While this is true to an extent, I think Sony is making a big mistake by effectively forcing online functionality into all games.
I don't play online. I don't want to chat with friends using my game console. I don't want content streamed in from the internet. I was planning on buying a PS3, but I may not if the offline aspect isn't as solid as on the previous generation of consoles. That's one of the main reasons I haven't picked up a 360 - it's not designed with gamers like me in mind.
Eh? Then don't. I don't think they're "forcing" anything. Almost every PSP game has some network connectivity... but it's not always PvP or chatting with friends. "Exit" has tons of levels you can download. PQ lets you post high scores.
Nor are the multiplayer games diminished by multiplayer anymore than Super Mario Bros was ever diminished by letting your friends play with you. Assuming such is rather silly at this point. If anything, these days not being able to play with friends is a misfeature.
Many games benefit from small-scale multiplayer; not having it flattens a game in a dimension you don't realize exists until you've played over the network for a considerable period. I experienced this after playing FFXI for a long time, then tried playing a single-player RPG. A certain aspect seems very flattened.
Unlike the 360, the PS3 builds on a history of a multitude of every variety of game; these aren't going away or in any way being diminished simply by providing online functionality, especially since that functionality is not always going to be the same thing. And especially if it's easy to add.
THAT is what the actual scientific consensus is. No one is disputing evolution, at least no one who actually is aware of and understands the evidence. The evidence is so strong that arguing evolution is like arguing that gravity might not exist.
200 years ago, scientific consesus was that spontaneous generation happened, too. The evidence seemed overwhelming; you could leave a dead animal in a seemingly sealed container and maggots would spontaneously generate. Or a covered bit of cheese and rats would appear. Observation supported it; but obvervation is sometimes misleading and incomplete.
Evolution and gravity are on two very different scales of observability too. "Gravity" is really a term for "it falls", not a process for falling. Evolution is a specific process of change, and is very difficult to observe in action. This is the first thing that should make a scientist wary of proclaiming "overwhelming support". Yes, we can see natural selection (which is not natural evolution) happen in some cases; we can see genetic mutation happen as well. We can see a fossil record that indicates various species with the possibility of some genetic development over time. However, a wary scientist with some historic caution might be inclined to set aside the assumption that our observations are, in fact, the complete picture.
t will use a good chunk of the resources on the OS rather then purely for games. If the PS3 devs can't use a lighter version of the O.S. this could be a bit of an issue should they opt to do so in their games
This is silly, because undoubtedly the OS gives you a number of things that you'd have to do anyway, thus you no longer need to do them in your game. Sony is not stupid. Their developers are not stupid. They have some of the better PS developers under their roof (Naughty Dog with Jak and Daxter, Polyphony Digital with Gran Turismo to name a couple), and know all about squeezing performance from limited resources.
Additionally, the PSP seems to have an always-running OS, and I haven't heard any developers complaining about it. It seems to take care of a number of things, including starting/stopping games, saving data, and accessing the network. (Probably graphics and other things too... dunno.) I would be curious as to what percentage of resources this takes up compared to the alleged PS3 OS.
Since both will probably be in ROM, it's probable that the majority of them can be paged out as necessary.
Just trying to discount the "fact" portion of the statement. Personally, I agree with you, but I can't discount the other possibilities either.
Oh, I totally agree with you. However "we are here" is still fact, though we may have to have a flexible definition for "being". This is all philosophical of course; is being virtual any less real? Does it matter? My opinion is "not really"; if I play a MMORPG, spend lots of time, and get lots of items and gold, what does it benefit me? Not much outside the game. But if I do the same thing in real life, what does it benefit me? Not much once I kick the bucket ("outside the game").
One theory that I'm more than half serious about is the fact the universe is a sort of simulation. I know it's been postulated, it's nothing new. But the behavior of some things (like the dual-slit experiment) at low levels would fit the theory that this is a simulation, and there are "artifacts" as a result of the simulation estimating certain effects. Same thing that would happen with a computer simulation that doesn't actually take into account individual particles. I'm sure work has been done by someone in this area, though.
No, only in the popular vernacular. In science circles, it's strictly gravitational theory. In scientific parlance, "theory" means "as close to 100% solid fact as we have".
No, "the theory of gravity" is a theory because we don't know how it works. We have theories. Some of those show merit, and are actively being examined scientifically. It may be "as close to fact as we have", but that's not saying anything. We could have almost nothing, and that would still be "as close to fact as we have".
The fact that objects fall toward the earth and other large bodies happens and is not the "theory" bit. No one is disputing that things fall. If you examine the scientific history of various theories of gravity, though, you will see a lot of dispute.
Would you say gravity waves or spacial distortion are indisputable fact? What about HG Wells-era gravity "rays," or the Dilbert theory of gravity as the expanding universe?
