Nah, even if you can in theory get that resolution (which it's obvious you can't), you could just include metadata along with everything else. I mean, your hard drive is just one big number, if you look at it that way.
With enough forethought, you could even devise a format that, given some basic premises, documents itself in the beginning, as well as adaptions along the way. This could even take the form of a virtual machine and virtual code that ran on it, or something more sophisticated.
The "rosetta stone" problem still exists though; you still need something to tell you how to start that is a common reference; it's not so much a matter of size as a matter of the fact numbers alone aren't helpful. Of course, if you have a stick the size of a galaxy, you could have quite a number of pictographs on there. Obviously that's a pretty dumb way to do things though.
Ultimately, the more I think about it, the more I think this eventually leads into data compression issues. Assuming you can represent all your data with a rational number (because all your data is, at some point, not infinite), and that you have infinite precision, you actually have two marks on the stick you can make: the fraction, and its inversion.
In fact, since you have all that blank area, why bother actually having it? Rather, you could say "this is a portion of the stick 2cm long that is this portion of a stick the size of the universe".
This is where I think it's a compression problem. At some point, you're trying to fit things in which just don't reduce, as other posters have pointed out, and regardless of your precision, it's never going to be enough.
Right? (I know a bit more about this than I do physics, which isn't saying much, but;-))
"You know, people are such snobs, with this 'oh, it's not about graphics' thing. That's such nonsense. It's totally about graphics. What's the difference between the first Metal Gear Solid and the latest Metal Gear Solid? Right, it's - wow, the graphics!"
This is a comment from a person who obviously never actually plays the games, just looks at marketing material and screenshots.
The difference between MGS and MGS3 is mainly in the minor changes made to gameplay. Camoflage. Food. Survival. The "outdoors" world. These are mostly small, but they have a huge impact on the way you play the game. (There are also the enhancements to gameplay from MGS2, but these are also minor.)
Sure, the graphics are nice, but you could have made this game for the PSX with its crappy graphics and pretty much had the same compelling experience.
Who are you going to trust on this? Some VP from a 2nd-rate development house, or Hideo Kojima?
Not the microscope so much as the accuracy of your ruler. I'm not sure how possible this would be... how many digits accuracy do you need? If we're talking lots of data, we might need billions of digits. I'm not a physicist by any means, but isn't a Planck Length the smallest unit of space, at 1.6x10^(-35) meters? Is that even enough space for the level of precision required? On top of that, do titanium atoms even have the resolution required for such precision?
It's an interesting concept, but I wonder how realistic it is. Perhaps a real physicist can comment.;-)
Hah, you think $60+$15/mo is expensive? It's not. I used to regularly buy 3-4+ games a month, that's at $40-50 a pop. Per month.
Enter FFXI (or any MMO of your choice, really). Sure, I pay $50. After that I pay $15/mo. (With FFXI, it's $13/mo and $1 for each extra char, which becomes worth it if you get into the game.) But FFXI has enough content and I play it enough that I don't usually buy anything else.
So, if it make Square more money, it saves me more money, so what's wrong with a win-win situation?
As for the rest; FFXI actually has a quite intruiging story and world. Square doesn't let you down there by any means. The last expansion pack was almost exclusively story. But you will need to be committed to make it through; I don't contest that at all. World of Warcraft is a lot more accessible, especially for the casual player. However, after a couple months playing that (which was fun), I'm back to FFXI... simply because it's more compelling.
Pfft. I played WoW for a few months, and now I'm back to FFXI. Why? It's hard to say... WoW is probably better for the casual player, and it's easier to do stuff, but there's not the same feeling of accomplishment. Lots of stuff is available to you immediately... but then things don't seem to open up as much, gameplay-wise, as you progress. And FFXI is far more polished.
WoW is a nice diversion, but FFXI is where it's at, long-term, for me and many others.
I'm no fanboy of either; the PSP has a large screen of supposedly great quality. Nintendo's answer to such a large screen was to have two smaller screens (one of them a touch screen). Both have wireless networking/multiplayer. I would give the durability nod to Nintendo -- both for its games and for the system itself.
Definitely, and I agree with your sentiment about Nintendo making the only truly successful portable gaming unit so far.
However, where I think they're failing is the games. This could even be their downfall; I think it's the reason the N64 and Cube are both 2nd-place contestants. There just aren't enough games. They should be churning them out left and right like with the SNES. NES, SNES, Gameboy... you knew there would be games, lots of them, because it was Nintendo, and Nintendo = Games.
