Meh, I'm underwhelmed here. As much as I love the original Goldeneye, I'm not sure what the point of bringing it back is. I suppose it'd be mildly interesting if net support was factored... but man, I really am sick of running around and shooting people.
I hope EA's smart enough to make it a $25 title. (Doubtful, but there is a market for those games...)
" Optical discs are made to be quite hard to ruin unless you're doing it deliberately. "
That was true with CDs. Sadly, DVDs with their higher density are far easier to ruin. Coincidenntly, modern game machines are using those discs now. Argue with me if you like, but plenty of people have ruined movies over this. There is nothing inherently differnt about games that prevents this other than they cost $50 to replace.
"Then Nintendo is stupid. But I've suspected that for some time now, at least in the realm of non-portable console making."
Not a very insightful rebuttal.
"There is such a thing as bad innovation."
Not a very complete rebuttal.
"Unless you make a habit of carrying your GC everywhere you go (which most people don't), it doesn't really justify using smaller discs."
Lots of people move their systems around. They move them around their house, they even move them to their friends' place. There's a reasoon why they sell backpacks specifically designed for carrying PS2s, PS1s, XBOXes, Dreamcasts, etc. Don't underestimate this reason.
Yes, it does justify the smaller discs.
"If you're any good at packing at all, the smaller size of the GC and its discs doesn't confer much of an advantage. Actually, the cubic shape of the GC might make it harder to pack in some cases."
Do a little math first, then come back to me and tell me if you really want to press that point.
"Well there is no normal way to talk to you, you ever think about yourself as of a well balanced person? "
Give me a little credit, will ya? Go have a peek at some of my posts. Do I really look like somebody whose out to be a shithead?
" I disagree that Linux community as a whole is as disgusting as the spammers and it is the Linux community who are victims in the SCO case and you are still insisting on blaming the victims."
You're not disagreeing with me as that's not what I think. (I guess I've haven't been makin myself so clear, I'm sorry about that.) I was talking about the impression that places like Slashdot leave with regards to SCO. Do I personally think that the guy who says "Maybe I should let the virus infect my computer" did it? Nah. Would somebody else, particularly one not terribly in tune wiht Slashdot read it and think that? Yes. That's my point.
I'm not blaming the victims for doing it. I'm blaming the 'victims' for having a less-than-professional attitude and earning themselves a not-so-positive spot in the limelight. Even after they know the attention is on them, they ratchet up the child-like behaviour. This has nothing to do with my personal views. It has to do with how the community comes across.
"How is that not trolling?"
We have to understand each other before it's trolling, k?
This is not true. They do get hot, just not as hot. They don't require as much energy to generate light.
With that said, the question really can only be answered after we know about the design of the chip. If all the light emitting aspects of the chip can be run at full intensity without ever being turned off, and the chip can survive that, then the answer is yes, you can overclock it to the max without it burning out. Will the chips work that way? Well I don't know. We are talking about very small components.
"They're pretty hard to damage, but really easy to lose in comparison. I think most people would much rather accidentally damage a $50 game than accidentally lose it."
I haven't heard of anybody losing GC games because they're so small. I have heard of people ruining standard size CD's/DVDs because they simply dropped them. That surface area is a killer, and many have lost their movies to it. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think your reasoning defeats mine.
"Who cares about that if the system they play on isn't portable?"
Nintendo does. And since they make the rules, they're the only one that matters. Sony's already using a very similar media in their next portable. If Nintendo jumps on that bandwagon, they'll have a much larger library to start wtih. If they go that route, you'll most definitely care.
"I would. Nintendo doesn't tend to show that much insight lately, even if the technology is likely to be able to support that sort of thing in the near future."
Insight? Nintendo's the one leading the innovation parade. I do agree that it's not all that likely they'll do it, but not because of 'lack of inisght', but rather too much of it. If they did it, it'd likely be because Sony forced their hand. Otherwise, I think they'd avoid it. Besides automatically making the machine battery hungry and needlessly expensive, it'd make it too big. It wouldn't be that strong of system in the marketplace for those reasons. They'd have to making something GBA sized with comparable battery life with a "Anyway, you missed the only obvious reason Nintendo would have for making discs that size--copy protection. Which I personally think is a pretty weak reason."
That is one of their big reasons for using that. They've made that clear. Gee whiz, you get a bunch of other benefits out of it too. You seem to be painting the picture that Nintendo doesn't think these things through. If that's the case, why is the system so small, and why does it have a handle to make it easier to carry around? Try doing that with a machine with a 5" disc. Even the Dreamcast, as compact as it is, is akward to move from room to room compared to the GC.