This may depend on your unit; I have one of the phone-like ones from T-Mobile... no difference between wall charger or USB. However, unless I plug it into a Windows box (or presumably a linux box that's configured to provide sufficient power along the USB line for that device ID), it won't charge, or will barely charge and I'll get a warning.
I can't say I'm more than lukewarm myself; it does its job, not spectacularly, but better than other phones I've had. That's not saying much, of course. It can in SSH, although it's slow and not really realistic for anything but emergency use. As for email, unless I'm expecting something or am on call, I just turn off the buzzer.
Given your comment about phone usability, I would guess you don't have the 710x line... I haven't used one of the "big"/"oldstyle" blackberries. They look clunky and corporate. Never had a desire to get one until I saw the 7100s. The phone is still not outstanding, but it's pretty clear, has a decent speakerphone, and plays Final Fantasy midis uncannily well. (FF1 prelude makes a great, unannoying ringtone.)
So anyway, what's the big deal with Blackberry in particular. Why is this stuff so hard/interesting/compelling?
Don't look for a "killer feature", because there's not a specific killer feature. In fact, each of the Blackberry's features alone is pretty mediocre. This may be hard to understand, but it happens sometimes.
The trick is that, taken as a whole, it has just the right amount of everything to make it a "killer device". Email works well enough. Web works well enough. Calendar is decent. Everything integrates with Exchange. The phone interface is really nice, and the address book is good and can do directory lookups. Companies can run their own internal servers and keep the devices behind the company firewall (big difference between general cell phones). The screen is big enough to read and the full keyboard (or half keyboard with uncannily good predictive text for the more phone-like models) is a must. Connectivity is constant wherever you have cell coverage. For a regular work day, this addresses just about everything.
Finally, you can charge it, and it'll remain connected and on the data network at all times for days before you have to recharge it. And it charges over USB. It will even work offline (i.e. no cell/data network). I can't remember the last time I actually turned mine off, though I have turned off wireless to save battery or switched off work email.
There are other neat features, as well, like the holster functionality. (Unlike any cell phone I've seen, when it's in the holster it will be silent/vibrate, and when it's out it will ring. Nice for never worrying if your phone will embarrass you in a meeting.)
These features taken as a whole, without being loaded down by stuff like cameras and other useless trinkets, make it a very useful device. No, nothing is particularly outstanding. But it's the right combination of ingredients.
Apparently the GunCon 2 for the PS1/PS2 and a number of related light gun games are really good. I picked one of these up in the hopes of checking out Elemental Gearbolt (RIP WD), but unfortunately it doesn't work with an LCD or projector, so currently I'm out of luck.:-) I have played some of these in the arcade though (like Time Crisis or something), and they're fun, so if it's anything like that I'd be happy.
I'm sure someone who has actually used one can give a full accounting.
If you have a decent job in the tech industry, you are most likely salaried and overtime exempt. You might have an argument if you are hourly... but only maybe. Since I am not being paid by the hour or minute, and am often expected to respond to problems "off hours", overly-restricting my actions during "on hours" is right out. Fortunately where I work, this is the case. Work is result-oriented, not "am I looking busy during my shift," as it should be.
Additionally, most of the people I talk to regularly (on irc) are also "tech" people, and an invaluable resource. Perhaps it is because I have been on irc so long, but it isn't so much of a distraction as simply a place I dwell online. If I'm in the middle of something, I'm not looking at IRC, or if I see a message, I'll ignore it until later. Yes, I can say that, because that's how it works.
Personal email is about the same story, except I rarely respond because it is a bit more distracting to set aside what I'm doing to respond to a usually longer message. However, if I need to, I expect to be able to, just like if I have to take a phone call, I will. Everyone I know expects these conditions, even if they're hourly.
If you're hourly, and you're excessively distracted, this is a problem, but not really different than if you're not hourly and you miss deadlines for the same reason. Since legally compulsory breaks (including lunch) are often overlooked, taking time for a phone call, email/irc messages, or similar, is at least a start to compensation.
In any case, it's about the humanity of the situation. Are you strapped to your desk literally, in a sealed cubical, unable to shoot the breeze with coworkers over the water cooler, or not? Communicating with non-work people is not different just because it's virtual. Either way can become a problem, but it doesn't have to be, and for most people is not.
Your employer does not own you. You should always strive to do a good job, but your job should not rule your life.
Exactly, what happened to only giving people what they need to get their job done?
Yeah, people could be chained to their desks and allowed 3 5-minute bathroom breaks and a 15-minute lunchbreak. That's all they need, think of the productivity increase! We could use children, too!
Oh wait, I think they have labor laws now.
What happened to having a pleasant workplace where you enjoy what you do? Little things make a lot of difference. I'm not talking dot-com era overindulgence, but personal email access is not too much to ask.