Now it's different though. The GBA is a failure in the sense that the number of good original games are minimal; the best ones are just ports, and the rest are mostly franchises. I long for the glory days of the SNES and 2D gaming just as much as Nintendo seems to, but... why aren't they doing anything about it? What are they doing?
These days, Sony = Games. The PS2 has the widest selection and the most names. This is why the PSP might be the first new handheld to truly succeed.
Also, I want them to seriously knock Nintendo into gear, so they stop resting on their laurels and make some damn games.
You can tell an interviewer that your former boss was an overbearing meglomanic, and have an official document to prove it, and it would still be slander.
IANAL, but I'm almost entirely certain that it's only slander if you can prove that it was untrue, said with malice, and there were actual damages as a result.
Er no, by my logic Linus would sue, because (Linux : Minix:: QDOS : CP/M) in this case. He might have a case, except I think most people would laugh in the face of whoever made that assertion, so there's not really any defamation.
Is it just me or do most of those games sound like cut down Playstation2 games?
At first glance---perhaps. But (at least the ones I'm interested in) seem to fall into one of two categories:
Extended versions of the PS2 game.
Games that are more appropriate for a handheld than a console
For instance, THUG2 is an extended version of the PS2 version, and has wireless play and the like. Others, like Mercury, Lumines, and Metal Gear: Acid, are great concepts, but wouldn't really be suitable for sitting at a console and playing for hours. They work great in the handheld environment, though. So in essence, the lineup complements the console selection nicely.
(There are already a number of PS2 games I thought should have been handheld... Wizardry, Disgaea, and some others, for instance. Now there's a platform available for them.)
In his book They Made America, Evans devoted a chapter to the late, great Gary Kildall, founder of Digital Research, describing Paterson's software as a 'rip-off' and 'a slapdash clone' of Kildall's CP/M.
This is a PSP "Value Pack", which means they charge you more for a few accessories. I believe they will introduce the non-value-pack version shortly thereafter. Even if not, this value pack comes with a memory stick and Spider Man 2 on UMD, so basically you have a fully-functional unit for even less than I said.
Are you Canadian? Because in USD, the DS is $150, and the PSP is $185. That's $35 more.
but the games cost $10 to $20 more than the DS games (depending on the DS game) and $20 to $30 more than GBA titles (depending on the GBA game).
Like hell. New GBA titles are $30-35, as are DS titles (click the tab at the top). New PSP titles are $39-49, which is $5-15 more.
The UMD movies are going to cost in between $20 and $30 dollars
Maybe you're psychic, since no movie prices have been announced; but based on the other "facts" you've listed, you're not a very good one.
SanDisk memory cards required to play music cost between $55 (256MB) and $150 (1GB)
256MB memory stick pro cards are under $40 on Amazon.
The cost of buying the PSP and everything needed to take advantage of the PSP's features is well over double the cost of the DS.
While the EB site is forcing you to get a "bundle", that's not the only place you can get them. I've got a PSP alone on order from an EB store for $20.
Assuming you don't want to just use pictochat or play the Prime demo, you'll want a full game; that'll be an extra $30, putting your DS at $180. Double that is $360, so we've got some money to play with... $185 for the unit, $40 for the memstick, $50 for a game. That's $275, which is definitely more than your DS bundle, but then again you've got an MP3/movie player in the bundle too. Definitely not double the price.
And you have an actual selection of games to pick from, not... Mario64 DS.
hats 24, Gameboy might only have 12 or so DS titles but they have all the advance titles which makes it much easier to justify since you have well over 100 of those
Maybe it justifies it if you don't already have a GBA SP. Maybe. Especially since you can't play multiplayer GBA games with the DS, or hook it up to your Cube (one of Nintendo's major GBA accessories).
likewise of those 24, most of them are sports games. I would not be buying a PSP just to play soccer which at the moment is all the PSP seems good for.
Most? Even if you count THUG as a sports game (which it's not), that's still 14 non-sports titles; that's more than half. Racing games aren't sports either, although there are only 3 of those, all very different.
Soccer is all the PSP is good for? There are RPGs, shooters, fighters, puzzlers, racers, sports, x-sports, all at launch. Big-name titles like Metal Gear, Tony Hawk, Twisted Metal, Wipeout, Dynasty Warriors, etc. What else do you want here exactly?
