I used to play board games as a kid, but i found growing up they couldnt compete with teh depth, strategy and fun computer games offered. Iv gone into stores a couple of times to find some kind of a board game where you can -play against someone over a long term period of time that has a lot of strategy and depth, but all i find are games that say ana average game lasts for a couple of hours. I think it owuld be cool to have a game that you could play over the course of several days or even weeks, whenever you feel the urge.
You want a game that lasts longer? That's easy. Plenty of games last for ages. Advanced Civilization is easily over 12 hours, for example, but the king is Empires in Arms, the grand campaign of which is reputed to last 200 hours. Pick an evening in the week, and play that evening every week for a year. One of my goals in life is to play that game some time. I just need 6 friends who are equally crazy.
The most likely thing would be a war game of some sort with shifting front lines etc. Kind of like generals do on their map tables with little figurines. [...] Is this similar to warhammer?
Yes, but there are also many other, more mature, more historical tabletop miniature games. Find a historic wargaming group and ask what they play. If you want to play without miniatures, there are also plenty of historical strategy wargames that you play with cardboard counters on a hex board.
There's a whole, rich, unexplored world of boardgaming waiting for you out there!
Contrary to popular belief, hit points don't actually have anything to do with roleplaying. There are plenty of excellent RPGs that don't use hit points, and there are plenty of games with hit points that don't bother with roleplaying. Videogames, for example.
Rocky planets are usually found closer to the star than the gas giants - the heat from the the young star will make lighter elements evaporate, you see.
The sample for rocky planets being closer to the sun than gas giants is really small: just us. There are a lot of systems out there with gas giants in very close orbits around their sun, however. So basically, we have no idea where rocky planets are in your average solar system, or how common they should be. We have a lot of theories about the formation of planetary systems, but none of them are good enough to predict all our current observations, and our observations aren't detailed enough to be sure about anything anyway. We know virtually nothing.
On the other hand, one thing that does seem to be important for the development of life as we know it is plate tectonics. Perhaps something with a similar effect could exist in the atmosphere of a gas planet.
Again, this is all speculation. We have too little data to tell exactly what is necessary for the development of life as we know it. Liquid water (seas, lakes, not just clouds) seems rather vital, but volcanism, plate tectonics, regular (but not too frequent) asteroid impacts, tides, weather, could all play an important role. Or not. Maybe it all depends on your definition of "life as we know it". Or not. Again, we know nothing.
Could they hear it? Only if they have invested in VERY sensitive receivers MUCH more sensitive then anything we have. Our current receivers could only hear a signal if it were from a very powerful beacon aimed right at us.
Exactly. SETI wouldn't be able to detect Earth from 0.5 lightyears away. Broadcast transmissions are as good as undetectable over interstellar distances.
The situation of 3000 years ago is hardly relevant. Do you consider the US government a foreign power occupying native American land? 70 years ago, there was no nation called Israel. 60 years ago, there was, but it was much smaller than it is today. There have been a number of wars since then, and for the last couple of decades, they have been occupying land that they once recognised as Palestinian. And they still have not legally annexed it, which means that whichever way you turn it, it's still foreign occupation.
If you're seriously denying that, then you're deluding yourself.
This isn't the case today. Developers seem to develop games specifically to overwhelm the top machines available today. It's like they all have this insane mindset that people are still going to be playing these games 2 or 3 years from now when the majority of consumers actually have PCs capable of running these games at full detail. The problem is, that the life-cycle of a game doesn't go much beyond 6 months, and that's even for a good one. So what's the point?
From my point of view this isn't insane at all. I only buy these kind of high-graphics action games if: a) I consistently hear good stuff about them, b) I own a PC that can handle them (which takes a while), and c) they're in the bargain bin. So that's at least 2 or 3 years later. How nice of them to design their graphics with this in mind!
Besides, really good games do have a life span of more than 6 months. 10 years is not unheard of.
