You've received a bunch of "It's only a game!" comments because some of these kids just don't get it. These games are more about the other players, whom are real living breathing people, then the game itself.
We'll never advance as a society, community, or race if we keep on believing and accepting the norms. There might not be much we can do about certain things, but we sure don't have to accept it completely.
It might be a game, but you don't think that attitude doesn't also spill over into real life too?
Plus, these are very social games. It's sometimes, and often, about the other people in the game and not so much about the actual game itself. While it's a game, you're dealing with real people, that come from the real world.
ATI drivers and Sony disc drives is a stupid comparison.
This IS totally anecdotal. I've never had a problem with any Sony drives; I've used Sony CD-ROM drives since you had to plug them into a special Sony port on your sound card. I had both a PS1 and PS2, used them both for years, with no problems. My PS2 eventually had a problem with one of it's game ports, but nothing to do with the drive.
Sell enough of anything, and people will have trouble. Just like anything else. "Don't buy that car, the windshield wipers are shitty! I know because mine went bad and so did my buddy Chucks!!"
I'm not saying there might have been problem with the PS2 or something, but this whole argument is just stupid.
That's so stupid! "Not built to the same spec." Ridiculous! I've *never* known an Xbox break because of playing DVD's. Those drives are, if anything, built much tougher then a stand-alone DVD player because they have to do a lot more seeks, spin faster, and change speed a bunch of times.
Movie player DVD players are some of the cheapest crappiest mechanics you can find. All they do is spin at a fairly constant speed the entire time they're running. So, they're built the cheapest possible way.
That's just silly. I have old DVD drives for the computer that I've had for a decade, used heavily, and they still keep on truckin'. My old DVD player is over 8 years old, survived five moves, and played perhaps thousands of DVD's. No problems.
It's a silly concern.
Besides, the discs in these game systems now spin almost constantly. On the PS1, it was to play audio tracks. On the PS2 and beyond, it was to continually load little bits of game content as you navigate around the game. The disc almost never stops spinning.
I'd venture to say that playing games is worse for the drive then playing a movie. When you play a game, if the disc DOES spin down sometimes, it does so a lot. Lots of spinning up and down, and when it spins up, it spins to the maximum speeds to get the data as quickly as possible. When you play a movie, the disc spins much slower, and at a constant velocity. It's like city driving versus highway driving..
Naa, it's not really logical at all. The PS2 was released in 2000. The PS3 was released six years later, and it shares almost none of the same components (the only shared components are the chips in the PS3 to allow PS1/2 games to play.) It's an entirely new machine.
To be skeptical of the PS3 because of this issue, you'd also have to be skeptical of any other CD or DVD player on the market since and until the PS3 was released.
Yea, me too. I have a pretty nice DVD player; it cost me a bunch of money when I got it. It still looks very good but it doesn't look nearly as nice as a standard DVD in the PS3. The PS3's upscaling is top notch; it doesn't just stretch out the picture to fit the high resolution, it really enhances sharp lines, contours, and colors. It's great!
I watched a few DVD movies on it when 1.8 came out and I really couldn't believe they were the same DVD's I'd watched before.
Of course, the benefit of the upscaling on the PS3 would be mitigated if you already had a top notch scaler as a separate component, or have a TV with an excellent scaler. Unfortunately, external scalers are very expensive and most TV's have sub-par scalers.
I really hope Sony keeps up adding these killer features with each update as they've been doing. It's awesome.
I would imagine that using it at all would lower the live expectancy, over leaving it turned off in the box.
I don't see how playing videos would cause any detrimental effects on the machine. Probably less then a game, since the machine doesn't have to work very hard to play a movie.
There's likely a lot more Blu-Ray players out there right now because of the PS3. While maybe some of you might think the PS3 isn't selling or hasn't sold enough units, they've sold several million of them - and that's nothing to sneeze at when you consider the the fact that HD players are still pretty new to market.
Evenrually, it'll be like a DVD-R/DVD+R situation - players will support both and that will be the end of it.
1. ) Don't call me ignorant, you twit. I've been playing games on PC's before you were out of grade school. I was making a point, and you validated it: $200 for one single component in an entire PC is supposed to dispel it? If you want to get into an argument about who's more old school, why don't you tell me what a fossil driver is, or what KALI was, how many VL Bus video cards you owned.. or shit, what GLide was...
2. ) $100, $200. Doesn't really matter. Buy a few games, controllers, and it washes out quickly.