The DS has Mario64. And that one Metroid demo. And PictoChat. If you want to play GBA games, get an SP.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "No software" may be a problem with the DS for the foreseeable future, but there are 24 launch titles for the PSP, and more (such as GTA) during launch week/launch month.
These are far more titles with far bigger names than the PS2 had at launch; now with a million PSPs promised, and with a price not significantly higher than the Nintendo DS, they should have the critical mass they need.
Remember, this is Sony, not Sega; they're good at the marketing thing. This is also not a dying Atari or an inexperienced Nokia.
The PS3 has been repeatedly confirmed as being backward-compatible with the PS2, but not the PS1. The PS1 isn't that big of a loss at this point; a good reason for keeping a PSTwo around, or getting a PSOne if you're desperate for some reason. We're talking about a gaming system that will be over a decade old here. It's not that it's dead; it's just that continuing backward compatibility would cost more than it's worth.
I think the main factor in that war, and Nintendo's main problem since, is they just aren't coming out with games. The PS1 had a ton, with more coming out all the time... and then Final Fantasy 7 sealed that deal.
(Actually I have a secret theory that Square determines the success of a console. If they make the next big FF for it---not just a port or sidegame---that'll be the successful console this round. Been that way since the NES.)
What I was referring to in this case was the PS1 vs Saturn, though.
These two are non-sequitur. I don't disagree with your first point; Microsoft won't give up that easy. They're too prideful.
But money doesn't buy a successful console. Sony already has the hype engine going strong: multiple super multi-core ultra-fast CPUs in the PS3! Whether this lives up to claims or not, hype is hype. Sony has a lot of things going for them; 2 successful consoles, lots of game houses, features (backward compatibility etc.), and this time they're trying to add hardware superiority to the batch.
I agree pretty much. I don't think Microsoft really gets it (when have they ever?), but they've got a lot of money to pour into their failure, too.
My main point is that first-out-the-door hasn't meant a sure-fire winner. In fact, I don't think it has in a long time. Nintendo wasn't first out the door with NES or SNES. Sony wasn't first out the door with the PS1 or PS2 (or PS3).
In the end, it comes down to one thing: having all the game houses making all the games for your console.
Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
This is a legitimate post, but there is a fallacy here. If the person had not written the library in the first place, you still wouldn't be able to use it. If they had written it as a commercial package, you'd still have to pay.
This is wanting your cake and eating it too. You want someone to give away their work with no strings attached---but you don't want to give away yours. Sure, some may out of kindness or mercy license things under the LGPL. But either you can afford the money for something commercial, or you can afford the time, or you shouldn't complain. You don't have unrestricted right to someone else's code and time.
Of course, if you called the guy up and offered him $1500 for an LGPL license... he'd probably oblige, and you both benefit.
If you released your own code, you both benefit, as does the rest of the world. (And you're still free to sell the art, sound, music, and other media that makes the full game.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're right; originally I put "third-rate", but I was feeling kind.
Nah, even if you can in theory get that resolution (which it's obvious you can't), you could just include metadata along with everything else. I mean, your hard drive is just one big number, if you look at it that way.
With enough forethought, you could even devise a format that, given some basic premises, documents itself in the beginning, as well as adaptions along the way. This could even take the form of a virtual machine and virtual code that ran on it, or something more sophisticated.
The "rosetta stone" problem still exists though; you still need something to tell you how to start that is a common reference; it's not so much a matter of size as a matter of the fact numbers alone aren't helpful. Of course, if you have a stick the size of a galaxy, you could have quite a number of pictographs on there. Obviously that's a pretty dumb way to do things though.
Ultimately, the more I think about it, the more I think this eventually leads into data compression issues. Assuming you can represent all your data with a rational number (because all your data is, at some point, not infinite), and that you have infinite precision, you actually have two marks on the stick you can make: the fraction, and its inversion.
In fact, since you have all that blank area, why bother actually having it? Rather, you could say "this is a portion of the stick 2cm long that is this portion of a stick the size of the universe".
This is where I think it's a compression problem. At some point, you're trying to fit things in which just don't reduce, as other posters have pointed out, and regardless of your precision, it's never going to be enough.
Right? (I know a bit more about this than I do physics, which isn't saying much, but ;-))
This is a comment from a person who obviously never actually plays the games, just looks at marketing material and screenshots.
The difference between MGS and MGS3 is mainly in the minor changes made to gameplay. Camoflage. Food. Survival. The "outdoors" world. These are mostly small, but they have a huge impact on the way you play the game. (There are also the enhancements to gameplay from MGS2, but these are also minor.)
