Please, no more linking to Penny Arcade. We've all read that one. We've all read any one that you were thinking about linking too as well. We've read Penny Arcade. The links should be modded down as redundant anytime they are posted. Enough already.
If Microsoft spends $2000 (I'm using false numbers to illustrate a point) to produce an XBox, they are at -$2000. Now, if that XBox does not sell, they remain at -$2000. Let's say they sell it for $500, they're at -$1500. See how easy that is to figure out tough guy? Not hard at all.
I find nothing cool about Ahmet Zappa, an annoying bore who's far too full of himself considering he's simply riding Frank's coattails to mediocre fame, or Ludacris, who seems to be very, very dumb - even for a rapper.
Honestly, maybe you are excited about this BUT this is just reaffirmation of the fact that there is very little interesting going on in the current popular music scene. It's nice that they're selling music online - now someone just has to start making some music worthy of being bought.
I'm not trying to start some giant debate about the highest frame rate the human eye can perceive BUT I read this bit about the highest frame rate the human eye can perceive and if there is a limit,
"Technically, yes. Practically, no. The technical "limit" would be anything ranging from the speed of light to how long it takes it to reach your eyes to how fast your brain can interpret it. Other things like internal chemical reactions and the state of developed neural connections should also be considered. But still, 300,000,000m/s is pretty fast. What am I trying to say? This: THERE IS NO PROVEN LIMIT TO THE FRAME RATE THE HUMAN EYE CAN PERCEIVE."
I got that from some guy on the internet, which is obviously a dubious source BUT it seems to make sense to me at least...
Actually, freedom of speech only extends so far. Look up the words "libel" and "slander." It has nothing to do with whether or not you are making money off of the misrepresentation but rather whether the statement is, in fact, a misrepresentation and the company, person, or group was harmed in some manner (economics, social, etc.) as a result of it.
I think there's a big difference between not saying anything about the situation and educating yourself enough so that you can present your concern with some form of tact. I wouldn't suggest he shut his mouth and ignore it - that's not a good way to advance in the company. He shouldn't proudly yell about how stupid they are for having an insecure product but should instead bring up his concern as a question. It's all in how you bring it up as to how you are received BUT bringing it up is good for one's career, if done correctly.
That's a great way to move up the corporate ladder - sit on your ass, do exactly what you're told, and never EVER take some initiative on your own.
Wow, are you available to work? I'd LOVE to hire you!
Looking out for the company's best interests, outside of your own small role, shows that you are interested in the company doing well and, even if nothing comes of it, will help when promotion time comes around.
Compose a list of games themed around WW II. Then tally the number of enemies in those games and break down the percentages of enemies who are actively killing Jews and enemies who are merely combat troops. You will see that my original statement holds - in most WW II games you are fighting enemies who are not "non-combatants" as you brought up.
If you are to respond to this, try not to nit pick but instead back up your original argument. And don't take such a rude tone - I won't bother responding if I think you're just looking to argue for the sake of argument.
Actually, if you read my post you would realize I was making reference to games where you are fighting on the front lines of the war (of which most games in the WWII vein fall) and those front line combatants were exactly as I described. Don't try to give me a history lesson because you didn't want to read what I was saying in context.
How often in Battlefield 1942 do you shoot down non-combatants who are rounding up Jews?
I realize that you're proud of the fact that you read a book but you don't need to bring it up at every moment.
On a related but slightly off-topic note: Isn't it great how the German government has banned all Nazi symbolism? In their attempt to prevent anyone from being a Nazi, THEY'RE BEING NAZIS!!
I can just imagine some high ranking German politician saying, "This book is advocating Nazism! We must burn it!!"
That's not so much ironic as it is refreshing. Most media outlets are tied in with parent companies that produce some type of media, which results in many biased reviews. It's good to see a news organization taking a look at a product without considering the parent company's interests - although I believe that NBC is the larger shareholder in the MSNBC venture.