3. ) Most people in general, not only PC gamers, hate the idea of monthly fees just to use something. If I don't use my PS3 for two months, I don't pay for two months. And do you think Microsoft will leave Xbox live as cheap as it is if they manage to dominate the console market? Look what they did with Windows and Office.. $$$
If you've never actually used a PS3, you might think it's not worth the extra few initial dollars. It's expensive, sure. I'd like to have paid $100 for it, yup. But it's a fun machine, you should play one some day.
All those technical things don't matter, though. The PS3 is cutting edge for a game system. I exaggerated on the price a bit to make a point, but the fact that you can easily spend a grand on a medium-spec game machine, I don't see the big deal about the $599 for the PS3. You have to put it into perspective with the rest of the things that people buy right now. iPods that cost $300, HDTV's that cost $3200.. shit's expensive now.
Yea, it would have been good if they priced the PS3 at $500. I believe they will soon enough, and that will remove the big "reason XBOX RULEZ" bullet point at the top of the list. But really, it doesn't matter. I like my PS3 and I'm glad I got it. It's a fun machine to own.
I value my entertainment, and the PS3 has been a fun system to own. Especially since they've done a lot to give it more features in terms of media playing over the network, etc.
It plays PS2 games just fine, and they recently added the ability to upscale them so they look a little better on HDTV's. They also added a DVD upscaler option, which really does a good job of making your ordinary DVD's look better.
The games look fantastic. Fight Night 3 looks great, sounds great. Medal of Honor is fantastic. And I like all the little games you can buy for a few bucks on the playstation store thing.
My friend got a 360 a while back and I remember saying to myself "well, it looks better then an Xbox, at least..." I haven't said that about the PS3 yet. The games look a LOT better, they sound awesome on a surround system..
I actually think the PS3 target audience is 20 somethings that have money to burn. I fall into that category so I guess it worked for me.
The PS3 is an amazing little machine. In the days of new video cards costing nearly as much as a PS3, I don't really buy the whole price tag thing. Not too many people complain about the Xbox 360 price and it was only $100 cheaper. Factor in that you don't have to pay for a monthly subscription to do online things on the PS3, and the fact that it's a really cool machine with more capabilities, it evens out quickly.
But if you want to just focus in on the bullet point, that's your decision.
I wish more people would understand software as a service and not a product. What you explain here is exactly that, a service. If a particular company or user wants to use your software, they can do that. If they need any type of support, they can pay at that point (and this isn't much different then commercial closed-source software, which very often includes no free support.) But if they need features, they can also pay for that.
I guess it almost becomes something like outsourcing your development work. You can pick a product you like, and use it. You can then contract out feature improvements and support to the company that wrote it in the first place. Being open source only helps the product become even better for anyone that uses it.
It's a different way of looking at software, and I believe it's inevitably the way things are headed. The problem is that there's just too many programmers that think the old fashioned way - that software is only something to sell on a shelf, and if you don't, you don't get paid.
Ahh, so you're one of those "TV is the devil" type folks. Do you live in a mud hut with grass for a roof, too?
So fucking typical, especially how you take everything I say out of context.
"I've read references like that in several other posts, and yet all you people keep watching...."
As I said, what else is on TV on Sunday night? And I did clearly point out that part of the reason I watched was because it was on before Entourage.
"Since there is absolutely nothing else anyone could possibly do on a Sunday night other than watch television."
I work on Monday morning. Maybe you're a hippie pot smoker that works nights at Starbucks, but I'm not. No, there's not much else to do on a Sunday night at 10PM besides be at home, getting ready for the week of work, and bed. What is one supposed to do, save the world at 10PM on Sunday?
"More? More than a TV show?"
No, fucktard. More OF a TV show then it was. The premise was good. James Gandolfini is a great main character for that genre. The supporting actors were all good. They set up the show for great things to happen, yet nothing ever really did.
If you think modern Television shows are somehow "less" then movies, then you have no idea what goes into producing a high budget TV show do you? Shit, even Stargate SG-1 was costing them millions PER EPISODE. And that wasn't as high a budget as Sopranos by a long shot.
"You are absolutely right about that, if by 'here' you mean 'on TV'."
Again, you assume that all TV is bad. If you actually watched some shows without your arrogant "I'm too good for TV and you" shit head attitude, you'd see that. Do you honestly believe that TV is the most popular form of entertainment in the entire planet because ALL of it sucks? And you're the only one to see the light?