I used to believe this, in some ways I still do. I mean, when the focus of an audience is narrower, then the appeal is broader. Fair enough. But are you really making a good product if only a handful of people are going to like it?
I don't think Hollywood's failures are a result of targeting broad demographics. I used to. I used to think that the reason a movie was so bland was because they couldn't use the F-word or some other restriction that'd narrow their audience. But I've been thinking about the good movies vs. the bad movies lately, and I'm not seeing problems caused by demographics. What I am seeing are movies that aren't trying hard enough. Compare Star Trek V to Star Trek VI. Exact same demographics, but there were areas of the film where they just didn't try hard enough, and V is forever scorned for it.
So yeah, I dunno. I just can't name that many movies that I thought were great because they targeted narrower demoographics. Maybe more appeal to a small number of people, but that doesn't translate as better. Personally, I'm scared to think of what garbage would come out of a demographic that's too focused. The internet is chock full of examples of this, and boy are they embarrasing. Don't believe me? Go find a fan made Star Trek series called Hidden Frontier. It's fun for fans of Star Trek who also dabble in 3D art, but outside of that.. wow..
"Women aren't adults in Japanese culture, or is this just a mis-translation? Or just a Freudian slip on Minagawa's part?"
I think he was just reflecting what is on people's minds. (No, not that women are sex bunnies:P) When somebody says "adults" when referring to the game market, men are typically imagined. Vice City is geared for adults, but who's picturing numerous women playing it?
He wasn't saying "Women have a different place from adults and kids." He was saying "Just in case we're not clear, we mean women as well." I really hope nobody of the female gender took offense to his comment, I really don't think he meant anything bad by it.
"such as too much focus on first-party software and not enough focus on third"
Though I agree with this, it has nothing to do with the Gamecube. Rather, it's business policy. Yes, they need to change it, and the next system would be a good time to try that, but remember that Nintendo is making a personal fortune off the GC even though it's not #1.
"lack of DVD playability (let's face it, there's no good reason for them to make their game discs that small)"
You lost me here.
a.) You can buy a DVD Player for $40. You don't need your game machine to absorb this capability. It might have helped the PS2, but this next time around it's not going to be much of a BFD.
b.) There's no good reason for making the discs that small? What are you smoking? They're not as succeptable to accidental damage, they're far more portable, and who'd really be that surprised if GameBoy 3 played those discs?
"not enough focus on online games, etc."
Online games are not making or breaking the PS2 or XBOX, and they certainly didn't prevent the Dreamcast from tanking. Nintendo did not make a mistake here. What would have been a mistake is if Nintendo did include broadband capabilities + the ability to play DVDs, and the machine was $100 more expensive as a result.
"Man, that's a pretty high resolution for such a tiny screen."
That's a pretty high resolution for a sheet of paper.
Or are they just forward thinking? I wouldn't be totally insane if I predicted that display resolution will take a radical turn much in the same way that RAM and HD storage did in the not too distant future. I think we're all looking forward to 1200 dpi monitors. Microsoft's already pushing in that direction. Longhorn's UI is vector based with the idea that you can scale it up to really high resolutions and still maintain the same proportions. The image just gets clearer, as opposed to getting smaller. It has even been reported that MS is working with an LCD manufacturer (I want to say Viewsonic, but I'll just have to come forward and say I don't remember too clearly which company was mentioned) to develop displays that ran up to at least 5,000 pixels wide. That's almost 300 dpi on a 19" monitor. Crank that up to 1200 dpi and you almost arrive at that 32k number.
Does it still seem excessive on a Palm sized display? Sure. Given how the numbers work in the computing world, the next digit down was probably a little too close to what is practical in the next 2-3 years. Better to be safe?
"So you are either in the wrong that BBC reporting was balanced or you are in denial for your own reasons."
Niether. The point I'm trying to make here is that the reputation was well earned. It is not the BBC's fault that you all earned it. You're not complaining about the BBC's reporting methods, you are complaining that the BBC printed something that's not in your favor. Gee whiz, maybe you all should think twice before modding up that comment about what a rotten person Darl McBride is? Oh now, we can't have that. Instead, let's just bash the BBC.
I'm sorry but this "no everything should be balanced and fair" attitude is just a little too convenient. It is so wrong for the BBC to point the finger at the prime suspect and not say "well it could be 6 billion other people too", but Slashdot goes on merrily posting anti-MS stories that don't even match what the article said.