I tend to find most gameplay repetitive, and welcome a break in the form of a story,
And there you've got the real problem: for many games, the "story" is a break from the actual game. I don't want story interspersed with my game, I want the story to be an integral part of the game. Cutscenes are not the way to do that. Cutscenes are a lame shortcut for developers who have no idea how to make the story part of the game itself.
There are many games that tell excellent stories without resorting to cutscenes, and I'll always prefer those over the games that resort to lame shortcuts.
In an RPG, the story often is considered to be a crucial element of the game, and so probably requires more elaborate exposition. Personally, in many games, I consider each cutscene a small reward for my progress, and look forward to each new story or character development.
CRPGs are exactly the kind of game that shouldn't have to make do with cutscenes. In CRPGs, the story is vital to the game. It's what the game is about. If the game doesn't support the ability to tell a story, then your game is wrong. Clear an simple. Cutscenes aren't a reward for progress, progress should be its own reward. The story should be told by that progress itself.
Some people complain about too much story - I tend to revel in it. 120 minutes of cutscenes in a game? Brilliant, looking forward to it. But don't tell me there's anything wrong with how *I* want to enjoy a game.
I also revel it story, but I hate cutscenes. I don't want to watch a movie interspersed with bits of game, I want to play a game that's all about story, where the story is part of the game. A cutscene for the intro at the start of the game is okay, since it allows you to learn a bit more about the background of the setting before you start to play. Maybe the occasional cutscene for when you go to a completely different location by helicopter or something, but monologues (dialogues, preferably) should be supported by the game engine itself. Planescape:Torment, possibly the most story-driven CRPG ever, tells it story entirely through the game itself. Why can't other games do that?
There are more resolutions introduced to condemn Israel every year than there are to condemn ongoing genocides, like Darfour.
But you'll have to admit that the foreign occupation of Palestine territory has been going on for quite a bit longer than the current mess in Darfur. That and the fact that one is an external affair and the other is an internal one may have something to do with this. I'm not saying it's right, but global politics tend to move slowly.
Calling your enemies dogs and infidels, inferior beings who deserve to die because God said so? That has worked very well in the past and is still actively used.
That (calling your enemy "towelhead", "kraut", "infidel", whatever) is quite common, but at that point he still looks human. When he becomes just a blip on a screen, it becomes even easier.
But why do you get upset when someone looks at this from a US/EU point of view? Do you think it's okay for western armies to dehumanise their enemy, but not the other way around? Do you always complain about the mote in your neighbour's eye and ignore the beam in your own?
Problem is Peter Jackson. He is an atrocious director who works with supremely bad editors.
He has done some very decent movies. Go and watch Heavenly Creatures. That movie convinced me he might be able to do Lord of the Rings justice (I was disappointed with the result, though). The real problem is that nowadays he gets a big enough budget to thoroughly ruin any story. Some directors are better on a small budget.
Seriously, how does Wikipedia justify the large, informative categories frequently nominated for mass deletion while something this ridiculous is allowed to exist? I don't think any of these fighting styles are even mentioned in any of the films. If they don't fit on the general Light Saber page, they're too trivial for Wikipedia. Certainly a lot more trivial than dozens of popular webcomics.
It really looks like Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia of Star Wars and Star Trek trivia, instead of a serious repository of knowledge with some information about absolutely everything.
I use Eclipse every single day, and while I've had lots of problems with it (it freezes up for a couple of minutes every once in a while, the subclipse SVN plugin corrupts my projects (subversive is much, much better), EasyWebdav throws away files (but someone fixed the discontinued WebdavPilot to work with Eclipse 3.2)), I've never seen a workspace corrupted.
I have had that a workspace became unusable under eclipse 3.1 because I had way too many projects open (clean them up!), so I switched to 3.2 and created a new workspace, but now 3.2 can actually open my old workspace, which I thought had been corrupted. My advice: clean up your projects, and clean up your plugins. Use only the ones you actually use.