Most people spend at least 8 hours of their waking day, during the prime of their wakefulness, at work. It should not be too much to ask for this to be a pleasant time: people who enjoy being at work get stuff done and are more loyal than those who hate where they are, what they do, everyone around them, and the company.
Using video from the Eye-Toy to approximate the Revolution's dedicated input method seems to me to be more like using handwriting recognition on a scanned sheet of notebook paper to approximate just typing your damned term paper.
Actually it seems more like NASA spending millions developing the ballpoint pen and the Russians using pencils, to me.;-)
They're working on tying in Eyetoy and some kind of controller similar to the Revolution controller.
WTF? This isn't really suprising or news. Surely someone remembers the EyeToy demo from E32k5. This was news then (and long before the Revolution controller was announced).
What Nintendo should be wary of at this point is relying on a special, possibly expensive, controller to sell their system. The EyeToy can do the same basic things, using an entirely different approach. In fact, it may be able to handle more, as (looking at the demo) one can control two (and probably more) cups using one EyeToy, but you'd need a separate controller for the Rev.
This isn't to say Nintendo won't have awesome and innovative games that take advantage of the controller. Given the DS, they undoubtedly will. The point though is marketing... Sony can say "oh, we can do that too", and they lose their edge.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Wouldn't this apply to your entire post? Past performance, especially of other companies (!), is hardly guarantee of future results.
However, while it's not a guarantee, that doesn't mean it's not a decent indicator. It doesn't mean that at very least, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt. Nintendo, despite not being #1, have shown that they are worth the benefit of the doubt, despite extreme skepticism about various decisions (the DS, the Revolution controller, etc.). They've made bad decisions in the past (Virtual Boy, cartridges, dropping Sony), but we know that they've made good stuff, and will continue to do so.
The companies you mentioned however have many details you failed to mention. Sega has been shooting themselves in the foot since day 1. It's suprising they made it as far as the Dreamcast, and even moreso they continue to exist. Atari made some terrible business decisions, and the Jaguar wasn't a reasonable competitor. Nintendo made some bad decisions, keeping cartridges on the N64, not getting third-party support, focusing more on the kids market.
All of these decisions were obviously bad from the get-go. The declines were predictable. Does this mean Sony can't do something stupid? Overlook some detail? No; but they seem to be on the right track. Even making sure they have all online the features.
This doesn't guarantee they'll succeed. There are never guarantees. But considering their experience and track record, they get the benefit of the doubt.
I think I speak for a very large portion of the gamer base if I say:"Put up or shut up."
So far Sony has been able to provide people with.. promises. Nothing concrete and no I don't consider a few screenshots or videos here or there as believeable material as most of them have already been revealed to be pre-rendered material.
Ah yes. Sony has never done anything. Like have the last two leading consoles. With thousands of titles. Selling hundreds of millions of consoles worldwide. Yes, I'd say there's nothing concrete and no reason to consider Sony has anything to offer.
There's way too much hyping on both sides, yet only one party has so far been able to even deliver a reasonably working box to consumers.
Sony has announced its specs. They've given a few demos. There have been very few announcements. Most of the "hype" is from analysts. Who don't know what they're talking about. (Ah, but I repeat myself.)
At this point, SCE has what's called benefit of the doubt. They, unlike "one party," have delivered two top consoles and seem to be well on their way to a third.
Better article. Whoever wrote the other articley looks like they poorly summarized this one. Then the summary for the slashdot posting poorly summarized that. Sheesh.
Monarchies are inherently dictatorships because everyone must follow the rule of a single person. A monarchy does not just imply a dictatorship -- it requires one.
Actually this isn't the case. In a monarchy, you have a king or queen, but you also have quite a bit of nobility with their own military. If the people at some level aren't kept happy, there's the problem of rebellion, and in the case of a monarchy, it paints a much bigger target on a single person who can be overthrown.
Dictatorship happens when corruption becomes rampant. This can be seen a long way off, and can be both prevented and restored. This is unlike a republic or democracy, where corruption exists but isn't evident, and everyone suffers but no one can put a finger on why.
The problem with them is that, while their may be a benevelent dictator or monarch for a generation or two, inevitably someone seizes or inherits power and then wields it for his own benefit and to the detriment of his citizens.
There is a major difference between a "benevolent dictator" who rules with an iron fist and cows everyone (but at least appaers to retain a shred of humanity and doesn't oppress the people too much), and a simple monarch. A monarchy can exist without the absolute rule of the monarch. That's how it works. You may not be able to go scream and rant in the face of the king (try that with your local country's President and see how far you get), but that doesn't preclude free speech and the ability to decry injustice. I think you may look back in history and find a few people who did such in various forms.