Develop a little more objectivity and open-mindedness here on Slashdot and I'll not only back down, I'll apologize. Until that happens, just face the facts that what you really want is for the media to not shed your community in a negative light. Ditch the "It's only unfair if it's against me" attitude. You're wasting your time by living in denial.
"I used to be on MS's side in this case, but the idea of a 'windowing' operating system pre-dates Windows by several years."
What's that got to do with anything? It was a unique name, and it describes exactly what it does. It does not, in any way, claim to be the first windowing system.
" like spammers or even an antivirus company or maybe some corporation that has something to gain if SCO went down."
They wouldn't report that because it's utter and total bullshit. The people with the prime motive are Linux zealots. That's it. The biggest motive, right there. What isn't 'fair' about it is the reputation you guys earned for yourself. That's why you're arguing with me about this.
"So back off, you are in the wrong."
Sorry, I'm not. You guys had an opportunity to seperate yourselves from those who did it, and instead you all referred to them as litigous bastards. There were even jokes about how to get the word bastard to link to SCO on Google.
I'm in the wrong? Okay. So far, I'm not the one out for SCO's blood, I'm not the one calling them names and acting childish, I'm not the one pointing the finger at anybody but the prime suspect, and I'm not the one trying to smack down anybody who's pointing out how childish you all are being. I won't have any trouble sleeping tonight.
Slashdot Mirror
"I found it to be fairly interesting but is it just me or were there a few too many shameless plugs for Java in her "interview"?"
So?
"Scientists say the bulky craniums of the human ancestor, homo erectus, may have helped the species survive some aggressive mating ritual"
So we Slashdotters all have thin skulls because... oh man, I've been burned by Darwin!
"Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?"
Sort of. Some CDs have a form of copy restriction on them. Bypassing them == automatic DMCA violation. Stupid, iddnt it?
"i have something else my palm is in sync with ;)"
So, to complete your analogy, would the Mac be a metaphor for women?
Meh, I'm underwhelmed here. As much as I love the original Goldeneye, I'm not sure what the point of bringing it back is. I suppose it'd be mildly interesting if net support was factored... but man, I really am sick of running around and shooting people.
I hope EA's smart enough to make it a $25 title. (Doubtful, but there is a market for those games...)
"Cool, the image gets clearer, but still wastes the same amount of screen real estate. What an improvement!"
Trying a little too hard to bash MS are we?
" Optical discs are made to be quite hard to ruin unless you're doing it deliberately. "
That was true with CDs. Sadly, DVDs with their higher density are far easier to ruin. Coincidenntly, modern game machines are using those discs now. Argue with me if you like, but plenty of people have ruined movies over this. There is nothing inherently differnt about games that prevents this other than they cost $50 to replace.
"Then Nintendo is stupid. But I've suspected that for some time now, at least in the realm of non-portable console making."
Not a very insightful rebuttal.
"There is such a thing as bad innovation."
Not a very complete rebuttal.
"Unless you make a habit of carrying your GC everywhere you go (which most people don't), it doesn't really justify using smaller discs."
Lots of people move their systems around. They move them around their house, they even move them to their friends' place. There's a reasoon why they sell backpacks specifically designed for carrying PS2s, PS1s, XBOXes, Dreamcasts, etc. Don't underestimate this reason.
Yes, it does justify the smaller discs.
"If you're any good at packing at all, the smaller size of the GC and its discs doesn't confer much of an advantage. Actually, the cubic shape of the GC might make it harder to pack in some cases."
Do a little math first, then come back to me and tell me if you really want to press that point.
A.) I'm not the one who said that, I think you replied to the wrong guy.
B.) The Dreamcast did not die due to piracy. It'd be a stretch to even call it a contributing factor.
"Well there is no normal way to talk to you, you ever think about yourself as of a well balanced person? "
Give me a little credit, will ya? Go have a peek at some of my posts. Do I really look like somebody whose out to be a shithead?
" I disagree that Linux community as a whole is as disgusting as the spammers and it is the Linux community who are victims in the SCO case and you are still insisting on blaming the victims."
You're not disagreeing with me as that's not what I think. (I guess I've haven't been makin myself so clear, I'm sorry about that.) I was talking about the impression that places like Slashdot leave with regards to SCO. Do I personally think that the guy who says "Maybe I should let the virus infect my computer" did it? Nah. Would somebody else, particularly one not terribly in tune wiht Slashdot read it and think that? Yes. That's my point.
I'm not blaming the victims for doing it. I'm blaming the 'victims' for having a less-than-professional attitude and earning themselves a not-so-positive spot in the limelight. Even after they know the attention is on them, they ratchet up the child-like behaviour. This has nothing to do with my personal views. It has to do with how the community comes across.
