...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.
Not when the company that rightly disgusts us is a convicted monopolist. Convicted of abusing the monopoly by bundling software.
Furthermore, any notion of "cannot ship their own anti-virus solution" being ridiculous is far outweighed by the ridiculousness of shipping a product that needs it so badly out of the box.
Looking at Metacritic, not a single game has cracked the 90+ ratings.
If you're looking at numeric ratings to determine what games you get, you're missing out on a lot of great games on every platform.
Contrary to popular opinion, the PSP has a very solid lineup, especially given this is it's first year and it's a first-gen platform. PoPoLoCrois is both cute and RPG. Lord of the Rings Tactics is, well, tactical. Metal Gear: Acid is basically Metal Gear Tactics. Both Legend of Heroes (stupid localized name for "The Garghav") and Kingdom of Paradise are solid RPGs, far better than Untold Legends. Not AAA titles, but solid B or A titles, the likes of which you've probably enjoyed many of on the SNES or GBA.
For upcoming tactics games, check out Generation of Chaos and Field Commander. For puzzle/strategy games, definitely check out Exit, which is very well done (I imported it). For RPGs, there is at very least the Square FF7 spinoff, probably others I've forgotten. For cute, there's the weird Loco Roco, Katamari, and Megaman. Granted, Nintendo will have more in the latter category if past consoles are anything to judge by.
Now the DS definitely has a few games I want (Animal Crossing mostly, Castlevania would be nice. Maybe the new Super Mario Bros.). But that doesn't mean I have to stop liking my PSP just because I got a DS... and for those of you with a DS, the reverse applies. I like my PS2 despite spending hours on Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, and Zelda.
But especially, don't let numbers and idiotic reviewers put you off. This applies to anything. There are some great PS2 and Cube games that got low ratings and didn't deserve them. Same with DS and PSP.
Interesting question. Why don't you do some research on various philosophical outlooks, and get back to us on that. While you're looking for information to make your decision, ask yourself what you'd do if you were unable to find the information you need in order to make your decision. How would you feel if you knew that information existed but you're not permitted to see it. Not because the owner of the information set a price for it that you couldn't afford, not because you didn't know where it was, but simply because someone else said so.
Ah but you are still not only seeing things from your perspective, you haven't even comprehended the fact there exist other perspectives.
This has nothing to do with access to information; that is a red herring. This has everything to do with us dictating policy to a foreign country, or someone who does business there. If a Chinese company did business in the US, should they be required by the Chinese government to censor information it didn't like? Would the people of China find it morally reprehensible if they did not censor this information?
Killing people may or may not be evil. Putting them in small cells for the rest of their life may or may not be evil. Telling them that they are permitted to only have one child may or may not be evil. But denying people access to information so that they can make reasoned and informed decisions, what is that, if not evil?
First, many would consider killing and imprisonment "evil". Others such as yourself consider censorship "evil". Others still consider pornography, video games, or loud music "evil".
My point is that there are many perspectives. So many times slashdotters accuse and criticize various religious, governmental, or other groups for promoting values we disagree with, yet as soon as someone stomps on values we hold precious (and someone else disagrees with), we do the same thing.
So, perhaps, next time someone promotes their opinion on a moral or ethical matter, we should, instead of telling them they should shut up and not be allowed to talk about it, let them exercise their right to free speech, and agree or disagree with what they're saying.
Now whose "evil" are we talking about? In the US, it's clear from our constitution and bill of rights what we, as a country, hold valuable and consider "evil".
However, as so many people like to say, the US is not the rest of the world. There are other countries, with other values, and they aren't necessarily the same as ours. Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"? Because we like them?
Who is trying to push morals/values/ethics on someone else now? Or is this just what we say when we don't like the morals/values/ethics in question?
You know, while it may seem silly in some respects to ban the booth babes, they're really kinda silly anyway. At PAX there were occasionally booth babes. And they always seemed silly and out of place, especially since 99% of the attendees (yes, there were plenty of females around, I'd say at least 25%... check the pictures) were hardcore gamers. We're there for the games, and to game with other gamers. You don't need booth babes to attract us to your booth... just some interesting games. And maybe some swag.
E3 might be a different story, though, given the sheer banal idiocy of so many game journalists recently...
What if Microsoft made a handheld gaming machine that only played games from Xbox Live Marketplace? What if they removed in-store purchasing of games alltogether?
Then all the stores who, you know, sell actual consoles and games, would hate them. No more game sales. No more used game sales. If I were EB/Gamestop, I'd be hard pressed to promote such a system. And without that, you just lost a huge portion of the market.
