Then don't play it with anyone else. Don't force me to play the way you think the game should be made, when we clearly don't share opinions on the matter.
There are two results to this war, but there is only one outcome: A player that will play both formats (reliably, unlike the LG model). Unlike Beta Vs VHS, the media are the same size and general composition in this war. When one fails, the other will 'win', but soon after the loser is no longer considered competition, players that support both formats (As well as DVD, CD, VCD, DivX, etc etc) will emerge.
In the meantime, I've purchased an HDDVD addon for my Xbox 360, and hope that HDDVD will prevail. If it doesn't, I don't fear that I will have to repurchase my discs, just the player. I've taken a risk in purchasing the 360 addon, but its not really that big of a risk.
So, support the format of your choice, and don't worry about lost investment: You really only risk the player.
And as the VP of Marketing for Universal (HDDVD supporter) points out, this competition is good for one thing: Bringing HD video disc players down in price quicker than they would otherwise. Sony may own cameras that movies are shot with, media that they're recorded with, equipment they're transferred, processed, edited and mastered on, but at least there's a competitor for the media they're distributed on and the players that play them. I'd just rather they not have the whole ballpark.
And you're making assumptions on behalf of the consumer. You should have stopped at "yes, you can play games on the Xbox 360 Core system for $299."
I also noticed you tried to justify using the Elite as a comparison in your original post by mentioning that it is the only one to have HDMI out. You don't even know that that hypothetical consumer who is buying this $299 Xbox is even playing it on an HDTV! Allow me to speculate, but if someone is going to buy the Xbox Core system because of price concerns, they probably don't have top of the line TV sets.
Granted, they'd need one if they were to play HDDVD's, but that was a separate part of the original argument than gaming.
That's funny. That just makes good business sense to me. Want to get something done? You gotta start a business, whether you want to pay for another porsche or contribute to a worthwhile cause like AIDS research.
If you really cared about your cause, wouldn't you do whatever you could for it? Why do you hold that against Bono??
Are they really going to lose? What will happen when they recognise that demand for larger quantities of data threaten their margins? Whatever it is that happens (probably in the form of new tiers of accounts, or adjusted pricing schedules), I doubt that the ISP's will suffer in any way.
When people make the argument that humans aren't the cause of the global increase in temperature, I always wonder if they consider that even if we aren't the cause, the earth is still warming up. Even if you leaving the stove on wasn't the cause of the fire, your house is still on fire. Shouldn't you do something about that?
"Therefore the game designers add autoaim and weapon spread to make it less important."
I don't know of a multiplayer game that has auto aim. None of the ones I've played do, anyway.
"Randomizing the maps makes this skill less important."
This would be true if the maps were actually redesigned each game. What's happening is that certain parts of maps are blocked in each game, and the starting point changes, but the map itself does not. They're not looking to confuse the player, or to remove any chance of the map being memorized, they're trying to provide new scenarios in maps that will be played hundreds of times (in a row, sometimes!)
In games where every player is a powergamer, it will require memorization of the map AS WELL AS an ability to adapt to changes. If anything, it will require not only the same skills as before, but also 'thinking on your feet' at a slightly larger scale.
I'd rather see it the other way around, and I think even the labels would prefer it reversed. Why remove the DRM if you're providing even HIGHER quality versions of your music?? Wouldn't it make sense to protect the higher quality stuff, while caring less about the low quality alternatives??
I'm not an audiophile, so I'd rather download a song of a quality comparable to current iTunes offerings without DRM than pay more for larger files that have DRM.
Make the DRM'ed songs equivalent of current quality, and make the higher quality protected.
Microsoft deserves a cut as the publisher for hosting / serving the files IE: getting them into the customer's hands.
No, Microsoft deserves a cut as the service provider (Xbox Live), NOT as the publisher. Their job is to publish the game -- which they did, Gears has sold phenomonally. Are you saying that after their job is done (publishing, marketing), they deserve to earn more money for doing nothing more?
Don't confuse Microsofts two roles in this (Gears of War) debate.
And, in case you've overlooked this element of the argument, Microsoft DOES get paid to be a service provider. I pay five bucks a month to access online content. That's 5 bucks more than I pay to access similar content on the internet for games like Half Life and Quake.
The games industry is searching for more and more ways to increase profit while not increasing cost, these are examples of their efforts. Some are validated, some are egregious. Who is it up to, to say which is which?
Microsoft may just be a conduit in this case, but what about the Gears of War map releases that are due out, soon?? Mark Rein of Epic said that Epic wished to release the maps for free, but 'pressure' from Microsoft, who plays the role of both Gears of WArs' publisher, and the "conduit" Xbox Live Marketplace led them to stall the release (supposedly until an arrangement can be met). Garage Games has also mentioned that they have received 'encouragement' from Microsoft to charge for their DLC for Marble Blast Ultra.