Just like with firefox, too many bad plugins will turn even the smoothest piece of software (which neither firefox nor eclipse are, mind you) to a steaming pile of shit.
It's obvious that they make more money this way, but the question here is: do you really want a free market or not? Suppose I bake bread. One customer is rich, and can easily afford to pay $5 for my bread, another is poor and can pay only $0.5. Should I sell each for what they can afford or should I set one price for everybody?
Are free market and globalisation only for the big players, or should they be for everyone? Suppose a company is looking for labour, and they can buy it here for $50 an hour or overseas for $10 an hour. They think they can save some money by importing labour from abroad (or having their work done there), but when they import the goods, the government suddenly says: "since you didn't buy your labour in the local market, you can't sell those goods here." That's basically what's happening here. It's a kind of protectionism.
Can you point to Greenpeace taking any of the communist governments to task for their appalling environmental record? How about any peep of protest when Saddam Hussein ordered the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields?
I'm afraid Greenpeace membership is very low in communist countries, and the opinion of the western public (which is basically the only weapon in Greenpeace's arsenal) has a negligible effect on those governments. Besides, that opinion was never very high in the first place. I also doubt Saddam would have cared very much about Greenpeace's opinion, and if he cared so much about the opinion of Europeans and Americans, I think history would have looked quite a bit different from how it currently does.
They only target big corporations, because corporations will usually pay them to fuck off.
Unfortunately for those corporations, Greenpeace doesn't take their money.
Governments won't do that, and occasionally a government will even go so far as to sink a boat. I notice that we haven't heard much about Greenpeace mixing it up with the French in the last couple of decades.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Greenpeace most certainly did protest against Chirac's nuclear tests.
They'll also oppose environmentally friendly technologies if the use of said technologies will allow us to "save" the environment without forcing people to make a lifestyle change.
This is simply not true. Some 10 years ago, Greenpeace has even modified a car, simply to show that it is possible to make cars more environmentally friendly than they currently are. Back then I was horrified to see anti-pollution group Greenpeace promote something as polluting as a car, but it shows they accept current lifestyles, they just want those lifestyles to pollute less.
"Overrated" I might be able to understand (if the parent actually was rated high), but who the hell rates an informative and insightful post like this "flamebait"? One of the mysteries of the slashdot modding system, I guess.
Greenpeace is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization in the U.S. Public corporations are owned by stockholders, and exist to serve the stockholders. When they money-whore, it's for their private interests - no great surprise. But 501(c)(3) organizations are given their tax exemptions by the government because they are supposed to serve specific charitable or educational functions - not mere self-promotion. Charities get in trouble all the time for spending too much effort and money on fund-raising and self-promotion instead of on the issue or niche they're supposed to be involved in.
But Greenpeace isn't promoting itself here, it's drawing attention to an environmental issue. Perhaps manipulating public attention this way doesn't rate as highly on the charity scale as going to Africa to help starving children, but drawing attention to the misbehaviour of large companies can (and often does) change the behaviour of those companies and hopefully makes the world a slightly better place.
There have been many questions raised over the last ten years about whether Greenpeace's money-raising activities have gone outside the bounds set by the 501(c)(3) guidelines. Admitting publicly, "Sure, we deliberately make stuff up to promote ourselves" probably doesn't help that.
But that is not what they said. They said that they're well aware that their criticism of Apple will catch more headlines than similar criticism of lesser known manufacturers, but they also point out that that criticism is as well founded as it can reasonably be. Whether they're actually correct is another matter, ofcourse. Greenpeace has been known to be wrong before, but as far as I can tell, it's not part of their standard policy. Also, they're not promoting themselves, but urging manufacturers to use less or no toxic chemicals. This isn't fundraising, this is shaming companies into doing what is right, and that is part of Greenpeace's standard policy.
