I've only played demos on the PS3 and it certainly was fun- just not $600 worth. And certainly not more fun than my Wii for over twice the cost. Sony, and Microsoft too, both invested heavily on making their next generation systems as powerful as possible. Nintendo focused on making its system as readily fun as possible, with less emphasis on horsepower, and more emphasis on intuitive playability. So as far as the value of fun goes, the Wii is more fun, for less price. And that's why its demand is greater than that of the PS3's.
To follow this a bit further, lets talk about gaming. We have an Xbox and a Wii. I play Halo and other FPS games with my stepsons and they just flat out pwn me. A good game for me is one in which I can get 5 kills on them before they get 25 on me. (FWIW I'm even worse with PC controls.) When we played multiplayer MoH on the Wii, however, I was within only a couple of kills of them. 10-9, 15-13, that kind of thing. The controls really are that much easier to use, and that much more intuitive.
I have every intention of buying a 360 one of these months, but won't until after next Christmas since I think there'll (a) likely be a bundle with Halo 3 and (b) a price cut too boot. The chances of me buying a PS3 are pretty miniscule unless corporations pay enough money for the cycles that it will pay itself off in a reasonably short amount of time. Not that that's likely, mind you, just that that's about the only thing that I can see that would get me to spend the money.
I asked about the Wii and PS3 at my local gamestore not too terirbly long ago. The Wii's waiting list had been hovering around 100 people ever since it came out. The PS3 had 18 units in back waiting to be sold. Maybe fun really is more important than pretty?
I think you mean, competitor. Nintendo is selling their consoles at a profit. And while Microsoft is taking a loss on the 360's, at least for now I believe Sony is taking the greatest loss per unit on their consoles. While I don't know how how long that will last, at least for the time being selling more units will not necessarily translate into profits for them.
He claims to be right more than wrong in five of the past six years.
Whoopty fsck. So's RailGunner. Runs are fun to watch, but pitching is what wins. And the Yanks have? Anyone? Anyone at all? Yep. They got nothin' at pitcher.
Until you can include a box of vapid, angst ridden 20-somethings whining about themselves this will simply be unable to compete with the quality entertainment that is MTV.
They already agreed to the settlement, so I don't see them countersuing anytime soon. They essentially left Activision and tried to set up their own studio making the exact same type of games as they were making at Activision. Since they are only barred for between 6 months and year, depending on which aspect, I'd assume that its actually a rather fair noncompete agreement. They are barred from specific peripherals and a specific genre of game, so its not over-reaching IMHO.
If you're playing a MMO than you're wanting to be playing online. Paying for a game that you're playing alone and it still requires a high speed internet connection is just asinine. All they'll do in the long run is push more folks to consoles where they don't have to put up with that.
I'm going to see to it that the sun rises in the east tomorrow. Mark my words.
Pssshaw. Anyone can make the sun rise; It is a big ol' ball o' hydrogen after all, and everyone knows that hydrogen rises, but only I can make it set. You just watch. Tonight it fall out of the sky to the West.
That was my first thought. Especially since he told Ars Technica that he was going to see to it that somehting big was going to happen at the Take-Two meeting.
Part of the problem with translating prose to screen has to do fundamentally with the differences in the medium. Books are about their charactes development and emotions as they confront conflicts. Movies have to show this, so they automatically have less depth in characterization. Since SciFi includes new worlds, universes, boundries, and societies, all of which have to be explained; there is less time to shape the characters. Which makes for an even shallower story. Couple that with the grand vistas that SciFi can shape and there's an even greater temptation to focus on eye-candy instead of characters.
I think SciFi lends itself more readily to taking the easy way out. Throw in some lasers, a sweeping scene of an alien world, and you're good. But if you look at the LoTR, you can also see how well a movie of this type can be made. (I realize that Fantasy is different from SciFi, but from a Hollywood perspective they are essentially the same.) But doing so requires enormous effort and great risk- the two things for which Hollywood is least known.
Yep. He even said so himself in a letter to Ars Technica. Of course since his writing implies that he's bat-guano crazy insane, I have a feeling that not much of anything is going to actually happen.
On a side note, if someone does buy Take-Two for double the price, doesn't that just kinda fit their name?
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that there is a confidential aspect to it. Typically communicaitons between an attorney and their client is privileged, so it is not unreasonable to think that the bills would be too. Since the RIAA is basically a private entity (albeit a trade group) and Foster is very much a private entity, then I don't see how the general public can overcome that privilege to see everything that Foster will. A summary, however, might very well be acceptable. It would also, I think, show how much money was spent on "Experts" and, possibly, how much time was spent "editing" the Expert's submissions.