"How is that not trolling?"
We have to understand each other before it's trolling, k?
That's a slimey way to weasel out of it.
"What did Moore have to say about this?"
He said that it was Bush's fault that we don't have this technology already. He was then booed by the audience at the awards show.
"Imagine the size and speed gains we would get if we could now have three or four states per bit."
Maybe I'm just too hardwired into how binary works, but what exactly would the benefit of this be? Yes/No/Maybe?
Or are you referring to something like how neurons work?
"Fluorescent and LED lights do not get hot."
This is not true. They do get hot, just not as hot. They don't require as much energy to generate light.
With that said, the question really can only be answered after we know about the design of the chip. If all the light emitting aspects of the chip can be run at full intensity without ever being turned off, and the chip can survive that, then the answer is yes, you can overclock it to the max without it burning out. Will the chips work that way? Well I don't know. We are talking about very small components.
His question was quite valid.
"They're pretty hard to damage, but really easy to lose in comparison. I think most people would much rather accidentally damage a $50 game than accidentally lose it."
I haven't heard of anybody losing GC games because they're so small. I have heard of people ruining standard size CD's/DVDs because they simply dropped them. That surface area is a killer, and many have lost their movies to it. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think your reasoning defeats mine.
"Who cares about that if the system they play on isn't portable?"
Nintendo does. And since they make the rules, they're the only one that matters. Sony's already using a very similar media in their next portable. If Nintendo jumps on that bandwagon, they'll have a much larger library to start wtih. If they go that route, you'll most definitely care.
"I would. Nintendo doesn't tend to show that much insight lately, even if the technology is likely to be able to support that sort of thing in the near future."
Insight? Nintendo's the one leading the innovation parade. I do agree that it's not all that likely they'll do it, but not because of 'lack of inisght', but rather too much of it. If they did it, it'd likely be because Sony forced their hand. Otherwise, I think they'd avoid it. Besides automatically making the machine battery hungry and needlessly expensive, it'd make it too big. It wouldn't be that strong of system in the marketplace for those reasons. They'd have to making something GBA sized with comparable battery life with a "Anyway, you missed the only obvious reason Nintendo would have for making discs that size--copy protection. Which I personally think is a pretty weak reason."
That is one of their big reasons for using that. They've made that clear. Gee whiz, you get a bunch of other benefits out of it too. You seem to be painting the picture that Nintendo doesn't think these things through. If that's the case, why is the system so small, and why does it have a handle to make it easier to carry around? Try doing that with a machine with a 5" disc. Even the Dreamcast, as compact as it is, is akward to move from room to room compared to the GC.
"To try and target EVERY demographic is silly."
I used to believe this, in some ways I still do. I mean, when the focus of an audience is narrower, then the appeal is broader. Fair enough. But are you really making a good product if only a handful of people are going to like it?
I don't think Hollywood's failures are a result of targeting broad demographics. I used to. I used to think that the reason a movie was so bland was because they couldn't use the F-word or some other restriction that'd narrow their audience. But I've been thinking about the good movies vs. the bad movies lately, and I'm not seeing problems caused by demographics. What I am seeing are movies that aren't trying hard enough. Compare Star Trek V to Star Trek VI. Exact same demographics, but there were areas of the film where they just didn't try hard enough, and V is forever scorned for it.
So yeah, I dunno. I just can't name that many movies that I thought were great because they targeted narrower demoographics. Maybe more appeal to a small number of people, but that doesn't translate as better. Personally, I'm scared to think of what garbage would come out of a demographic that's too focused. The internet is chock full of examples of this, and boy are they embarrasing. Don't believe me? Go find a fan made Star Trek series called Hidden Frontier. It's fun for fans of Star Trek who also dabble in 3D art, but outside of that.. wow..
"Women aren't adults in Japanese culture, or is this just a mis-translation? Or just a Freudian slip on Minagawa's part?"
:P) When somebody says "adults" when referring to the game market, men are typically imagined. Vice City is geared for adults, but who's picturing numerous women playing it?
I think he was just reflecting what is on people's minds. (No, not that women are sex bunnies
He wasn't saying "Women have a different place from adults and kids." He was saying "Just in case we're not clear, we mean women as well." I really hope nobody of the female gender took offense to his comment, I really don't think he meant anything bad by it.