Why? Games like Battlefield 1942 have you fighting against low-level grunts who were poor Germans that were drafted into war as part of Hitler's plan. They weren't directly responsible for executing Jews (and if you are going to start indicting people for making uninformed decisions in a democracy, you're going to have a lot of people to go after) and towards the end of the war, were poorly outfitted and starving.
And if you are happy to fight Nazis, why not fight against those responsible for genocide in Rwanda during the 90's? Or perhaps Pol Pot? Hitler didn't exactly invent genocide.
I wish you had expanded on your thought a little bit - I just don't understand why you limit games to just Nazis. There have been plenty of very cruel military regimes in the history of humankind (the Nazi party ranking right up there at the top) but I don't think that in comparison people like Stalin and Pol Pot are saints.
BMX XXX sold horribly and since DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball was released on the XBox, XBox owners just bought it because that's all that was on store shelves other than Halo.
"Like when you did when replying to me?"; you've still failed to address the fact that spotting your ignorance is not "name-calling", as was the original complaint you lodged. And as everyone who plays video game forms of football knows, the console versions have always been superior to the PC versions. This is no different.
" If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course." Again, you didn't understand what I said - Madden 2004 was released on 3 consoles and the PC. Check the advertisements for it - you'll see that EA even says that it is exclusively playable online with the PS2. Why would someone say this? Because there are two categories for home video game playing - consoles and PC. The difference in price means they go in different categories. I'm very surprised that you can't understand this. Madden 2004, of the console versions, is exclusively playable online with only the PS2. That is all I meant. I don't understand why you can't get this. Of course, since this article is specifically about ONLINE F-CKING GAMING, one would think that you could get this. Here,
Of Madden 2004 on the XBox, PS2 and Gamecube, only Madden 2004 on the PS2 is playable online. Got it now buddy?
As for calling me a troll, go ahead. You've certainly gotten hostile about this rather quickly.
All I was trying to point out is that sports games are doing very well in online play. The author of the article fails to notice this. I may have misread some of what you posted. For this, I apologize. But your consistent attacks on me are not needed. The worst I did was call you ignorant (which is not an insult) whereas you have token a rude tone with me from the being and also called me a troll and insulted my English. I have marked you as a foe for this ill behavior and will not be reading any posts from you again. You are welcome to do the same to me as I will continue to post to Slashdot, regardless of your "suggestion".
I did not use ignorant as a noun but instead used it as an adjective therefore it is not a name.
Calling you ignorant isn't really an insult to you. Ignorance just means you lack some bit of information. When you make statements like, "The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else." it shows that you are ignorant of the fact that online sports games are doing so well.
And when I said exclusively playable online, I was of course referring to the consoles.
Also, as you can see here, it takes a bit of work to play Halo online so I don't know why you brought that up. The ignorant "silly" name calling isn't needed either, especially if you aren't even going to post correct information.
The author of the article and you appear to both be ignorant of the widespread appeal of EA's Madden 2004, NCAA Football 2004, and the expected appeal of the rest of their sports line - exclusively playable online using a PS2.
Well let's say that you wanted to go over to your friend's house and play a little Final Fantasy but your friend didn't have the GB player. If you had the one released by Nintendo, you'd probably just want to take your whole Gamecube, even though he's got one. With this item, you can just grab it and the game and be out of the house.
If you have two devices that do the same thing where one is portable and one isn't - why not get the portable one? You can just invent uses for the portability.
Look at how the PS1 has been reduced in size to make travel easier.
Most people who are considering making consoles purchases at this point in the current generation are those who already have a console and are considering getting a second one for the unique games that system has to offer. Most people who were so interested in GTA 3 and GTA:VC that they would buy a console to play them, already have and that choice has been a PS2. I don't think this will have a significant impact on XBox console sales (although I do think the pack will sell fairly well).
If Sony drops the price of the PS2 to $99, I would expect the XBox to run a distant third in console sales during the holidays.
Although, at this point, good console sales aren't that useful. They do create a good public perception of the manufacturing company and that will help out in the next generation - but there's only so much that can do. We're nearing the saturation point.