Unrest among the citizens is felt by the lesser nobles, who pressure the higher ones. This is more or less how it works for our representative democracy, but with the latter, it's a lot easier for political corruption to go unnoticed. Politicians are no longer responsible to the people, but large greedy corporations that fund their campaigns and whose best interests are not the same as that of individuals.
The popular vote and elections promise change... but these things have many inherent flaws. Voting systems break. The majority is easily swayed. This sort of corruption is not only difficult to fix, but difficult to detect.
Historically, free government and free speech lead to material wealth and improved living standards.
What is this "free government" of which you speak? "Historically?" Care to point to some grand historic examples (>500 years ago) of "free speech" and this "free government" of which you speak? I have noted Greek democracies, which on a small scale allowed any citizen to have an effect on the governance of the land. I also pointed out that these were historically short-lived and often lead to dictatorships or oligarchies.
There is no way to "end suffering and poverty" but there are ways to alleviate it for the vast majority of the population.
So, you're happy if some people suffer more, as long as most people are "happy"? Would you be willing to be dirt poor or homeless, in the minority of the populous?
Our society is "greedy", and by that I mean that people can increase their "slice of the pie", to the exclusion of others. It allows some people to be very rich, and others to be very poor. Unfortunately, no one wants to be poor, or even give up a little of their slice. (And I'm not talking about communism here; this is a higher-level discussion.) So they're happy as long as they can ignore those who suffer. You might find the number of people living at poverty level in this country staggering... but it's easy to ignore. So it seems OK.
A more equitable solution allows some people to be wealthy, but guarantees even the poorest aren't so poor they have nothing. This is not our society. We do
If Google (or any philanthropist) wants to really help a poor country, persuading them to depose their theocratic / despotic / fascist / socialist / puppet Governments and replace them with a constitutionally-bound Republic would be a good start.
Don't make me laugh. This country is hardly an example of stablism. We've been around for barely over 200 years, and it amuses me everytime someone thinks we should go "convert" another country to our preferred governmental system.
Historically, both Greek democracies and Roman republics were short-lived. These are just about our only other only other historic examples of such ruling systems. The longest-lived systems are more along the lines of emperial monarchies, whose lines can stretch for millenia.
If you believe that a "constitutionally-bound Republican government" will end suffering and poverty, I recommend you descend from your ivory tower and walk among the ghettos and homeless shelters of your local city sometime. That you visit some truly poor and struggling families. The belief that education and democracy will end the world's problems is stereotypically naive American thinking.
A stable monarchy would be a better choice. You will still end up with different social strata (ruling class, middle class, poor class---you are fooling yourself if you believe these do not exist in a republic), but the poorest will be in general better off. (Note: a monarchy does not imply a dictatorship.)
If you keep reading and wield a greater attention span than a retarded monkey, you will see the quote "the site remarks that SCE has been telling its partners to expect the PS3 to arrive at below the 40,000 yen mark when it debuts in Japan in spring of 2006". This is down from an earlier estimate of less than 50,000 yen. This is still hinting in that it's not an exact price... but it's an upper bound.
Sony is not entirely stupid. Recall the infamous story where they blew past the Saturn with the $299 US PlayStation release. The Saturn was losing money at $399, and everyone expected the PSX to be $499. Just like they did the PS2. Just like they do the PS3.
Things may change; we won't know until it's released. But the above official statements are the closest thing we have to fact at this point. Everything else is baseless speculation.
That E3 show set Sony back. The trailors were nothing more than CGI movies of what Sony hoped their games would look like.
Then their hopes were pretty realistic. Compare Old Snake from MGS4 which we know to be realtime with the Killzone demo shown, and you'll find that if anything, MGS4 is looking better. (Compare the high polycount, beads of sweat, skin texturing, and hair on Snake to what's in the KZ shot.)
And these are just the first-gen showings of the PS3.
The hardware no where near resembled what will really be in the PS3.
The... hardware? This is assuming you, a chronic Microsoft troll (mods: see poster's history), actually have inside information. Which is doubtful. This also assumes your statement makes any sense. What are you claiming? The specs Sony gave are false? That it won't have a Cell or nvidia GPU? That the box might look different? Seriously. If the games look like what Sony claimed (see Project Offset for some more impressive realtime videos), what else matters?
Also the PS3 will not launch any less than $500 without absolutely massive losses per unit. The 360 at this point will have markdowns to around $250.
You know this for a fact, do you? When it's already been confirmed long ago that the PS3 will launch at the same price-point the PS2 and PS1 did?
The PS3 will win this generation only if they can convince the average family that the PS3 is worth 2x the price. The normal fanboys will buy it no matter what the price, but these sales will be limited.
The PS3 will win this generation because they have all the games. That's what matters.
As for the graphics, looking at games running in realtime there is certainly nothing as impressive as the Killzone trailer, but but MGS4 trailer seems realistic to be ran in realtime
The interesting things about the latter are the 16:9 ratio, the high-res textures, and the hair/fabric. But compare that to Snake's hair in the first one. Or the sweat trickling down his face. Or some of the amazing textures from Shadow of the Colossus... a PS2 game.