They would use the same business model for the 360 (buy a card at Best Buy, enter the code and download games). They could offer demos of each (same as the 360) and have all of the same competitive high score/leaderboard functions.
Except no one needs Live to do these things. Many PSP games already have highscore tracking functions (Infected, PQ, Twisted Metal, Wipeout, etc.), and I don't have to pay to subscribe to them.
Paying for a console, a game, and then the ability to play it, is nice for Microsoft's bottom line, but it's terrible for the gamer. Especially one on a limited budget. Or a kid's parents.
The only way Microsoft would successfully enter the handheld market would be NOT to clone the PSP (which is a POS anyway).
Ah, parrot the party line. I hope they're paying you well over there to troll like this. The PSP is a beautiful piece of hardware, with a solid and growing lineup (see my collection for a list of many of them, still missing about 5), and some great additional functionality (movies, music, web).
Since the PSP has recently been catching up again, Microsoft could do much worse than have something as successful as the PSP.
Right. It takes *real* moral strength to get a 502.1 million dollar salary rather than a 505.9 million dollar salary. Google execs make an attempt to not look evil, one that costs them nothing, and the editors eat it up.
The stock could crash and they could also end up with not much more than that $1.
Yes, they made a lot of money last year. Their statement by taking $1 again this year is that they have confidence in the stability of their business.
"On the launch day of Xbox 360, I recall seeing a line eight persons deep to play Super Mario Kart DS, and not one person even looking at the 360."
And this suprises you, how?
Oh, it certainly doesn't, but probably not for the reasons you want to believe.
Nintendo = Japanese company. They heavily advertise and have a very deep market penetration there. Microsoft = American, they heavily advertise and have great market penetration here.
"Great market penetration". That's funny.
You also left out the third and fourth lines: Nintendo advertises here, and has deep market penetration. Microsoft advertises there, and has next to no market penetration.
If you go to a game store here you see the exact opposite. The 360 has people huddled around and fighting over the chance to play COD2, and the DS is laying around unplayed.
Rarely. In both the local Best Buy and EBGames, I see someone walk up to the 360 and play COD once in awhile. Usually not for long. Certainly not "fighting over it" or lining up in any way. There are however people regularly playing the cube and DS.
This is not suprising. No one is suprised, because everyone already knows that's how things are. It's telling. Especially about how the next generation is going to play out.
The result will be Sony fanbois buy a few of them up, but most Middle-America families on a budget will go with the 360 that has a larger selection of games, online play, and half the price.
Don't make me laugh. The PSP already has a larger lineup than the 360, and just as much online play. And everyone considers the PSP to be lacking.
The PlayStation 2 holds the record of fastest selling video game console ever, 100 million PlayStation 2 units were shipped in only five years and nine months, shattering the previous record of nine years and six months by the PlayStation. Ah, shipped...forgot to mention that.
Oh, yeah, a significant portion of those PS2s are still sitting at stores waiting to be bought. Right. Like retailers would have 10 million units sitting on shelves and still be asking for more.
Plus, how many people had to buy another PS2 because of the disc read error?
Good question, you have any actual numbers? I didn't think so.
So Microsoft is on pace to sell 30 - 50 million units? And those estimates are constrained by production problems. Your right, that's a total failure.
Constrained by production? I seem to recall barely one-fifth of the 360s in Japan selling. It's only on pace to sell 30-50 million if it keeps selling at the same rate it has been for the entirety of its life.
Looking at opening weekends, the PS2 was "on a pace" to sell 387,400,000 in the US and Japan alone. Of course, this is silly, because sales trail off considerably after initial release, and continue to slow (with some ups and downs).
Judging by things selling about 1/4 of the "on a pace" rate, the 360 is more likely to sell about 10 million units in a 5-year period.
Re:Take all the time you need, to get it right
on
PS3 In U.S. In November?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The 360 is over a million out the door. It is far ahead of the PS2 pace 2 months into release.
Wow, a whole million? If you look at the actual facts, you'll find Sony sold just shy if a million PS2s on opening weekend... in Japan alone. Over half a million in the US on opening day. And over 100 million to date.
If Microsoft were to continue selling, on average, 500k a month, it would take them sixteen years of consecutive continuous sales to match the PS2's record.
And a regular computer is only really good at one thing: adding. Or, possibly, you could split it down to the few basic bitwise logical operators, excluding even basic arithmetic on anything larger than single binary bits.