You're probably right but, as I failed to alude to, measuring hardware is pretty much a waste of time. I could release a console that has a 5 gHz chip but if programming for the damn thing is so hard and clunky that no one can get anything better than Pong-like graphics on it, that great hardware isn't doing anyone much good. Judging based on the hardware seems rather silly to me.
I mean, the original post to which I responded stated that he didn't care for Nintendo's hardware but liked the games. The games are the only thing you interact with! The only "hardware" you have any real interaction with are the controllers - and for some reason, I don't think this was what he was referencing. If you're planning on modding your console or developing for it, then you should consider hardware. Otherwise, buy the system with the games you want to play. I sat out this generation of consoles for a very long time because nothing really caught my attention until GTA3 came along and pulled me in.
Why do you think Microsoft's hardware is the best? Simply because it has the most graphic capability is not a reason - since the XBox is younger than the PS2. When it comes to analyzing who has the best hardware I think it's more important to consider what company had the best designs and foresight - rather than which company made the slimmest of profit margins on the hardware. (Likewise, Microsoft isn't exactly responsible for the speed of the chip - in fact, it's not REALLY MS hardware, all they did was put the parts in a box.)
If I assemble a computer from parts bought off the shelf, am I a hardware manufacturer?
Arguing semantics can be fun, can't it? For instance, when the NES was packaged with Super Mario Brothers, was this a video game sale? No, because the majority of the cost was associated with the hardware - thus it was a console sale with a free game. In fact, when you look at advertising in EB for the X-Box, you will see signs that say "X-Box: Now with 2 free games!" What this tells us is that the games that are packaged with consoles are in fact, free when you purchase the console. Furthermore, since you don't have a choice in receiving the game or not receiving the game, the sales numbers cannot be easily compared to that of SMB3, which was sold as a single product without any additional packaging. So SMB3 is the best-selling video game in the United States of all time BECAUSE all of those Tetris and SMB carts were, in fact, free additions to the sale of a related product.
It's rather petty to argue these types of semantics, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Please, no more linking to Penny Arcade. We've all read that one. We've all read any one that you were thinking about linking too as well. We've read Penny Arcade. The links should be modded down as redundant anytime they are posted. Enough already.
If Microsoft spends $2000 (I'm using false numbers to illustrate a point) to produce an XBox, they are at -$2000. Now, if that XBox does not sell, they remain at -$2000. Let's say they sell it for $500, they're at -$1500. See how easy that is to figure out tough guy? Not hard at all.
Honestly, maybe you are excited about this BUT this is just reaffirmation of the fact that there is very little interesting going on in the current popular music scene. It's nice that they're selling music online - now someone just has to start making some music worthy of being bought.
Actually, freedom of speech only extends so far. Look up the words "libel" and "slander." It has nothing to do with whether or not you are making money off of the misrepresentation but rather whether the statement is, in fact, a misrepresentation and the company, person, or group was harmed in some manner (economics, social, etc.) as a result of it.
You failed to click on the link that said documentation didn't you? Go there and you can see all the information this guy has been able to gather.
Wow, are you available to work? I'd LOVE to hire you!
Looking out for the company's best interests, outside of your own small role, shows that you are interested in the company doing well and, even if nothing comes of it, will help when promotion time comes around.
Compose a list of games themed around WW II. Then tally the number of enemies in those games and break down the percentages of enemies who are actively killing Jews and enemies who are merely combat troops. You will see that my original statement holds - in most WW II games you are fighting enemies who are not "non-combatants" as you brought up.
If you are to respond to this, try not to nit pick but instead back up your original argument. And don't take such a rude tone - I won't bother responding if I think you're just looking to argue for the sake of argument.
I don't know about you but I'm post-pubescent and I'm still fascinated with big breasts, big guns, and geek empowerment fantasies. Mmmm, big boobs...
How often in Battlefield 1942 do you shoot down non-combatants who are rounding up Jews?
I realize that you're proud of the fact that you read a book but you don't need to bring it up at every moment.
I can just imagine some high ranking German politician saying, "This book is advocating Nazism! We must burn it!!"