"such as too much focus on first-party software and not enough focus on third"
Though I agree with this, it has nothing to do with the Gamecube. Rather, it's business policy. Yes, they need to change it, and the next system would be a good time to try that, but remember that Nintendo is making a personal fortune off the GC even though it's not #1.
"lack of DVD playability (let's face it, there's no good reason for them to make their game discs that small)"
You lost me here.
a.) You can buy a DVD Player for $40. You don't need your game machine to absorb this capability. It might have helped the PS2, but this next time around it's not going to be much of a BFD.
b.) There's no good reason for making the discs that small? What are you smoking? They're not as succeptable to accidental damage, they're far more portable, and who'd really be that surprised if GameBoy 3 played those discs?
"not enough focus on online games, etc."
Online games are not making or breaking the PS2 or XBOX, and they certainly didn't prevent the Dreamcast from tanking. Nintendo did not make a mistake here. What would have been a mistake is if Nintendo did include broadband capabilities + the ability to play DVDs, and the machine was $100 more expensive as a result.
"Man, that's a pretty high resolution for such a tiny screen."
That's a pretty high resolution for a sheet of paper.
Or are they just forward thinking? I wouldn't be totally insane if I predicted that display resolution will take a radical turn much in the same way that RAM and HD storage did in the not too distant future. I think we're all looking forward to 1200 dpi monitors. Microsoft's already pushing in that direction. Longhorn's UI is vector based with the idea that you can scale it up to really high resolutions and still maintain the same proportions. The image just gets clearer, as opposed to getting smaller. It has even been reported that MS is working with an LCD manufacturer (I want to say Viewsonic, but I'll just have to come forward and say I don't remember too clearly which company was mentioned) to develop displays that ran up to at least 5,000 pixels wide. That's almost 300 dpi on a 19" monitor. Crank that up to 1200 dpi and you almost arrive at that 32k number.
Does it still seem excessive on a Palm sized display? Sure. Given how the numbers work in the computing world, the next digit down was probably a little too close to what is practical in the next 2-3 years. Better to be safe?
"geeks need any advantage we can get with the ladies you know...."
Oh yeah, that's good, teach them to over-prepare.
"So you are either in the wrong that BBC reporting was balanced or you are in denial for your own reasons."
Niether. The point I'm trying to make here is that the reputation was well earned. It is not the BBC's fault that you all earned it. You're not complaining about the BBC's reporting methods, you are complaining that the BBC printed something that's not in your favor. Gee whiz, maybe you all should think twice before modding up that comment about what a rotten person Darl McBride is? Oh now, we can't have that. Instead, let's just bash the BBC.
I'm sorry but this "no everything should be balanced and fair" attitude is just a little too convenient. It is so wrong for the BBC to point the finger at the prime suspect and not say "well it could be 6 billion other people too", but Slashdot goes on merrily posting anti-MS stories that don't even match what the article said.
Develop a little more objectivity and open-mindedness here on Slashdot and I'll not only back down, I'll apologize. Until that happens, just face the facts that what you really want is for the media to not shed your community in a negative light. Ditch the "It's only unfair if it's against me" attitude. You're wasting your time by living in denial.
"If that's the sort of stuff you're after, you'd be better off using some of that $5,999 to get yourself the real thing!"
Wow... I could take five thousand nine hundred and ninety nine trips to the nudie bar, or one GREAT trip!
" An uneducated population is so much easier to control."
An uneducated population is bad news for the economy.
Your logic only works in radically oversimplified situation.
"I used to be on MS's side in this case, but the idea of a 'windowing' operating system pre-dates Windows by several years."
What's that got to do with anything? It was a unique name, and it describes exactly what it does. It does not, in any way, claim to be the first windowing system.
"See, Red Hat is not so something generic as Windows. It is simply as that."
WTF? Red and Hat are about as generic as you can get!
" like spammers or even an antivirus company or maybe some corporation that has something to gain if SCO went down."
They wouldn't report that because it's utter and total bullshit. The people with the prime motive are Linux zealots. That's it. The biggest motive, right there. What isn't 'fair' about it is the reputation you guys earned for yourself. That's why you're arguing with me about this.
"So back off, you are in the wrong."
Sorry, I'm not. You guys had an opportunity to seperate yourselves from those who did it, and instead you all referred to them as litigous bastards. There were even jokes about how to get the word bastard to link to SCO on Google.
I'm in the wrong? Okay. So far, I'm not the one out for SCO's blood, I'm not the one calling them names and acting childish, I'm not the one pointing the finger at anybody but the prime suspect, and I'm not the one trying to smack down anybody who's pointing out how childish you all are being. I won't have any trouble sleeping tonight.