Of course, everything else follows---but not obviously so, when you're just starting. We're looking at the very ground level.
Researchers believe quantum systems will be much more efficient at rock-solid cryptography and mass database searches than running the latest version of Doom.
They have no idea what this will lead to. Remember research 50 years ago? Huge, vacuum tubes, hundreds of calculations a second (maybe). They thought the world would have maybe 5-10 computers. Who envisioned Doom, or the Internet?
Same way with quantum computing. Right now we have very primitive experimental technology and think a few researchers might eventually benefit. I'd like to see what we're doing in 50-100 years.
And this is vs the claims of the RIAA/MPAA, who seem to do things like multiply the entire cost of making the movie by the number of copies that were distributed, or something equally absurd.
But if you believe that copyright is a compromise between society and content producers, then the choice by copyright owners to employ DRM on their works has the additional negative consequence of giving them control over their works beyond the term of the copyright. And that's a problem.
To play devil's advocate for a bit, consider that copyright and DRM are not really linked at all. In a legal system without copyright, where anyone may copy anything freely, one might still use DRM to prevent people from experiencing their work outside the setting (application, particular mp3 player, etc.) he or she mandates. In fact, one could go so far as to claim that the DRM itself was part of the work.
This could also be argued in a system with copyright... that the DRM is "under" copyright, and actually a protected part of the work itself. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how that'd hold up in court, but consider the opposite situation: legislation about what content can or cannot be included as part of a work that falls under copyright. Before asserting that nothing else compares, consider things like unlockable content in video games, or hidden extras on DVDs. Should we have a law that says nothing may be in any way obscured in digital media?
Perhaps the original poster was on the right track: despite what you think about DRM, laws regarding it (either way) are negative. If certain companies or artists lock up their works, then give them what they deserve: nothing. No time. No money. Forget about them, forget their words, their works, and their existence; let them go out of business and be lost in history.
Starting in the most critical area of the videogame press's remit and where I have the most self-doubt about my own writings in the past
Is this English?
If you read beyond a 3rd-grade level, yes it is. Start by looking up the noun form of "remit". The "and" conjuction does not join an independent clause ("where I have the most self-doubt..." is dependent) and therefore does not deserve a comma. It's a long sentence, but I think if you study it enough, it'll be clear.
Maybe if everyone was sufficiently literate, there'd be less of the craptastic journalism that the article decries.
McKenna, I'm sure that you had point in there somewhere. From what I was able to decipher from your article, I'm pretty sure I agree with you, more or less. But I guarantee that you'd benefit from a couple of years of formal education in composition, and your work would certainly benefit from a couple of studious edits, preferably from someone else.
I think you've got that reversed. And maybe that's the reason he's writing the article and you're writing incorrect comments on slashdot.
I'd sooner read well-written marketing copy than poorly-written criticism.
As your comment shows, the mainstream press panders to idiots for a reason: they've got a wide audience.
Why do we continually let wrong-doing companies settle lawsuits by giving away advertising? This same thing happened with Microsoft back when their "punishment" was to give several school districts copies of Windows and other MS Software. This action isn't reprimanding the company at fault, but giving them more customers instead.
Ah yes, because by downloading music from iTunes or receiving a valid copy of the CD you paid for, you are now a Sony/BMG customer who must purchase more Sony gear to play those songs, and will ultimately be locked in by your choice should you choose or need to buy more music in the future.
Oh wait, no you're not. Music isn't a platform, Sony/BMG isn't a monopoly, and this at worst is allowing the customer to get exposure to other artists which they may or may not follow in the future, and who may or may not even be Sony/BMG artists.
I wish lawsuits could only be settled with cold-hard-cash or *serious*, displayable change in company policy to avoid future indiscretions.
So, $7.50 isn't cold hard cash? This is probably a $15 CD we're talking about. They're refunding everyone half the cost, providing a valid copy, and allowing them to download some tracks from an online music store. That sounds fair to me.
Displayable change, however, I agree with. Hopefully this will be costly enough, both in money and PR, to prevent anyone from doing it again.
IMO, people should focus less on 3D-perspective games and make more 2D games that are rendered with the 3D hardware. I recently imported Exit, a sidescrolling puzzle-type game with very smooth graphics.
Mario64, while definitely setting historical precedent in terms of 3D, is not the only way to do 3D. It's great for some games, but after replaying Symphony of the Night, I'm quickly missing the sidescrollers of yore. Things that don't necessarily require even one analog stick.