I assume the records themselves would confidential, but is it acceptable to publish a summary of the hours? Are there rules about the level of detail allowed?
Slashdot Mirror
To follow this a bit further, lets talk about gaming. We have an Xbox and a Wii. I play Halo and other FPS games with my stepsons and they just flat out pwn me. A good game for me is one in which I can get 5 kills on them before they get 25 on me. (FWIW I'm even worse with PC controls.) When we played multiplayer MoH on the Wii, however, I was within only a couple of kills of them. 10-9, 15-13, that kind of thing. The controls really are that much easier to use, and that much more intuitive.
I have every intention of buying a 360 one of these months, but won't until after next Christmas since I think there'll (a) likely be a bundle with Halo 3 and (b) a price cut too boot. The chances of me buying a PS3 are pretty miniscule unless corporations pay enough money for the cycles that it will pay itself off in a reasonably short amount of time. Not that that's likely, mind you, just that that's about the only thing that I can see that would get me to spend the money.
I asked about the Wii and PS3 at my local gamestore not too terirbly long ago. The Wii's waiting list had been hovering around 100 people ever since it came out. The PS3 had 18 units in back waiting to be sold. Maybe fun really is more important than pretty?
I think you mean, competitor. Nintendo is selling their consoles at a profit. And while Microsoft is taking a loss on the 360's, at least for now I believe Sony is taking the greatest loss per unit on their consoles. While I don't know how how long that will last, at least for the time being selling more units will not necessarily translate into profits for them.
[1]Since they're selling them at a loss I can't quite justify putting "profit" here. Yet.
Whoopty fsck. So's RailGunner. Runs are fun to watch, but pitching is what wins. And the Yanks have? Anyone? Anyone at all? Yep. They got nothin' at pitcher.
Sounds like your boss is already intimately familiar with it...
Until you can include a box of vapid, angst ridden 20-somethings whining about themselves this will simply be unable to compete with the quality entertainment that is MTV.
I ain't a lawyer either.
Best descriptor of Slashdot's noise to signal ratio evar.
If you're playing a MMO than you're wanting to be playing online. Paying for a game that you're playing alone and it still requires a high speed internet connection is just asinine. All they'll do in the long run is push more folks to consoles where they don't have to put up with that.
Pssshaw. Anyone can make the sun rise; It is a big ol' ball o' hydrogen after all, and everyone knows that hydrogen rises, but only I can make it set. You just watch. Tonight it fall out of the sky to the West.
That was my first thought. Especially since he told Ars Technica that he was going to see to it that somehting big was going to happen at the Take-Two meeting.
1 NM == 1 minute of Latitude
So it also missed him by 5 minutes;-)
Is if you can write-off your PS3 as a charitable purpose since its spending the bulk of its time volunteering;-)
Well if there's anyone who knows smugness, its a NYer. How's A-Rod doin' these days? ;-)
I think SciFi lends itself more readily to taking the easy way out. Throw in some lasers, a sweeping scene of an alien world, and you're good. But if you look at the LoTR, you can also see how well a movie of this type can be made. (I realize that Fantasy is different from SciFi, but from a Hollywood perspective they are essentially the same.) But doing so requires enormous effort and great risk- the two things for which Hollywood is least known.
Why in Oregon when don't have a sales tax?
Exactly. Plus, as much as the RIAA are vile, its not like they are providing substandard service to our troops for an enormous profit!
Yep. It truly is the King of processors.
On a side note, if someone does buy Take-Two for double the price, doesn't that just kinda fit their name?
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that there is a confidential aspect to it. Typically communicaitons between an attorney and their client is privileged, so it is not unreasonable to think that the bills would be too. Since the RIAA is basically a private entity (albeit a trade group) and Foster is very much a private entity, then I don't see how the general public can overcome that privilege to see everything that Foster will. A summary, however, might very well be acceptable. It would also, I think, show how much money was spent on "Experts" and, possibly, how much time was spent "editing" the Expert's submissions.
I assume the records themselves would confidential, but is it acceptable to publish a summary of the hours? Are there rules about the level of detail allowed?
Sorry, I'll check the link next time, and FWIW, it was an Alfred E Newman pic.
Actually even just one of those coming true would be pretty sweet. Except for maybe the last...
At least they are now admitting when their footage is fake.