So... perhaps Microsoft is just a conduit in this particular instance, but I'm starting to suspect that they're still involved in the decision making process.
And don't take my argument the wrong way -- I think everyone deserves to be paid for their work, but I also believe that the creators of content should be allowed to decide what they should charge for that work. Certainly, a body that would benefit from that work simply due to its existence should not be included in that decision.
It seemed like only a couple years ago, buying a game meant becoming part of a community, especially when extra content could be created by the fanbase as well (Half Life, Quake, etc). Your price of admission to the community (and any updates that were released for it) was the game.
In Toronto, there's a sign over a church that is clearly visible from the street, that says "PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD". I always feel like I'm about to get in an accident after reading that.
Well, considering the tongue-in-cheek undertones in the thank-you message after you submit a "Slashdottit" click, I'd say it is pretty clearly a well-made April Fools joke:
"Only by requiring the contribution of every random user of the internet can we guarantee the most scientifically perfect numbers will be generated."
"The Mac offers nothing special or unique in the field of digital arts today."
I disagree. I currently work as a video editor in a building that adopted Windows based Avid Media Composers for one department, and Mac based Avid MC's for another department. I jumped from the former to the latter almost a year ago, and let me tell you, by comparison, that the unique aspect of the Mac machines is that they don't crash every second day. Even Avid, which/has/ crashed on the Mac, does not crash as often.
You get what you pay for, and on a personal note, I also switched over to Mac at home for a similar reason. It's much more pleasant to use, and I have experienced far fewer problems with it than I did my old Windows machine.
if I want a camera my 5MP Canon will do much better. If I want an MP3 player my iPod will do much better. If I want a processor in a box, my laptop will do much better. There is a difference between "doing a lot of things" and "doing a lot of things well. Yes, but there's also something to be said for portability. I have a Canon Rebel XT, which won't fit in my pocket. I like to carry it around with me, but it requires bringing my backpack. My phone (Sony Ericsson K790) does a fine job of taking quick shots when I don't need highest quality. The iPod is a much better example, but still my phone is smaller than an iPod video, and can also tune in the radio (and play video, and can manage playlists, which is fine for short jaunts on the subway).
As for your requirements, it's quad band, a little larger than a Sony Ericsson T610, can go uncharged for about 3 or 4 days (while suffering "average" usage), has a 3.2 MP camera and 1 Gb of memory. I don't know what processor it uses, but I know that I don't use it to render 3D scenes or run photoshop on it, so I'm sure its' fine.
Or you'll get a DVD player that up converts, like a Futureshop in Toronto tried to sell me when I asked for an HD DVD player.
Oddly, I noticed distinct bias from the manager, who, when I asked again where the HD DVD players were, pointed to the Blu Ray (take THAT, Parent!!). When I insisted that I was looking for an HD DVD player, he eventually told me that the HD DVD player they had was not on display near the HDTV's in the store, like its Blu Ray cousin, but actually on a completely different floor.
Because of that bias (as well as my own bias in favour of HD DVD -- not a fanboy, just don't like the idea of closed formats dominating markets), I don't go to that store any longer.
20" iMac here, with Lightroom, and there's nothing I love more than working in full screen mode and "dimmed lights". The more the better, and I imagine that, though probably a trivial difference, perhaps the good performance you're experiencing is partly due to lower screen resolution. It could, as well, be due to the resolution of the files you're importing, though you didn't mention what camera you're using.
Also: iPhoto is horrible. It's just horrible. It does the basics, but no more before becoming a workflow nightmare or performance inhibited. By comparison, I really really miss Picasa for the PC. Too bad I don't miss the PC.
Actually Lightroom is pretty effective at manipulating individual colour groups independently of the rest of the image, so you can pretty easily change auntie's red hair to purple or green.
Perhaps this explanation could also apply to music:
The Britney Spears music has been removed from my personal computer.
* The songs were never assigned to a playlist.
* The songs were never played to any of my friends.
* The material on the harddrive was a proof of concept awaiting approval to be moved into my library.
* The songs were only ever used for testing purposes.
* Should I have decided that I enjoyed the music, then I would have paid the.99 cents that would have authorized me to play a version of the music without internal moral objection.
Of course, I'm pretty certain that defense wouldn't prevent a lawsuit, as I'm sure the MPAA are hoping it will in their case...