There's a lot of crappy TV shows, for sure. But there's good ones too. Just like *anything else.*
"A hot girl that can make you say "What the fuck?" at the end of sex is kinda what you want, no?"
Nope. I usually aim for "Awesome!" or "That was great." Not "What the fuck was that?" See that, you aren't normal.
Any other ending wouldn't have been obvious because nobody knew what was going to happen. Tony killed? AJ killed by mistake? Maybe the wife? Maybe Tony gets sent to jail? Everyone had their own ideas as to what would happen, and it was fun to try to figure it out. What they did was a huge let down to their entire fan base.
A hot girl can give you massive tension in 5 minutes too, but would you give her credit if she suddenly just got up and walked away without finishing? "She left me in a dark room with my heart racing." Awesome!
Now, I don't mean to get on a rant here, but if you think that was a great ending, you're a wannabe "artistic" shit for brains that thinks you're better then us. If you honestly said "YEA!!!" when the screen went blank instead of "What the fuck" like every other -normal- person that watched the show, you should get outside more and say hello to the world.
I think just about anything other then what they did would have been an improvement. Like, who didn't want to see AJ die?
I agree with you completely, in spirit. If I want life, I just turn off the TV and look around and how shitty it can be. One of the big draws of the TV is the escape it offers.
But... this isn't a new show. It's the last episode. Honestly, it ended as poorly as the last few seasons of shows. You'll watch the entire 4th season and... nothing happens. They introduced new characters, plots, and themes at every corner and let them die out with never any explanations, resolutions, anything.
It got really old. I watched the show anyways, because what else is on Sunday night; and it's on before Entourage. I was always disappointed. Probably more so, because the show had a lot of potential to be so much more.
There's really nothing brilliant here. They just used the same MO as the last four seasons where nothing ever happened.
Slashdot Mirror
You've received a bunch of "It's only a game!" comments because some of these kids just don't get it. These games are more about the other players, whom are real living breathing people, then the game itself.
We'll never advance as a society, community, or race if we keep on believing and accepting the norms. There might not be much we can do about certain things, but we sure don't have to accept it completely.
It might be a game, but you don't think that attitude doesn't also spill over into real life too?
Plus, these are very social games. It's sometimes, and often, about the other people in the game and not so much about the actual game itself. While it's a game, you're dealing with real people, that come from the real world.
"The fact that standalone units only have to spin at one speed means that they are much less complicated"
No, they spin at multiple speeds too. They just don't have to spin up and down as much.
I should stop. I can't win an argument with an ignorant man.
ATI drivers and Sony disc drives is a stupid comparison.
This IS totally anecdotal. I've never had a problem with any Sony drives; I've used Sony CD-ROM drives since you had to plug them into a special Sony port on your sound card. I had both a PS1 and PS2, used them both for years, with no problems. My PS2 eventually had a problem with one of it's game ports, but nothing to do with the drive.
Sell enough of anything, and people will have trouble. Just like anything else. "Don't buy that car, the windshield wipers are shitty! I know because mine went bad and so did my buddy Chucks!!"
I'm not saying there might have been problem with the PS2 or something, but this whole argument is just stupid.
That's so stupid! "Not built to the same spec." Ridiculous! I've *never* known an Xbox break because of playing DVD's. Those drives are, if anything, built much tougher then a stand-alone DVD player because they have to do a lot more seeks, spin faster, and change speed a bunch of times.
Movie player DVD players are some of the cheapest crappiest mechanics you can find. All they do is spin at a fairly constant speed the entire time they're running. So, they're built the cheapest possible way.
That's just silly. I have old DVD drives for the computer that I've had for a decade, used heavily, and they still keep on truckin'. My old DVD player is over 8 years old, survived five moves, and played perhaps thousands of DVD's. No problems.
It's a silly concern.
Besides, the discs in these game systems now spin almost constantly. On the PS1, it was to play audio tracks. On the PS2 and beyond, it was to continually load little bits of game content as you navigate around the game. The disc almost never stops spinning.
I'd venture to say that playing games is worse for the drive then playing a movie. When you play a game, if the disc DOES spin down sometimes, it does so a lot. Lots of spinning up and down, and when it spins up, it spins to the maximum speeds to get the data as quickly as possible. When you play a movie, the disc spins much slower, and at a constant velocity. It's like city driving versus highway driving..