As for actual games... contrary to popular opinion, there are already a lot of solid games. They may not be AAA titles, but what was the first AAA title for the PS2? Or the PS1? There are solid A and B titles in every genre, most of them support wifi, and there are very few times that you could say "gee, I wish there was a good XYZ game" and not actually have a good to excellent XYZ game available.
Reports are saying that look like the graphics on the PC version which are a big improvement over what you saw on the PS2.
This is definitely true; although the PS2 version could be easily updated... and it's silly that they don't. Compare the graphics on FFXII (which undoubtedly uses a modified version of the same engine) to FFXI.
Another complaint I have heard is that the PS2 version is holding the graphics of other versions behind (since they don't display cloaks and some other things). This is BS, from a developer's perspective: the other versions already look better, and there's no reason you couldn't add the additional things on systems that handled it.
I still have a friend I talk to once in a while that still plays and it looks like the population is lower than when I played, but it's holding steady.
Definitely... FFXI is the kind of game that requires a long-term commitment; those players that have committed are likely to stay so, especially with the constant updates and story extensions that Square adds.
The only issue now is inflation in the world. The way the game was designed you need a lot of raw materials to craft things. New players generally gathered these to make money at the start of the game. With less new people playing few of the materials are being gathered leading to higher prices for them which raise prices across the board.
This isn't the only problem... gilfarmers and botfishers are also to blame. However, I'm on a server with much higher inflation now than the first server I played on, and it's actually made it easier for me to earn a lot of money. There was still really expensive stuff on the old server, but getting the cash was harder. So it balances out to an extent.
The game had some interesting concepts with how it handled crafting and the economy, but it seems like WoW has out shined it. Who knows, maybe with the new generation of consoles coming out ports of the game will bring in lots of new blood.
I disagree. WoW may be more popular, but it has no real storyline, not to mention the huge story arcs that FFXI has. Additionally, while it's OK for casual playing, the rewards feel too easy. Earning ranks or rare items in FFXI feels like much more of an accomplishment; I'm not the only person I know who has returned from WoW to FFXI because of this.
But being a failure on the PS2? I'd have to disagree. The only issue is that the PC version was so much better as the PS2 chugged along at times.
Really? I've heard the opposite... the PC version tends to stutter when you're in a busy area (try lower Jeuno or around a moogle during an event), whereas the PS2 runs smoothly regardless. I do have a problem with USB keyboard input, but it may be my keyboard.
It's true that people looking for the next Final Fantasy game and spending 300 hours leveling your party and completing every side quest were disappointed [...]
Perhaps. Unfortunately most of the "good stuff" happens later, and you need to find a good group of people to play with, even a static party. That totally changes the game. There is definite Final Fantasy material there, though; you just won't see it until you've made progress deeper into the game's storyline.
Well besides that part that simulated the wait in line game, but at least you were logged into the server unlike WoW during that simulation.
With a ton of X360 articles about every little detail before, during, and after launch, I have to wonder. Especially when it wasn't even mentioned as a side note that over 4000 devkits have shipped so far. Even IGN got this one. Not a large piece of news, perhaps, but it demonstrates lots of stuff is going on behind the scenes.
you eat, you sleep
you can no more overcome feeling envious than you can overcome the need to eat and sleep
when you rewire the mammalian brain to the point where envy is not something you feel, get back to me
until then, try a little pragmatism
Are you equating a feeling with a physiological need? Feelings like envy are the equivalent of laying around and oversleeping all the time, or eating all the time and becoming overweight. These are not needs, they are overindulgence and they are harmful to your health.
you would only succeed in fooling yourself. you envy. everyone does. everyone always has. everyone always will. if you think you've overcome this basic facet of essential human nature, you've only fooled yourself into thinking you have. you haven't at all, and you never will
How is envy "essential"? The dictionary says "a feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another". How is "discontent and resentment" essential?
Are you saying that people cannot change? Do you believe in evolution? If so, that is directly contradictory. Most religions also promote self-change. Unless you're a complete nihilist, fatalist, or hedonist---and possibly even if you are---believing in the absolute inability to change is directly contradictory to everyday life.
you don't understand what it means to be human. you don't recognize your own flaws. which makes you more dangerous than someone who recognizes their flaws and deals with it
it's like saying "i will never get in a car accident." as soon as you say that, you probably will, because you'll drive less carefully, believing yourself to be immune to something you're not. but if i say "i could very easily die in a car accident," my chances of actually doing so just wne todwn a lot. because i recognize the possibility, and driv emore carefully
Again, you misinterpret. I am not saying "I never feel envy". I am saying that when I do feel envy, I will strive to refuse to act on it. If my neighbors get a new car, and I feel envious, I can quash the envy, and be content. Eventually, whether the feeling itself exists or not, I will have control over myself, and it will not matter. If I do give into it, I will try to change myself, to see what happened, and to strive to do what it takes to not let it happen the next time.