That's not so much ironic as it is refreshing. Most media outlets are tied in with parent companies that produce some type of media, which results in many biased reviews. It's good to see a news organization taking a look at a product without considering the parent company's interests - although I believe that NBC is the larger shareholder in the MSNBC venture.
And if you are happy to fight Nazis, why not fight against those responsible for genocide in Rwanda during the 90's? Or perhaps Pol Pot? Hitler didn't exactly invent genocide.
I wish you had expanded on your thought a little bit - I just don't understand why you limit games to just Nazis. There have been plenty of very cruel military regimes in the history of humankind (the Nazi party ranking right up there at the top) but I don't think that in comparison people like Stalin and Pol Pot are saints.
BMX XXX sold horribly and since DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball was released on the XBox, XBox owners just bought it because that's all that was on store shelves other than Halo.
"Like when you did when replying to me?"; you've still failed to address the fact that spotting your ignorance is not "name-calling", as was the original complaint you lodged. And as everyone who plays video game forms of football knows, the console versions have always been superior to the PC versions. This is no different.
" If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course." Again, you didn't understand what I said - Madden 2004 was released on 3 consoles and the PC. Check the advertisements for it - you'll see that EA even says that it is exclusively playable online with the PS2. Why would someone say this? Because there are two categories for home video game playing - consoles and PC. The difference in price means they go in different categories. I'm very surprised that you can't understand this. Madden 2004, of the console versions, is exclusively playable online with only the PS2. That is all I meant. I don't understand why you can't get this. Of course, since this article is specifically about ONLINE F-CKING GAMING, one would think that you could get this. Here,
Of Madden 2004 on the XBox, PS2 and Gamecube, only Madden 2004 on the PS2 is playable online. Got it now buddy?
As for calling me a troll, go ahead. You've certainly gotten hostile about this rather quickly.
All I was trying to point out is that sports games are doing very well in online play. The author of the article fails to notice this. I may have misread some of what you posted. For this, I apologize. But your consistent attacks on me are not needed. The worst I did was call you ignorant (which is not an insult) whereas you have token a rude tone with me from the being and also called me a troll and insulted my English. I have marked you as a foe for this ill behavior and will not be reading any posts from you again. You are welcome to do the same to me as I will continue to post to Slashdot, regardless of your "suggestion".
I did not use ignorant as a noun but instead used it as an adjective therefore it is not a name.
Calling you ignorant isn't really an insult to you. Ignorance just means you lack some bit of information. When you make statements like, "The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else." it shows that you are ignorant of the fact that online sports games are doing so well.
And when I said exclusively playable online, I was of course referring to the consoles.
Also, as you can see here, it takes a bit of work to play Halo online so I don't know why you brought that up. The ignorant "silly" name calling isn't needed either, especially if you aren't even going to post correct information.
What name did I call you?
The author of the article and you appear to both be ignorant of the widespread appeal of EA's Madden 2004, NCAA Football 2004, and the expected appeal of the rest of their sports line - exclusively playable online using a PS2.
If you have two devices that do the same thing where one is portable and one isn't - why not get the portable one? You can just invent uses for the portability.
Look at how the PS1 has been reduced in size to make travel easier.
If Sony drops the price of the PS2 to $99, I would expect the XBox to run a distant third in console sales during the holidays.
Although, at this point, good console sales aren't that useful. They do create a good public perception of the manufacturing company and that will help out in the next generation - but there's only so much that can do. We're nearing the saturation point.
I mean, the original post to which I responded stated that he didn't care for Nintendo's hardware but liked the games. The games are the only thing you interact with! The only "hardware" you have any real interaction with are the controllers - and for some reason, I don't think this was what he was referencing. If you're planning on modding your console or developing for it, then you should consider hardware. Otherwise, buy the system with the games you want to play. I sat out this generation of consoles for a very long time because nothing really caught my attention until GTA3 came along and pulled me in.
If I assemble a computer from parts bought off the shelf, am I a hardware manufacturer?
It's rather petty to argue these types of semantics, isn't it?
"Does not work with iPods the most popular portable music device" I think the Sony Walkman has sold significantly more units than the iPod.