Naa, it's not really logical at all. The PS2 was released in 2000. The PS3 was released six years later, and it shares almost none of the same components (the only shared components are the chips in the PS3 to allow PS1/2 games to play.) It's an entirely new machine.
To be skeptical of the PS3 because of this issue, you'd also have to be skeptical of any other CD or DVD player on the market since and until the PS3 was released.
Yea, me too. I have a pretty nice DVD player; it cost me a bunch of money when I got it. It still looks very good but it doesn't look nearly as nice as a standard DVD in the PS3. The PS3's upscaling is top notch; it doesn't just stretch out the picture to fit the high resolution, it really enhances sharp lines, contours, and colors. It's great!
I watched a few DVD movies on it when 1.8 came out and I really couldn't believe they were the same DVD's I'd watched before.
Of course, the benefit of the upscaling on the PS3 would be mitigated if you already had a top notch scaler as a separate component, or have a TV with an excellent scaler. Unfortunately, external scalers are very expensive and most TV's have sub-par scalers.
I really hope Sony keeps up adding these killer features with each update as they've been doing. It's awesome.
I would imagine that using it at all would lower the live expectancy, over leaving it turned off in the box.
I don't see how playing videos would cause any detrimental effects on the machine. Probably less then a game, since the machine doesn't have to work very hard to play a movie.
Silly question.
There's likely a lot more Blu-Ray players out there right now because of the PS3. While maybe some of you might think the PS3 isn't selling or hasn't sold enough units, they've sold several million of them - and that's nothing to sneeze at when you consider the the fact that HD players are still pretty new to market.
Evenrually, it'll be like a DVD-R/DVD+R situation - players will support both and that will be the end of it.
Okay fanboy.
lolz rofl lmao!!!!!111111111
1. ) Don't call me ignorant, you twit. I've been playing games on PC's before you were out of grade school. I was making a point, and you validated it: $200 for one single component in an entire PC is supposed to dispel it? If you want to get into an argument about who's more old school, why don't you tell me what a fossil driver is, or what KALI was, how many VL Bus video cards you owned.. or shit, what GLide was...
2. ) $100, $200. Doesn't really matter. Buy a few games, controllers, and it washes out quickly.
3. ) Most people in general, not only PC gamers, hate the idea of monthly fees just to use something. If I don't use my PS3 for two months, I don't pay for two months. And do you think Microsoft will leave Xbox live as cheap as it is if they manage to dominate the console market? Look what they did with Windows and Office.. $$$
If you've never actually used a PS3, you might think it's not worth the extra few initial dollars. It's expensive, sure. I'd like to have paid $100 for it, yup. But it's a fun machine, you should play one some day.
All those technical things don't matter, though. The PS3 is cutting edge for a game system. I exaggerated on the price a bit to make a point, but the fact that you can easily spend a grand on a medium-spec game machine, I don't see the big deal about the $599 for the PS3. You have to put it into perspective with the rest of the things that people buy right now. iPods that cost $300, HDTV's that cost $3200.. shit's expensive now.
Yea, it would have been good if they priced the PS3 at $500. I believe they will soon enough, and that will remove the big "reason XBOX RULEZ" bullet point at the top of the list. But really, it doesn't matter. I like my PS3 and I'm glad I got it. It's a fun machine to own.
I value my entertainment, and the PS3 has been a fun system to own. Especially since they've done a lot to give it more features in terms of media playing over the network, etc.
It plays PS2 games just fine, and they recently added the ability to upscale them so they look a little better on HDTV's. They also added a DVD upscaler option, which really does a good job of making your ordinary DVD's look better.
The games look fantastic. Fight Night 3 looks great, sounds great. Medal of Honor is fantastic. And I like all the little games you can buy for a few bucks on the playstation store thing.
My friend got a 360 a while back and I remember saying to myself "well, it looks better then an Xbox, at least..." I haven't said that about the PS3 yet. The games look a LOT better, they sound awesome on a surround system..
I actually think the PS3 target audience is 20 somethings that have money to burn. I fall into that category so I guess it worked for me.
There's some really great games for the PS3.
The only reason I can think of that someone would say that, would be pure fanboyism.
The PS3 is an amazing little machine. In the days of new video cards costing nearly as much as a PS3, I don't really buy the whole price tag thing. Not too many people complain about the Xbox 360 price and it was only $100 cheaper. Factor in that you don't have to pay for a monthly subscription to do online things on the PS3, and the fact that it's a really cool machine with more capabilities, it evens out quickly.