The same can be said for your car accident. Car accidents happen, but they can also be avoided with some discipline. You do not (or should not!) simply drive wrecklessly with the attitude that "oh, car accidents are essential an unavoidable, therefore I will do what I want and attempt nothing to avoid one". Instead you practice self-control, follow the rules of the road, and---though you may not drive exactly at the speed limit every day---you avoid accidents. If an accident happens (and it's your fault), you analyze what went wrong, and strive to avoid the same situation next time.
you can pretty mcuh say the same thing about your feelings of envy
you suffer from arrogance and hubris about human nature, including your own
by saying you've overcome envy, your more dangerous to this world than someone who evnies
at least they are honest about themselves
If I said that I do not envy, or even that I do not give into envy, or any other human failing, then I apologize; it was indeed arrogance and certainly incorrect. What I consider ultimate success is for envy, greed, and the like to become irrelevant. Whether they are felt or not, they do not dictate my actions.
This itself is a higher freedom: freedom from our own nature. If you dislike having someone else dictate what to do, how much less you should li
do you respect free will? i don't see how you can overcome aspects of human nature that are disagreeable to you without introducing a police state into the picture
You misinterpret. It's not that you should enforce these things on others. It's that you should struggle to overcome them in yourself; or more to the point: that I can strive to and succeed in overcoming them in myself.
I do not find these things as acceptable behavior for myself, therefore I strive to change, and I can ultimately succeed.
isn't it far superior to simply accept them and work with them? you spend all of your energies trying to overcome them, in vain. and your energies are better spend elsewhere
No, because they are not good things. They are detrimental to my life, and they are not truly that difficult to overcome.
your idealism does not trump my pragmatism
If I spend my life lusting after everything and envying anything that someone has and I don't, do you truly believe this is not a waste of life? Instead, I overcome my envy, and can therefore spend my time on constructive activity, not just trying to show others down.
This is not to say I have nothing. But I can limit what I want to what I need---I might have the best computer on the block because I need it, but I don't feel the need to get a fancy car just because my neighbor got one. Nor does it mean I am not inspired by others. If I see an artist, or a coder, or a musician who does something better than I, it can inspire me to become better myself... but not just so that I can take pride in being the best there is.
Life is not a zero-sum game. Nor does overcoming your bad attributes make you devoid of the good ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when the company that rightly disgusts us is a convicted monopolist. Convicted of abusing the monopoly by bundling software.
Furthermore, any notion of "cannot ship their own anti-virus solution" being ridiculous is far outweighed by the ridiculousness of shipping a product that needs it so badly out of the box.
If you're looking at numeric ratings to determine what games you get, you're missing out on a lot of great games on every platform.
Contrary to popular opinion, the PSP has a very solid lineup, especially given this is it's first year and it's a first-gen platform. PoPoLoCrois is both cute and RPG. Lord of the Rings Tactics is, well, tactical. Metal Gear: Acid is basically Metal Gear Tactics. Both Legend of Heroes (stupid localized name for "The Garghav") and Kingdom of Paradise are solid RPGs, far better than Untold Legends. Not AAA titles, but solid B or A titles, the likes of which you've probably enjoyed many of on the SNES or GBA.
For upcoming tactics games, check out Generation of Chaos and Field Commander. For puzzle/strategy games, definitely check out Exit, which is very well done (I imported it). For RPGs, there is at very least the Square FF7 spinoff, probably others I've forgotten. For cute, there's the weird Loco Roco, Katamari, and Megaman. Granted, Nintendo will have more in the latter category if past consoles are anything to judge by.
Now the DS definitely has a few games I want (Animal Crossing mostly, Castlevania would be nice. Maybe the new Super Mario Bros.). But that doesn't mean I have to stop liking my PSP just because I got a DS... and for those of you with a DS, the reverse applies. I like my PS2 despite spending hours on Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, and Zelda.
But especially, don't let numbers and idiotic reviewers put you off. This applies to anything. There are some great PS2 and Cube games that got low ratings and didn't deserve them. Same with DS and PSP.