Yeah, the Killzone trailer looks really good. Lots of polys, nice texturing, particles, etc. But these people are obviously talking out their ass: just look at the facts. We know MGS4 is "real". Compare it to shots that are claimed "fake"; it looks at least as impressive, often moreso. What is so unbelievable at this point?
One thing to remember is that, while the PS3 may not be able to produce graphics that are substantially nicer looking than on the 360- it does seem to handle many more objects on screen at once.
Actually judging from some of the early shots from Armored Core 4, 360 vs PS3, the immediately-noticeable difference is that the 360 doesn't seem to be pushing the same particle effects, which seem to give a lot of the character to the various PS3 demos. As you said, expect substantially better graphics in mid- to late-generation PS3 games, much like mid- to late-gen PS1 and PS2.
Game developers seem to be targetting 720p as the target resolution. Developers aren't really expecting games to run at 1080p because the system isn't powerful enough to do 1080p at a reasonable resolution
Let's hope you meant reasonable framerate here...
The spring '06 release date isn't looking very likely. Developers are predicting summer 06 for Japan and a fall 06 or winter 07 release for the US and Europe.
We'll see. Spring is right around the corner, and not much news. I doubt they'll let it slip beyond the Revolution release, but we'll see. At this point everything is speculation, and it's working in Sony's favor: every bit of speculation is negative. The PS3 will be late, it'll be expensive, it won't be technically superior, etc. This is anti-hype, and it's great, because the PS3 can come back and win big by beating predictions in any of these areas.
You seem unware that other people MAY IN FACT have differing views than you. What seems to you unimportant, may be extremely important to other people.
What's very sad is that some people cannot comprehend the fact that other views or perspectives even exist. Next time you encounter someone who you're having this problem with, poke them with a few questions and see what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh? Then don't. I don't think they're "forcing" anything. Almost every PSP game has some network connectivity... but it's not always PvP or chatting with friends. "Exit" has tons of levels you can download. PQ lets you post high scores.
Nor are the multiplayer games diminished by multiplayer anymore than Super Mario Bros was ever diminished by letting your friends play with you. Assuming such is rather silly at this point. If anything, these days not being able to play with friends is a misfeature.
Many games benefit from small-scale multiplayer; not having it flattens a game in a dimension you don't realize exists until you've played over the network for a considerable period. I experienced this after playing FFXI for a long time, then tried playing a single-player RPG. A certain aspect seems very flattened.
Unlike the 360, the PS3 builds on a history of a multitude of every variety of game; these aren't going away or in any way being diminished simply by providing online functionality, especially since that functionality is not always going to be the same thing. And especially if it's easy to add.
200 years ago, scientific consesus was that spontaneous generation happened, too. The evidence seemed overwhelming; you could leave a dead animal in a seemingly sealed container and maggots would spontaneously generate. Or a covered bit of cheese and rats would appear. Observation supported it; but obvervation is sometimes misleading and incomplete.
Evolution and gravity are on two very different scales of observability too. "Gravity" is really a term for "it falls", not a process for falling. Evolution is a specific process of change, and is very difficult to observe in action. This is the first thing that should make a scientist wary of proclaiming "overwhelming support". Yes, we can see natural selection (which is not natural evolution) happen in some cases; we can see genetic mutation happen as well. We can see a fossil record that indicates various species with the possibility of some genetic development over time. However, a wary scientist with some historic caution might be inclined to set aside the assumption that our observations are, in fact, the complete picture.
This is silly, because undoubtedly the OS gives you a number of things that you'd have to do anyway, thus you no longer need to do them in your game. Sony is not stupid. Their developers are not stupid. They have some of the better PS developers under their roof (Naughty Dog with Jak and Daxter, Polyphony Digital with Gran Turismo to name a couple), and know all about squeezing performance from limited resources.
Additionally, the PSP seems to have an always-running OS, and I haven't heard any developers complaining about it. It seems to take care of a number of things, including starting/stopping games, saving data, and accessing the network. (Probably graphics and other things too... dunno.) I would be curious as to what percentage of resources this takes up compared to the alleged PS3 OS.
Since both will probably be in ROM, it's probable that the majority of them can be paged out as necessary.
Oh, I totally agree with you. However "we are here" is still fact, though we may have to have a flexible definition for "being". This is all philosophical of course; is being virtual any less real? Does it matter? My opinion is "not really"; if I play a MMORPG, spend lots of time, and get lots of items and gold, what does it benefit me? Not much outside the game. But if I do the same thing in real life, what does it benefit me? Not much once I kick the bucket ("outside the game").