Pro-piracy arguments always seem to fall on their face for me because they seem to imply that the "fans" exist before the show does. Yet how many times have I read on this site alone that people would never have bought the show if they hadn't seen it before hand, and would never buy a show without seeing it first. Isn't that a pretty strong argument for piracy, though?? I know this is not a new argument, but personally, I am sick of having to spend $13 at the theater before I realise that I don't enjoy what I paid for. You know what a lemon tastes like before you buy it, there's no risk in buying lemons. But I now refuse to spend a cent on a movie, or any form of entertainment, until I'm satisfied that it is worth the money. If it really is, I'll buy the DVD (and I do).
Slashdot Mirror
Then don't play it with anyone else. Don't force me to play the way you think the game should be made, when we clearly don't share opinions on the matter.
There are two results to this war, but there is only one outcome: A player that will play both formats (reliably, unlike the LG model). Unlike Beta Vs VHS, the media are the same size and general composition in this war. When one fails, the other will 'win', but soon after the loser is no longer considered competition, players that support both formats (As well as DVD, CD, VCD, DivX, etc etc) will emerge.
In the meantime, I've purchased an HDDVD addon for my Xbox 360, and hope that HDDVD will prevail. If it doesn't, I don't fear that I will have to repurchase my discs, just the player. I've taken a risk in purchasing the 360 addon, but its not really that big of a risk.
So, support the format of your choice, and don't worry about lost investment: You really only risk the player.
And as the VP of Marketing for Universal (HDDVD supporter) points out, this competition is good for one thing: Bringing HD video disc players down in price quicker than they would otherwise. Sony may own cameras that movies are shot with, media that they're recorded with, equipment they're transferred, processed, edited and mastered on, but at least there's a competitor for the media they're distributed on and the players that play them. I'd just rather they not have the whole ballpark.
And you're making assumptions on behalf of the consumer. You should have stopped at "yes, you can play games on the Xbox 360 Core system for $299."
I also noticed you tried to justify using the Elite as a comparison in your original post by mentioning that it is the only one to have HDMI out. You don't even know that that hypothetical consumer who is buying this $299 Xbox is even playing it on an HDTV! Allow me to speculate, but if someone is going to buy the Xbox Core system because of price concerns, they probably don't have top of the line TV sets.
Granted, they'd need one if they were to play HDDVD's, but that was a separate part of the original argument than gaming.
That's funny. That just makes good business sense to me. Want to get something done? You gotta start a business, whether you want to pay for another porsche or contribute to a worthwhile cause like AIDS research.
If you really cared about your cause, wouldn't you do whatever you could for it? Why do you hold that against Bono??
Diamonds are a CPU's best friend?
Sounds like something from Futurama.
Are they really going to lose? What will happen when they recognise that demand for larger quantities of data threaten their margins? Whatever it is that happens (probably in the form of new tiers of accounts, or adjusted pricing schedules), I doubt that the ISP's will suffer in any way.
When people make the argument that humans aren't the cause of the global increase in temperature, I always wonder if they consider that even if we aren't the cause, the earth is still warming up. Even if you leaving the stove on wasn't the cause of the fire, your house is still on fire. Shouldn't you do something about that?
"Therefore the game designers add autoaim and weapon spread to make it less important."
I don't know of a multiplayer game that has auto aim. None of the ones I've played do, anyway.
"Randomizing the maps makes this skill less important."
This would be true if the maps were actually redesigned each game. What's happening is that certain parts of maps are blocked in each game, and the starting point changes, but the map itself does not. They're not looking to confuse the player, or to remove any chance of the map being memorized, they're trying to provide new scenarios in maps that will be played hundreds of times (in a row, sometimes!)
In games where every player is a powergamer, it will require memorization of the map AS WELL AS an ability to adapt to changes. If anything, it will require not only the same skills as before, but also 'thinking on your feet' at a slightly larger scale.
I'd rather see it the other way around, and I think even the labels would prefer it reversed. Why remove the DRM if you're providing even HIGHER quality versions of your music?? Wouldn't it make sense to protect the higher quality stuff, while caring less about the low quality alternatives??
I'm not an audiophile, so I'd rather download a song of a quality comparable to current iTunes offerings without DRM than pay more for larger files that have DRM.
Make the DRM'ed songs equivalent of current quality, and make the higher quality protected.
"they will probably live a lot shorter."
And not as old, either!
You must work for Microsoft
Microsoft deserves a cut as the publisher for hosting / serving the files IE: getting them into the customer's hands.
No, Microsoft deserves a cut as the service provider (Xbox Live), NOT as the publisher. Their job is to publish the game -- which they did, Gears has sold phenomonally. Are you saying that after their job is done (publishing, marketing), they deserve to earn more money for doing nothing more?
Don't confuse Microsofts two roles in this (Gears of War) debate.
And, in case you've overlooked this element of the argument, Microsoft DOES get paid to be a service provider. I pay five bucks a month to access online content. That's 5 bucks more than I pay to access similar content on the internet for games like Half Life and Quake.