But if you want to just focus in on the bullet point, that's your decision.
I don't see this as a bad idea. I don't know why you think it is. You know, a company can do more then one thing at a time.
I don't give any credence to all this "generation" crap.
Indeed - the key word there is "illegal." It says nothing about copying the disk for *legal* purposes.
They do intentionally word it so that one might think that ALL copies are illegal.
I wish more people would understand software as a service and not a product. What you explain here is exactly that, a service. If a particular company or user wants to use your software, they can do that. If they need any type of support, they can pay at that point (and this isn't much different then commercial closed-source software, which very often includes no free support.) But if they need features, they can also pay for that.
I guess it almost becomes something like outsourcing your development work. You can pick a product you like, and use it. You can then contract out feature improvements and support to the company that wrote it in the first place. Being open source only helps the product become even better for anyone that uses it.
It's a different way of looking at software, and I believe it's inevitably the way things are headed. The problem is that there's just too many programmers that think the old fashioned way - that software is only something to sell on a shelf, and if you don't, you don't get paid.
Ahh, so you're one of those "TV is the devil" type folks. Do you live in a mud hut with grass for a roof, too?
So fucking typical, especially how you take everything I say out of context.
"I've read references like that in several other posts, and yet all you people keep watching...."
As I said, what else is on TV on Sunday night? And I did clearly point out that part of the reason I watched was because it was on before Entourage.
"Since there is absolutely nothing else anyone could possibly do on a Sunday night other than watch television."
I work on Monday morning. Maybe you're a hippie pot smoker that works nights at Starbucks, but I'm not. No, there's not much else to do on a Sunday night at 10PM besides be at home, getting ready for the week of work, and bed. What is one supposed to do, save the world at 10PM on Sunday?
"More? More than a TV show?"
No, fucktard. More OF a TV show then it was. The premise was good. James Gandolfini is a great main character for that genre. The supporting actors were all good. They set up the show for great things to happen, yet nothing ever really did.
If you think modern Television shows are somehow "less" then movies, then you have no idea what goes into producing a high budget TV show do you? Shit, even Stargate SG-1 was costing them millions PER EPISODE. And that wasn't as high a budget as Sopranos by a long shot.
"You are absolutely right about that, if by 'here' you mean 'on TV'."
Again, you assume that all TV is bad. If you actually watched some shows without your arrogant "I'm too good for TV and you" shit head attitude, you'd see that. Do you honestly believe that TV is the most popular form of entertainment in the entire planet because ALL of it sucks? And you're the only one to see the light?
There's a lot of crappy TV shows, for sure. But there's good ones too. Just like *anything else.*
Grow up dude.
"A hot girl that can make you say "What the fuck?" at the end of sex is kinda what you want, no?"
Nope. I usually aim for "Awesome!" or "That was great." Not "What the fuck was that?" See that, you aren't normal.
Any other ending wouldn't have been obvious because nobody knew what was going to happen. Tony killed? AJ killed by mistake? Maybe the wife? Maybe Tony gets sent to jail? Everyone had their own ideas as to what would happen, and it was fun to try to figure it out. What they did was a huge let down to their entire fan base.
A hot girl can give you massive tension in 5 minutes too, but would you give her credit if she suddenly just got up and walked away without finishing? "She left me in a dark room with my heart racing." Awesome!
Now, I don't mean to get on a rant here, but if you think that was a great ending, you're a wannabe "artistic" shit for brains that thinks you're better then us. If you honestly said "YEA!!!" when the screen went blank instead of "What the fuck" like every other -normal- person that watched the show, you should get outside more and say hello to the world.
I think just about anything other then what they did would have been an improvement. Like, who didn't want to see AJ die?
I agree with you completely, in spirit. If I want life, I just turn off the TV and look around and how shitty it can be. One of the big draws of the TV is the escape it offers.
But... this isn't a new show. It's the last episode. Honestly, it ended as poorly as the last few seasons of shows. You'll watch the entire 4th season and... nothing happens. They introduced new characters, plots, and themes at every corner and let them die out with never any explanations, resolutions, anything.
It got really old. I watched the show anyways, because what else is on Sunday night; and it's on before Entourage. I was always disappointed. Probably more so, because the show had a lot of potential to be so much more.
There's really nothing brilliant here. They just used the same MO as the last four seasons where nothing ever happened.