One theory that I'm more than half serious about is the fact the universe is a sort of simulation. I know it's been postulated, it's nothing new. But the behavior of some things (like the dual-slit experiment) at low levels would fit the theory that this is a simulation, and there are "artifacts" as a result of the simulation estimating certain effects. Same thing that would happen with a computer simulation that doesn't actually take into account individual particles. I'm sure work has been done by someone in this area, though.
No, "the theory of gravity" is a theory because we don't know how it works. We have theories. Some of those show merit, and are actively being examined scientifically. It may be "as close to fact as we have", but that's not saying anything. We could have almost nothing, and that would still be "as close to fact as we have".
The fact that objects fall toward the earth and other large bodies happens and is not the "theory" bit. No one is disputing that things fall. If you examine the scientific history of various theories of gravity, though, you will see a lot of dispute.
Would you say gravity waves or spacial distortion are indisputable fact? What about HG Wells-era gravity "rays," or the Dilbert theory of gravity as the expanding universe?
Fact: things fall. Theory: gravity waves.
Fact: we are here. Theory: evolution.
I can't say I'm more than lukewarm myself; it does its job, not spectacularly, but better than other phones I've had. That's not saying much, of course. It can in SSH, although it's slow and not really realistic for anything but emergency use. As for email, unless I'm expecting something or am on call, I just turn off the buzzer.
Given your comment about phone usability, I would guess you don't have the 710x line... I haven't used one of the "big"/"oldstyle" blackberries. They look clunky and corporate. Never had a desire to get one until I saw the 7100s. The phone is still not outstanding, but it's pretty clear, has a decent speakerphone, and plays Final Fantasy midis uncannily well. (FF1 prelude makes a great, unannoying ringtone.)
Yeah someone's certifiable here.
Don't look for a "killer feature", because there's not a specific killer feature. In fact, each of the Blackberry's features alone is pretty mediocre. This may be hard to understand, but it happens sometimes.
The trick is that, taken as a whole, it has just the right amount of everything to make it a "killer device". Email works well enough. Web works well enough. Calendar is decent. Everything integrates with Exchange. The phone interface is really nice, and the address book is good and can do directory lookups. Companies can run their own internal servers and keep the devices behind the company firewall (big difference between general cell phones). The screen is big enough to read and the full keyboard (or half keyboard with uncannily good predictive text for the more phone-like models) is a must. Connectivity is constant wherever you have cell coverage. For a regular work day, this addresses just about everything.
Finally, you can charge it, and it'll remain connected and on the data network at all times for days before you have to recharge it. And it charges over USB. It will even work offline (i.e. no cell/data network). I can't remember the last time I actually turned mine off, though I have turned off wireless to save battery or switched off work email.
There are other neat features, as well, like the holster functionality. (Unlike any cell phone I've seen, when it's in the holster it will be silent/vibrate, and when it's out it will ring. Nice for never worrying if your phone will embarrass you in a meeting.)
These features taken as a whole, without being loaded down by stuff like cameras and other useless trinkets, make it a very useful device. No, nothing is particularly outstanding. But it's the right combination of ingredients.
I'm sure someone who has actually used one can give a full accounting.
If you have a decent job in the tech industry, you are most likely salaried and overtime exempt. You might have an argument if you are hourly... but only maybe. Since I am not being paid by the hour or minute, and am often expected to respond to problems "off hours", overly-restricting my actions during "on hours" is right out. Fortunately where I work, this is the case. Work is result-oriented, not "am I looking busy during my shift," as it should be.
Additionally, most of the people I talk to regularly (on irc) are also "tech" people, and an invaluable resource. Perhaps it is because I have been on irc so long, but it isn't so much of a distraction as simply a place I dwell online. If I'm in the middle of something, I'm not looking at IRC, or if I see a message, I'll ignore it until later. Yes, I can say that, because that's how it works.
Personal email is about the same story, except I rarely respond because it is a bit more distracting to set aside what I'm doing to respond to a usually longer message. However, if I need to, I expect to be able to, just like if I have to take a phone call, I will. Everyone I know expects these conditions, even if they're hourly.
If you're hourly, and you're excessively distracted, this is a problem, but not really different than if you're not hourly and you miss deadlines for the same reason. Since legally compulsory breaks (including lunch) are often overlooked, taking time for a phone call, email/irc messages, or similar, is at least a start to compensation.
In any case, it's about the humanity of the situation. Are you strapped to your desk literally, in a sealed cubical, unable to shoot the breeze with coworkers over the water cooler, or not? Communicating with non-work people is not different just because it's virtual. Either way can become a problem, but it doesn't have to be, and for most people is not.
Your employer does not own you. You should always strive to do a good job, but your job should not rule your life.
Yeah, people could be chained to their desks and allowed 3 5-minute bathroom breaks and a 15-minute lunchbreak. That's all they need, think of the productivity increase! We could use children, too!