The games industry is searching for more and more ways to increase profit while not increasing cost, these are examples of their efforts. Some are validated, some are egregious. Who is it up to, to say which is which?
Microsoft may just be a conduit in this case, but what about the Gears of War map releases that are due out, soon?? Mark Rein of Epic said that Epic wished to release the maps for free, but 'pressure' from Microsoft, who plays the role of both Gears of WArs' publisher, and the "conduit" Xbox Live Marketplace led them to stall the release (supposedly until an arrangement can be met). Garage Games has also mentioned that they have received 'encouragement' from Microsoft to charge for their DLC for Marble Blast Ultra.
So... perhaps Microsoft is just a conduit in this particular instance, but I'm starting to suspect that they're still involved in the decision making process.
And don't take my argument the wrong way -- I think everyone deserves to be paid for their work, but I also believe that the creators of content should be allowed to decide what they should charge for that work. Certainly, a body that would benefit from that work simply due to its existence should not be included in that decision.
It seemed like only a couple years ago, buying a game meant becoming part of a community, especially when extra content could be created by the fanbase as well (Half Life, Quake, etc). Your price of admission to the community (and any updates that were released for it) was the game.
In Toronto, there's a sign over a church that is clearly visible from the street, that says "PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD". I always feel like I'm about to get in an accident after reading that.
I didn't think I'd like using "BSOD" as a verb... consider me pleasantly surprised :)
Well, considering the tongue-in-cheek undertones in the thank-you message after you submit a "Slashdottit" click, I'd say it is pretty clearly a well-made April Fools joke:
"Only by requiring the contribution of every random user of the internet can we guarantee the most scientifically perfect numbers will be generated."
"The Mac offers nothing special or unique in the field of digital arts today."
/has/ crashed on the Mac, does not crash as often.
I disagree. I currently work as a video editor in a building that adopted Windows based Avid Media Composers for one department, and Mac based Avid MC's for another department. I jumped from the former to the latter almost a year ago, and let me tell you, by comparison, that the unique aspect of the Mac machines is that they don't crash every second day. Even Avid, which
You get what you pay for, and on a personal note, I also switched over to Mac at home for a similar reason. It's much more pleasant to use, and I have experienced far fewer problems with it than I did my old Windows machine.
As for your requirements, it's quad band, a little larger than a Sony Ericsson T610, can go uncharged for about 3 or 4 days (while suffering "average" usage), has a 3.2 MP camera and 1 Gb of memory. I don't know what processor it uses, but I know that I don't use it to render 3D scenes or run photoshop on it, so I'm sure its' fine.
Is it sad that the Russian Reversal joke makes Russia sound normal?
Or you'll get a DVD player that up converts, like a Futureshop in Toronto tried to sell me when I asked for an HD DVD player.
Oddly, I noticed distinct bias from the manager, who, when I asked again where the HD DVD players were, pointed to the Blu Ray (take THAT, Parent!!). When I insisted that I was looking for an HD DVD player, he eventually told me that the HD DVD player they had was not on display near the HDTV's in the store, like its Blu Ray cousin, but actually on a completely different floor.
Because of that bias (as well as my own bias in favour of HD DVD -- not a fanboy, just don't like the idea of closed formats dominating markets), I don't go to that store any longer.
20" iMac here, with Lightroom, and there's nothing I love more than working in full screen mode and "dimmed lights". The more the better, and I imagine that, though probably a trivial difference, perhaps the good performance you're experiencing is partly due to lower screen resolution. It could, as well, be due to the resolution of the files you're importing, though you didn't mention what camera you're using.
Also: iPhoto is horrible. It's just horrible. It does the basics, but no more before becoming a workflow nightmare or performance inhibited. By comparison, I really really miss Picasa for the PC. Too bad I don't miss the PC.
Actually Lightroom is pretty effective at manipulating individual colour groups independently of the rest of the image, so you can pretty easily change auntie's red hair to purple or green.
You know, to make it look better.
Perhaps this explanation could also apply to music:
.99 cents that would have authorized me to play a version of the music without internal moral objection.
The Britney Spears music has been removed from my personal computer.
* The songs were never assigned to a playlist.
* The songs were never played to any of my friends.
* The material on the harddrive was a proof of concept awaiting approval to be moved into my library.
* The songs were only ever used for testing purposes.
* Should I have decided that I enjoyed the music, then I would have paid the
Of course, I'm pretty certain that defense wouldn't prevent a lawsuit, as I'm sure the MPAA are hoping it will in their case...
Call it "responsible piracy", if you will.
"Is Microsoft just running down a list of crappy things to do that make me dislike Vista even less?"
That is, actually, what they're trying to do. Unfortunately for them, most of their decisions have made you dislike them more.