Ah but you are still not only seeing things from your perspective, you haven't even comprehended the fact there exist other perspectives.
This has nothing to do with access to information; that is a red herring. This has everything to do with us dictating policy to a foreign country, or someone who does business there. If a Chinese company did business in the US, should they be required by the Chinese government to censor information it didn't like? Would the people of China find it morally reprehensible if they did not censor this information?
First, many would consider killing and imprisonment "evil". Others such as yourself consider censorship "evil". Others still consider pornography, video games, or loud music "evil".
My point is that there are many perspectives. So many times slashdotters accuse and criticize various religious, governmental, or other groups for promoting values we disagree with, yet as soon as someone stomps on values we hold precious (and someone else disagrees with), we do the same thing.
So, perhaps, next time someone promotes their opinion on a moral or ethical matter, we should, instead of telling them they should shut up and not be allowed to talk about it, let them exercise their right to free speech, and agree or disagree with what they're saying.
So whose ethical absolute are you promoting? Yours? Why is yours more valid than mine?
In short, what makes your "evil" evil?
Now whose "evil" are we talking about? In the US, it's clear from our constitution and bill of rights what we, as a country, hold valuable and consider "evil".
However, as so many people like to say, the US is not the rest of the world. There are other countries, with other values, and they aren't necessarily the same as ours. Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"? Because we like them?
Who is trying to push morals/values/ethics on someone else now? Or is this just what we say when we don't like the morals/values/ethics in question?
You know, while it may seem silly in some respects to ban the booth babes, they're really kinda silly anyway. At PAX there were occasionally booth babes. And they always seemed silly and out of place, especially since 99% of the attendees (yes, there were plenty of females around, I'd say at least 25%... check the pictures) were hardcore gamers. We're there for the games, and to game with other gamers. You don't need booth babes to attract us to your booth... just some interesting games. And maybe some swag.
E3 might be a different story, though, given the sheer banal idiocy of so many game journalists recently...
Then all the stores who, you know, sell actual consoles and games, would hate them. No more game sales. No more used game sales. If I were EB/Gamestop, I'd be hard pressed to promote such a system. And without that, you just lost a huge portion of the market.
Except no one needs Live to do these things. Many PSP games already have highscore tracking functions (Infected, PQ, Twisted Metal, Wipeout, etc.), and I don't have to pay to subscribe to them.
Paying for a console, a game, and then the ability to play it, is nice for Microsoft's bottom line, but it's terrible for the gamer. Especially one on a limited budget. Or a kid's parents.
Ah, parrot the party line. I hope they're paying you well over there to troll like this. The PSP is a beautiful piece of hardware, with a solid and growing lineup (see my collection for a list of many of them, still missing about 5), and some great additional functionality (movies, music, web).
Since the PSP has recently been catching up again, Microsoft could do much worse than have something as successful as the PSP.
Such as the X360.
The stock could crash and they could also end up with not much more than that $1.
Yes, they made a lot of money last year. Their statement by taking $1 again this year is that they have confidence in the stability of their business.
Oh, it certainly doesn't, but probably not for the reasons you want to believe.
"Great market penetration". That's funny.
You also left out the third and fourth lines: Nintendo advertises here, and has deep market penetration. Microsoft advertises there, and has next to no market penetration.
Rarely. In both the local Best Buy and EBGames, I see someone walk up to the 360 and play COD once in awhile. Usually not for long. Certainly not "fighting over it" or lining up in any way. There are however people regularly playing the cube and DS.
This is not suprising. No one is suprised, because everyone already knows that's how things are. It's telling. Especially about how the next generation is going to play out.
I'm starting to notice a trend with the computer guy nex spewing misinformation. If we look at the actual facts, and again, we already see that Sony---despite veiled references to the "value" of the PS3---is actually planning on releasing at the same prices they always have. Notice the price actually going down over time.
Don't make me laugh. The PSP already has a larger lineup than the 360, and just as much online play. And everyone considers the PSP to be lacking.
Oh, yeah, a significant portion of those PS2s are still sitting at stores waiting to be bought. Right. Like retailers would have 10 million units sitting on shelves and still be asking for more.
Good question, you have any actual numbers? I didn't think so.
Constrained by production? I seem to recall barely one-fifth of the 360s in Japan selling. It's only on pace to sell 30-50 million if it keeps selling at the same rate it has been for the entirety of its life.
Looking at opening weekends, the PS2 was "on a pace" to sell 387,400,000 in the US and Japan alone. Of course, this is silly, because sales trail off considerably after initial release, and continue to slow (with some ups and downs).