Oh wait, I think they have labor laws now.
What happened to having a pleasant workplace where you enjoy what you do? Little things make a lot of difference. I'm not talking dot-com era overindulgence, but personal email access is not too much to ask.
Most people spend at least 8 hours of their waking day, during the prime of their wakefulness, at work. It should not be too much to ask for this to be a pleasant time: people who enjoy being at work get stuff done and are more loyal than those who hate where they are, what they do, everyone around them, and the company.
Leaves no discernable marks. Perfect for percussive maintenance. Just a BOFH tidbit.
Actually it seems more like NASA spending millions developing the ballpoint pen and the Russians using pencils, to me. ;-)
WTF? This isn't really suprising or news. Surely someone remembers the EyeToy demo from E32k5. This was news then (and long before the Revolution controller was announced).
What Nintendo should be wary of at this point is relying on a special, possibly expensive, controller to sell their system. The EyeToy can do the same basic things, using an entirely different approach. In fact, it may be able to handle more, as (looking at the demo) one can control two (and probably more) cups using one EyeToy, but you'd need a separate controller for the Rev.
This isn't to say Nintendo won't have awesome and innovative games that take advantage of the controller. Given the DS, they undoubtedly will. The point though is marketing... Sony can say "oh, we can do that too", and they lose their edge.
Wouldn't this apply to your entire post? Past performance, especially of other companies (!), is hardly guarantee of future results.
However, while it's not a guarantee, that doesn't mean it's not a decent indicator. It doesn't mean that at very least, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt. Nintendo, despite not being #1, have shown that they are worth the benefit of the doubt, despite extreme skepticism about various decisions (the DS, the Revolution controller, etc.). They've made bad decisions in the past (Virtual Boy, cartridges, dropping Sony), but we know that they've made good stuff, and will continue to do so.
The companies you mentioned however have many details you failed to mention. Sega has been shooting themselves in the foot since day 1. It's suprising they made it as far as the Dreamcast, and even moreso they continue to exist. Atari made some terrible business decisions, and the Jaguar wasn't a reasonable competitor. Nintendo made some bad decisions, keeping cartridges on the N64, not getting third-party support, focusing more on the kids market.
All of these decisions were obviously bad from the get-go. The declines were predictable. Does this mean Sony can't do something stupid? Overlook some detail? No; but they seem to be on the right track. Even making sure they have all online the features.
This doesn't guarantee they'll succeed. There are never guarantees. But considering their experience and track record, they get the benefit of the doubt.
Ah yes. Sony has never done anything. Like have the last two leading consoles. With thousands of titles. Selling hundreds of millions of consoles worldwide. Yes, I'd say there's nothing concrete and no reason to consider Sony has anything to offer.
Sony has announced its specs. They've given a few demos. There have been very few announcements. Most of the "hype" is from analysts. Who don't know what they're talking about. (Ah, but I repeat myself.)
At this point, SCE has what's called benefit of the doubt. They, unlike "one party," have delivered two top consoles and seem to be well on their way to a third.
Better article. Whoever wrote the other articley looks like they poorly summarized this one. Then the summary for the slashdot posting poorly summarized that. Sheesh.
Actually this isn't the case. In a monarchy, you have a king or queen, but you also have quite a bit of nobility with their own military. If the people at some level aren't kept happy, there's the problem of rebellion, and in the case of a monarchy, it paints a much bigger target on a single person who can be overthrown.
Dictatorship happens when corruption becomes rampant. This can be seen a long way off, and can be both prevented and restored. This is unlike a republic or democracy, where corruption exists but isn't evident, and everyone suffers but no one can put a finger on why.
There is a major difference between a "benevolent dictator" who rules with an iron fist and cows everyone (but at least appaers to retain a shred of humanity and doesn't oppress the people too much), and a simple monarch. A monarchy can exist without the absolute rule of the monarch. That's how it works. You may not be able to go scream and rant in the face of the king (try that with your local country's President and see how far you get), but that doesn't preclude free speech and the ability to decry injustice. I think you may look back in history and find a few people who did such in various forms.
Unrest among the citizens is felt by the lesser nobles, who pressure the higher ones. This is more or less how it works for our representative democracy, but with the latter, it's a lot easier for political corruption to go unnoticed. Politicians are no longer responsible to the people, but large greedy corporations that fund their campaigns and whose best interests are not the same as that of individuals.
The popular vote and elections promise change... but these things have many inherent flaws. Voting systems break. The majority is easily swayed. This sort of corruption is not only difficult to fix, but difficult to detect.
What is this "free government" of which you speak? "Historically?" Care to point to some grand historic examples (>500 years ago) of "free speech" and this "free government" of which you speak? I have noted Greek democracies, which on a small scale allowed any citizen to have an effect on the governance of the land. I also pointed out that these were historically short-lived and often lead to dictatorships or oligarchies.