Sure, the graphics are nice, but you could have made this game for the PSX with its crappy graphics and pretty much had the same compelling experience.
Who are you going to trust on this? Some VP from a 2nd-rate development house, or Hideo Kojima?
Graphics are nice. Gameplay is king.
Not the microscope so much as the accuracy of your ruler. I'm not sure how possible this would be... how many digits accuracy do you need? If we're talking lots of data, we might need billions of digits. I'm not a physicist by any means, but isn't a Planck Length the smallest unit of space, at 1.6x10^(-35) meters? Is that even enough space for the level of precision required? On top of that, do titanium atoms even have the resolution required for such precision?
It's an interesting concept, but I wonder how realistic it is. Perhaps a real physicist can comment. ;-)
But commercials are useless. ;-)
Hah, you think $60+$15/mo is expensive? It's not. I used to regularly buy 3-4+ games a month, that's at $40-50 a pop. Per month.
Enter FFXI (or any MMO of your choice, really). Sure, I pay $50. After that I pay $15/mo. (With FFXI, it's $13/mo and $1 for each extra char, which becomes worth it if you get into the game.) But FFXI has enough content and I play it enough that I don't usually buy anything else.
So, if it make Square more money, it saves me more money, so what's wrong with a win-win situation?
As for the rest; FFXI actually has a quite intruiging story and world. Square doesn't let you down there by any means. The last expansion pack was almost exclusively story. But you will need to be committed to make it through; I don't contest that at all. World of Warcraft is a lot more accessible, especially for the casual player. However, after a couple months playing that (which was fun), I'm back to FFXI... simply because it's more compelling.
Pfft. I played WoW for a few months, and now I'm back to FFXI. Why? It's hard to say... WoW is probably better for the casual player, and it's easier to do stuff, but there's not the same feeling of accomplishment. Lots of stuff is available to you immediately... but then things don't seem to open up as much, gameplay-wise, as you progress. And FFXI is far more polished.
WoW is a nice diversion, but FFXI is where it's at, long-term, for me and many others.
Definitely, and I agree with your sentiment about Nintendo making the only truly successful portable gaming unit so far.
However, where I think they're failing is the games. This could even be their downfall; I think it's the reason the N64 and Cube are both 2nd-place contestants. There just aren't enough games. They should be churning them out left and right like with the SNES. NES, SNES, Gameboy... you knew there would be games, lots of them, because it was Nintendo, and Nintendo = Games.
Now it's different though. The GBA is a failure in the sense that the number of good original games are minimal; the best ones are just ports, and the rest are mostly franchises. I long for the glory days of the SNES and 2D gaming just as much as Nintendo seems to, but... why aren't they doing anything about it? What are they doing?
These days, Sony = Games. The PS2 has the widest selection and the most names. This is why the PSP might be the first new handheld to truly succeed.
Also, I want them to seriously knock Nintendo into gear, so they stop resting on their laurels and make some damn games.
IANAL, but I'm almost entirely certain that it's only slander if you can prove that it was untrue, said with malice, and there were actual damages as a result.
Er no, by my logic Linus would sue, because (Linux : Minix :: QDOS : CP/M) in this case. He might have a case, except I think most people would laugh in the face of whoever made that assertion, so there's not really any defamation.
At first glance---perhaps. But (at least the ones I'm interested in) seem to fall into one of two categories:
For instance, THUG2 is an extended version of the PS2 version, and has wireless play and the like. Others, like Mercury, Lumines, and Metal Gear: Acid, are great concepts, but wouldn't really be suitable for sitting at a console and playing for hours. They work great in the handheld environment, though. So in essence, the lineup complements the console selection nicely.
(There are already a number of PS2 games I thought should have been handheld... Wizardry, Disgaea, and some others, for instance. Now there's a platform available for them.)
...I thought it wasn't defamation if it was true.
This is a PSP "Value Pack", which means they charge you more for a few accessories. I believe they will introduce the non-value-pack version shortly thereafter. Even if not, this value pack comes with a memory stick and Spider Man 2 on UMD, so basically you have a fully-functional unit for even less than I said.
Are you Canadian? Because in USD, the DS is $150, and the PSP is $185. That's $35 more.
Like hell. New GBA titles are $30-35, as are DS titles (click the tab at the top). New PSP titles are $39-49, which is $5-15 more.
Maybe you're psychic, since no movie prices have been announced; but based on the other "facts" you've listed, you're not a very good one.