Judging by things selling about 1/4 of the "on a pace" rate, the 360 is more likely to sell about 10 million units in a 5-year period.
Wow, a whole million? If you look at the actual facts, you'll find Sony sold just shy if a million PS2s on opening weekend... in Japan alone. Over half a million in the US on opening day. And over 100 million to date.
If Microsoft were to continue selling, on average, 500k a month, it would take them sixteen years of consecutive continuous sales to match the PS2's record.
Oh yeah, the 360 is a success all right.
Of course, everything else follows---but not obviously so, when you're just starting. We're looking at the very ground level.
They have no idea what this will lead to. Remember research 50 years ago? Huge, vacuum tubes, hundreds of calculations a second (maybe). They thought the world would have maybe 5-10 computers. Who envisioned Doom, or the Internet?
Same way with quantum computing. Right now we have very primitive experimental technology and think a few researchers might eventually benefit. I'd like to see what we're doing in 50-100 years.
And this is vs the claims of the RIAA/MPAA, who seem to do things like multiply the entire cost of making the movie by the number of copies that were distributed, or something equally absurd.
To play devil's advocate for a bit, consider that copyright and DRM are not really linked at all. In a legal system without copyright, where anyone may copy anything freely, one might still use DRM to prevent people from experiencing their work outside the setting (application, particular mp3 player, etc.) he or she mandates. In fact, one could go so far as to claim that the DRM itself was part of the work.
This could also be argued in a system with copyright... that the DRM is "under" copyright, and actually a protected part of the work itself. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how that'd hold up in court, but consider the opposite situation: legislation about what content can or cannot be included as part of a work that falls under copyright. Before asserting that nothing else compares, consider things like unlockable content in video games, or hidden extras on DVDs. Should we have a law that says nothing may be in any way obscured in digital media?
Perhaps the original poster was on the right track: despite what you think about DRM, laws regarding it (either way) are negative. If certain companies or artists lock up their works, then give them what they deserve: nothing. No time. No money. Forget about them, forget their words, their works, and their existence; let them go out of business and be lost in history.
2. To express in a brief summary; epitomize: headlines that encapsulate the news. Fits just fine!
If you read beyond a 3rd-grade level, yes it is. Start by looking up the noun form of "remit". The "and" conjuction does not join an independent clause ("where I have the most self-doubt ..." is dependent) and therefore does not deserve a comma. It's a long sentence, but I think if you study it enough, it'll be clear.
Maybe if everyone was sufficiently literate, there'd be less of the craptastic journalism that the article decries.
I think you've got that reversed. And maybe that's the reason he's writing the article and you're writing incorrect comments on slashdot.
As your comment shows, the mainstream press panders to idiots for a reason: they've got a wide audience.
Ah yes, because by downloading music from iTunes or receiving a valid copy of the CD you paid for, you are now a Sony/BMG customer who must purchase more Sony gear to play those songs, and will ultimately be locked in by your choice should you choose or need to buy more music in the future.
Oh wait, no you're not. Music isn't a platform, Sony/BMG isn't a monopoly, and this at worst is allowing the customer to get exposure to other artists which they may or may not follow in the future, and who may or may not even be Sony/BMG artists.
So, $7.50 isn't cold hard cash? This is probably a $15 CD we're talking about. They're refunding everyone half the cost, providing a valid copy, and allowing them to download some tracks from an online music store. That sounds fair to me.
Displayable change, however, I agree with. Hopefully this will be costly enough, both in money and PR, to prevent anyone from doing it again.
Mario64, while definitely setting historical precedent in terms of 3D, is not the only way to do 3D. It's great for some games, but after replaying Symphony of the Night, I'm quickly missing the sidescrollers of yore. Things that don't necessarily require even one analog stick.
As for actual games... contrary to popular opinion, there are already a lot of solid games. They may not be AAA titles, but what was the first AAA title for the PS2? Or the PS1? There are solid A and B titles in every genre, most of them support wifi, and there are very few times that you could say "gee, I wish there was a good XYZ game" and not actually have a good to excellent XYZ game available.
This is total devkits that have shipped since they first started shipping, which was quite awhile ago. Not "we just shipped the first 4000".
This is definitely true; although the PS2 version could be easily updated... and it's silly that they don't. Compare the graphics on FFXII (which undoubtedly uses a modified version of the same engine) to FFXI.
