" monitor on my computer, but i still don't want to watch tv with it. my computer is in my bedroom. the tv is in the living room.
also the tv is a 56" projection.
(ps it's also not hard to spell 'stereo'.)
you are a gigantic fucking tool.
this has got to be the dumbest fucking reply i've ever read.
it's worth the karma loss to tell limekiller4 what a worthless moron he is.
And again I say, you don't need to look at footprints, moron.
LOLLERSKATES
Not to be offensive, but it sounds like you're a hack. Not to be confused with hacker.
decimeters?
who needs to see decimeters? you're an idiot.
Because that would be a waste of Hubble time. You can see the landing sites from the earth with a good telescope. if the moon is in the right position, anyway.
Big difference there, guys. C'mon can we pay a little attention? Yeesh.
Sounds interesting though, if only I knew japanese.
we'll get right on the mod
(yeah i was one of the guys who did the original alien TC. i always love it when people remember it, we had no idea how popular it was gonna be
except that the XBox service will cost as much as AOL. also the home computer has uses that the XBox doesn't easily fill (word processing, researching homework, downloading pictures off of your digital camera, etc.)
not to mention that the XBox is a crappy DVD player. as the PSX2 has proven, the DVD playing capabilities is about as important to people as the CD playing capabilities of the first PlayStation. people buy it for the games, not the additional features.
the PVR capability may indeed entice people, but the XBox is going to have to come with a much much larger hard drive for that to work.
also all the PVR shit has been pure speculation thus far. in order for it to be able to act as PVR while you are playing games it is going to have to be substantially modified from its current hardware, it would cease to be the same machine.
the guy who replied to me didn't seem to realize that
a) i was talking about people not buying it because they already have copmuters capable of chatting.
b) it doesn't matter what it costs to buy a computer that can play x-box games, because the fact is people are *not* buying the x-box, and part of that reason is that they can already play the decent games on their computers.
wow of course everyone will want to drop $200 to do what they can already do on their computer for free! gee, it's so obvious i'm surprised everyone didn't think of it!
oh wait everyone did think of it and they all dismissed it because it's the dumbest idea i've read all day. here's a free ride aboard the cluetrain: nobody's going to spend $200 for a big box to sit on their TV for stuff they can already do on their computer for $0 (or in the case of many people, $9/mo with AOL.) the proof is in the pudding, not many people are spending $200 on an X-Box to play games they can already play on their computer.
you're so wrong i hope you were kidding.
the dreamcast had 0 games that interested me, and just about every gamer i know felt the same way.
you need to keep in mind your opinion of 'great game' will vary wildly from other people's.
it's *always* about the games. PlayStation has consistently had them, other consoles haven't. end of story.
you == dumb
i hope you die a horrible, painful death very very soon.
i didn't call her a nazi you dumb pile of shit, i said her (and your) dismissive attitude is what allows stuff ranging from annoying to awful to happen.
she's obviously just karmawhoring. i felt like flaming her for it. every thread has people reacting without reading articles. that's a given. posting chastising people for it is like going to a tractor pull and telling people they don't bathe enough.
you're both dolts.
only 40 miles or so here
seriously though, hopefuly the outcry over this will be loud enough for this fucknut to lose his job, or at least for this idea to be thrown out. even if it goes through it can be turned around... i hope
that allow things like the holocaust to happen, i'm not even kidding.
'they're just RELOCATING them, it's not that big of a deal...'
'it's only forced labor..'
'well the place is crowded what would YOU do!?'
jesus christ woman. open your fucking eyes. i swear your five year old probably has a better grasp of the situation than you do.
we KNOW that. if you think that makes it 'ok' then please see the subject.
'it's just online privacy! it doesn't matter!'
omg thanks
'i wrote this CAD program last night in my parent's basement, it's at least as good as that $50,000 package you're using! physics simulation? watch this ball bounce around..'
you == dumb
i explained to you that the X-Box has almost everything in common with the PCs under/on most people's desks. this is a fact. you choose to ignore it, that's fine. you can play whatever games you want with yourself. you are seriously annoying and boring me. go away little boy.
(and i was saying it was different from what i had just discribed, in case you hadn't figured that out.)
yes yes yes, everyone is familiar with the specs of both systems. i didn't go into detail because it's a waste of time (both to type and read) not because the information is not both familiar and easily available (for both systems.)
at the highest level both play games and attach to a tv.
i'd like to see a quote of when i claimed the PS2 was unique. it would appear you are the one who is confused, since i merely said the x-box is a PC-TV, you asked why and i explained it in simple words someone dumb enough to ask that question could understand. i knew you were trying to bait me into a childish little squabble but i thought i'd let you have your fun.
stop being a dipshit, i'm done with this thread. your arguments are ones i'd expect from a semi-retarded child. then again, what do i expect from
you're boring me now, which i appreciate since i need to get to sleep.
i could say my car is the same thing as the PS2 (or PC) because both have processors, graphics chips (and yes mine does), etc. but that's far too broad of a generalization.
the reason the X-Box is a 'TV-PC' is because it has the SAME processor, the SAME graphics engine (very, very slightly different from a GeForce3/4), the same memory, same hard drive, etc. that most of our PCs have (though the one i'm using at the moment is an AMD.)
while the PS2's architecture is totally different.
the fact that you don't already know this says to me that you are unqualified to argue about this so please don't waste my time with any kind of disagreeing retort.
how do you measure 'betterness' exactly anyway? which has more computing power? well obviously the X-Box is going to win any kind of technical comparison as it came out a year later.
but in the world of consoles, technical capabilities mean little to nothing. as i said when the x-box was first announced; it's the games. always has been in the console wars and it always will be, that determines who 'wins' sales-wise (and thus ultimately out-lasts the competition usually. this may be different this time around as MS has enough money to just keep the x-box going like a zombie if it so chooses even if it is not really turning enough of a profit to justify it.)
when discussing linux vs. windows on
you were right to second guess yourself at the end, as an x-box owner you are scrambling for reason to tell everyone they're wrong to pick on your cherished little TV-PC.