So, you're happy if some people suffer more, as long as most people are "happy"? Would you be willing to be dirt poor or homeless, in the minority of the populous?
Our society is "greedy", and by that I mean that people can increase their "slice of the pie", to the exclusion of others. It allows some people to be very rich, and others to be very poor. Unfortunately, no one wants to be poor, or even give up a little of their slice. (And I'm not talking about communism here; this is a higher-level discussion.) So they're happy as long as they can ignore those who suffer. You might find the number of people living at poverty level in this country staggering... but it's easy to ignore. So it seems OK.
A more equitable solution allows some people to be wealthy, but guarantees even the poorest aren't so poor they have nothing. This is not our society. We do
Don't make me laugh. This country is hardly an example of stablism. We've been around for barely over 200 years, and it amuses me everytime someone thinks we should go "convert" another country to our preferred governmental system.
Historically, both Greek democracies and Roman republics were short-lived. These are just about our only other only other historic examples of such ruling systems. The longest-lived systems are more along the lines of emperial monarchies, whose lines can stretch for millenia.
If you believe that a "constitutionally-bound Republican government" will end suffering and poverty, I recommend you descend from your ivory tower and walk among the ghettos and homeless shelters of your local city sometime. That you visit some truly poor and struggling families. The belief that education and democracy will end the world's problems is stereotypically naive American thinking.
A stable monarchy would be a better choice. You will still end up with different social strata (ruling class, middle class, poor class---you are fooling yourself if you believe these do not exist in a republic), but the poorest will be in general better off. (Note: a monarchy does not imply a dictatorship.)
I believe Penny Arcade put it best.
If you keep reading and wield a greater attention span than a retarded monkey, you will see the quote "the site remarks that SCE has been telling its partners to expect the PS3 to arrive at below the 40,000 yen mark when it debuts in Japan in spring of 2006". This is down from an earlier estimate of less than 50,000 yen. This is still hinting in that it's not an exact price... but it's an upper bound.
Sony is not entirely stupid. Recall the infamous story where they blew past the Saturn with the $299 US PlayStation release. The Saturn was losing money at $399, and everyone expected the PSX to be $499. Just like they did the PS2. Just like they do the PS3.
Things may change; we won't know until it's released. But the above official statements are the closest thing we have to fact at this point. Everything else is baseless speculation.
Then their hopes were pretty realistic. Compare Old Snake from MGS4 which we know to be realtime with the Killzone demo shown, and you'll find that if anything, MGS4 is looking better. (Compare the high polycount, beads of sweat, skin texturing, and hair on Snake to what's in the KZ shot.)
And these are just the first-gen showings of the PS3.
The... hardware? This is assuming you, a chronic Microsoft troll (mods: see poster's history), actually have inside information. Which is doubtful. This also assumes your statement makes any sense. What are you claiming? The specs Sony gave are false? That it won't have a Cell or nvidia GPU? That the box might look different? Seriously. If the games look like what Sony claimed (see Project Offset for some more impressive realtime videos), what else matters?
You know this for a fact, do you? When it's already been confirmed long ago that the PS3 will launch at the same price-point the PS2 and PS1 did?
The PS3 will win this generation because they have all the games. That's what matters.
This seems silly, because this shot of Old Snake is far more impressive than this shot from the KZ trailer.
The interesting things about the latter are the 16:9 ratio, the high-res textures, and the hair/fabric. But compare that to Snake's hair in the first one. Or the sweat trickling down his face. Or some of the amazing textures from Shadow of the Colossus... a PS2 game.
Yeah, the Killzone trailer looks really good. Lots of polys, nice texturing, particles, etc. But these people are obviously talking out their ass: just look at the facts. We know MGS4 is "real". Compare it to shots that are claimed "fake"; it looks at least as impressive, often moreso. What is so unbelievable at this point?
Actually judging from some of the early shots from Armored Core 4, 360 vs PS3, the immediately-noticeable difference is that the 360 doesn't seem to be pushing the same particle effects, which seem to give a lot of the character to the various PS3 demos. As you said, expect substantially better graphics in mid- to late-generation PS3 games, much like mid- to late-gen PS1 and PS2.
Let's hope you meant reasonable framerate here...
We'll see. Spring is right around the corner, and not much news. I doubt they'll let it slip beyond the Revolution release, but we'll see. At this point everything is speculation, and it's working in Sony's favor: every bit of speculation is negative. The PS3 will be late, it'll be expensive, it won't be technically superior, etc. This is anti-hype, and it's great, because the PS3 can come back and win big by beating predictions in any of these areas.
What's very sad is that some people cannot comprehend the fact that other views or perspectives even exist. Next time you encounter someone who you're having this problem with, poke them with a few questions and see what I mean.