256MB memory stick pro cards are under $40 on Amazon.
While the EB site is forcing you to get a "bundle", that's not the only place you can get them. I've got a PSP alone on order from an EB store for $20.
Assuming you don't want to just use pictochat or play the Prime demo, you'll want a full game; that'll be an extra $30, putting your DS at $180. Double that is $360, so we've got some money to play with... $185 for the unit, $40 for the memstick, $50 for a game. That's $275, which is definitely more than your DS bundle, but then again you've got an MP3/movie player in the bundle too. Definitely not double the price.
And you have an actual selection of games to pick from, not... Mario64 DS.
Maybe it justifies it if you don't already have a GBA SP. Maybe. Especially since you can't play multiplayer GBA games with the DS, or hook it up to your Cube (one of Nintendo's major GBA accessories).
Most? Even if you count THUG as a sports game (which it's not), that's still 14 non-sports titles; that's more than half. Racing games aren't sports either, although there are only 3 of those, all very different.
Soccer is all the PSP is good for? There are RPGs, shooters, fighters, puzzlers, racers, sports, x-sports, all at launch. Big-name titles like Metal Gear, Tony Hawk, Twisted Metal, Wipeout, Dynasty Warriors, etc. What else do you want here exactly?
The DS has Mario64. And that one Metroid demo. And PictoChat. If you want to play GBA games, get an SP.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "No software" may be a problem with the DS for the foreseeable future, but there are 24 launch titles for the PSP, and more (such as GTA) during launch week/launch month.
These are far more titles with far bigger names than the PS2 had at launch; now with a million PSPs promised, and with a price not significantly higher than the Nintendo DS, they should have the critical mass they need.
Remember, this is Sony, not Sega; they're good at the marketing thing. This is also not a dying Atari or an inexperienced Nokia.
You may have more talent in this area than you know... ;-)
What does it feed the cats to?
The PS3 has been repeatedly confirmed as being backward-compatible with the PS2, but not the PS1. The PS1 isn't that big of a loss at this point; a good reason for keeping a PSTwo around, or getting a PSOne if you're desperate for some reason. We're talking about a gaming system that will be over a decade old here. It's not that it's dead; it's just that continuing backward compatibility would cost more than it's worth.
I think the main factor in that war, and Nintendo's main problem since, is they just aren't coming out with games. The PS1 had a ton, with more coming out all the time... and then Final Fantasy 7 sealed that deal.
(Actually I have a secret theory that Square determines the success of a console. If they make the next big FF for it---not just a port or sidegame---that'll be the successful console this round. Been that way since the NES.)
What I was referring to in this case was the PS1 vs Saturn, though.
These two are non-sequitur. I don't disagree with your first point; Microsoft won't give up that easy. They're too prideful.
But money doesn't buy a successful console. Sony already has the hype engine going strong: multiple super multi-core ultra-fast CPUs in the PS3! Whether this lives up to claims or not, hype is hype. Sony has a lot of things going for them; 2 successful consoles, lots of game houses, features (backward compatibility etc.), and this time they're trying to add hardware superiority to the batch.
I agree pretty much. I don't think Microsoft really gets it (when have they ever?), but they've got a lot of money to pour into their failure, too.
My main point is that first-out-the-door hasn't meant a sure-fire winner. In fact, I don't think it has in a long time. Nintendo wasn't first out the door with NES or SNES. Sony wasn't first out the door with the PS1 or PS2 (or PS3).
In the end, it comes down to one thing: having all the game houses making all the games for your console.
Microsoft doesn't have that.
Gotta love Microsoft. Looks like they're really pushing for success with this one by following in the footsteps of Sega.
Go Xboxcast.
I'll call Diebold and find out for you.
This is a legitimate post, but there is a fallacy here. If the person had not written the library in the first place, you still wouldn't be able to use it. If they had written it as a commercial package, you'd still have to pay.
This is wanting your cake and eating it too. You want someone to give away their work with no strings attached---but you don't want to give away yours. Sure, some may out of kindness or mercy license things under the LGPL. But either you can afford the money for something commercial, or you can afford the time, or you shouldn't complain. You don't have unrestricted right to someone else's code and time.
Of course, if you called the guy up and offered him $1500 for an LGPL license... he'd probably oblige, and you both benefit.
If you released your own code, you both benefit, as does the rest of the world. (And you're still free to sell the art, sound, music, and other media that makes the full game.)
That is the point of the GPL.