Another complaint I have heard is that the PS2 version is holding the graphics of other versions behind (since they don't display cloaks and some other things). This is BS, from a developer's perspective: the other versions already look better, and there's no reason you couldn't add the additional things on systems that handled it.
Definitely... FFXI is the kind of game that requires a long-term commitment; those players that have committed are likely to stay so, especially with the constant updates and story extensions that Square adds.
This isn't the only problem... gilfarmers and botfishers are also to blame. However, I'm on a server with much higher inflation now than the first server I played on, and it's actually made it easier for me to earn a lot of money. There was still really expensive stuff on the old server, but getting the cash was harder. So it balances out to an extent.
I disagree. WoW may be more popular, but it has no real storyline, not to mention the huge story arcs that FFXI has. Additionally, while it's OK for casual playing, the rewards feel too easy. Earning ranks or rare items in FFXI feels like much more of an accomplishment; I'm not the only person I know who has returned from WoW to FFXI because of this.
Really? I've heard the opposite... the PC version tends to stutter when you're in a busy area (try lower Jeuno or around a moogle during an event), whereas the PS2 runs smoothly regardless. I do have a problem with USB keyboard input, but it may be my keyboard.
Perhaps. Unfortunately most of the "good stuff" happens later, and you need to find a good group of people to play with, even a static party. That totally changes the game. There is definite Final Fantasy material there, though; you just won't see it until you've made progress deeper into the game's storyline.
Which was this...? You mean the recent NPC quest?
With a ton of X360 articles about every little detail before, during, and after launch, I have to wonder. Especially when it wasn't even mentioned as a side note that over 4000 devkits have shipped so far. Even IGN got this one. Not a large piece of news, perhaps, but it demonstrates lots of stuff is going on behind the scenes.
Are you equating a feeling with a physiological need? Feelings like envy are the equivalent of laying around and oversleeping all the time, or eating all the time and becoming overweight. These are not needs, they are overindulgence and they are harmful to your health.
How is envy "essential"? The dictionary says "a feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another". How is "discontent and resentment" essential?
Are you saying that people cannot change? Do you believe in evolution? If so, that is directly contradictory. Most religions also promote self-change. Unless you're a complete nihilist, fatalist, or hedonist---and possibly even if you are---believing in the absolute inability to change is directly contradictory to everyday life.
Again, you misinterpret. I am not saying "I never feel envy". I am saying that when I do feel envy, I will strive to refuse to act on it. If my neighbors get a new car, and I feel envious, I can quash the envy, and be content. Eventually, whether the feeling itself exists or not, I will have control over myself, and it will not matter. If I do give into it, I will try to change myself, to see what happened, and to strive to do what it takes to not let it happen the next time.
The same can be said for your car accident. Car accidents happen, but they can also be avoided with some discipline. You do not (or should not!) simply drive wrecklessly with the attitude that "oh, car accidents are essential an unavoidable, therefore I will do what I want and attempt nothing to avoid one". Instead you practice self-control, follow the rules of the road, and---though you may not drive exactly at the speed limit every day---you avoid accidents. If an accident happens (and it's your fault), you analyze what went wrong, and strive to avoid the same situation next time.
If I said that I do not envy, or even that I do not give into envy, or any other human failing, then I apologize; it was indeed arrogance and certainly incorrect. What I consider ultimate success is for envy, greed, and the like to become irrelevant. Whether they are felt or not, they do not dictate my actions.
This itself is a higher freedom: freedom from our own nature. If you dislike having someone else dictate what to do, how much less you should li
You misinterpret. It's not that you should enforce these things on others. It's that you should struggle to overcome them in yourself; or more to the point: that I can strive to and succeed in overcoming them in myself.
I do not find these things as acceptable behavior for myself, therefore I strive to change, and I can ultimately succeed.
No, because they are not good things. They are detrimental to my life, and they are not truly that difficult to overcome.
If I spend my life lusting after everything and envying anything that someone has and I don't, do you truly believe this is not a waste of life? Instead, I overcome my envy, and can therefore spend my time on constructive activity, not just trying to show others down.
This is not to say I have nothing. But I can limit what I want to what I need---I might have the best computer on the block because I need it, but I don't feel the need to get a fancy car just because my neighbor got one. Nor does it mean I am not inspired by others. If I see an artist, or a coder, or a musician who does something better than I, it can inspire me to become better myself... but not just so that I can take pride in being the best there is.
Life is not a zero-sum game. Nor does overcoming your bad attributes make you devoid of the good ones.