They discredit environmentalism in general, the same way that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have discredited the civil rights movment: by crying wolf and practicing extortion.
They do? Perhaps the US branch of Greenpeace is clumsy (possibly even corrupt?) that way, but in Netherland (the country with by far the highest percentage of Greenpeace sympathisers), it has a reasonably good reputation. But over here, it's not whaling and seal clubbing that are their biggest issues, but energy and Big Oil and stuff like that. The invest in solar power, and shame big oil companies into doing what's right. Well, usually. Their misjudgement in the Shell Brent Spar thing did damage them, but not permanently, as far as I can tell.
Not hardly. Greenpeace is a blackmail racket, and their main line of business is getting companies to pay them to fuck off and shut up.
Does this count as slander, or is it simply FUD?
Greenpeace is funded by private citizens, and doesn't even accept funding from governments, corporations, or other organisations that might compromise their independence. The only way in which companies are requested to "pay up" is by reducing their damage to the environment. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.
No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.
They do earn the money they get, exactly because they do their job (bringing environmental issues to attention) so well.
That's why people who care about these issues give them that money in the first place. And Greenpeace is about the only NGO that can stand up to multinational corporations, so while smaller NGOs might be nicer and friendlier and more accurate and effective on a small scale, if you want to accomplish something on a large scale, you simply need something like Greenpeace.
What bothers people I think isn't the hypocrisy-- it's when Greenpeace actually comes out and admits to it. But it's behind all kinds of causes, including many that you and I believe very strongly in.
Exactly. Almost every organisation loves headlines, whether it is for commercial or ideological purposes. Greenpeace admitting this isn't hypocrisy at all, it's the exact opposite. The people who do the same yet complain about Greenpeace doing it (like, oh, the submitter), they are the hypocrites.
People can call Greenpeace an attention whore all they like, but it's no different from the money whoring of publicly owned corporations. It's Greenpeace's job to grab attention, to grab headlines, to bring environmental issues to the attention of the public. And they're doing a good job of it. If you don't like it, then don't give them money. It's that simple.
I'm colorblind and I can see the difference in shades just fine.
Maybe you should ask the people you're acting like you care about whether they actually need you to whine for them.
This apparently comes as a surprise to you, but you are not the only colorblind person in the world. There are a lot of colorblind people out there, and many of them don't see color the same way you do.
There's also the fact that Microsoft is a publicly held company, and is required to seek profits. No matter how much cash they have on hand, they aren't supposed to use it frivolously. Not that this stopped SCO, but SCO wasn't much of a going concern.
But if they're owned publicly and required to maximise profits, doesn't that also mean they're required to minimise damage? Could a MS stockholder sue MS for neglecting to minimise the damage caused by this patent infringement due to MS not specifying which patents are infringed in what way?
And if MS then pays that stockholder damages for lost profits, does that mean they admitted they didn't defend their patent and minimise damage caused by the alleged infringement?
With them contantly changing their mind, releasing slightly modified versions for limited markets, with or without backwards compatibility, with or without rumble, new sizes for harddisks, etc, I'm definitely getting the impression of a general panic. And probably with reason.
I think they keep looking for something that works, something that makes them seem more attractive than the opposition without losing them too much money, and it's just not working.
Perhaps they should have put a bit more thought into their market strategy before release. Or maybe they should work harder to show off the few real advantages that the PS3 has: raw power and the blu-ray. So make games that really make use of that power, do more with the blu-ray than just play movies, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You want a game that lasts longer? That's easy. Plenty of games last for ages. Advanced Civilization is easily over 12 hours, for example, but the king is Empires in Arms, the grand campaign of which is reputed to last 200 hours. Pick an evening in the week, and play that evening every week for a year. One of my goals in life is to play that game some time. I just need 6 friends who are equally crazy.
Yes, but there are also many other, more mature, more historical tabletop miniature games. Find a historic wargaming group and ask what they play. If you want to play without miniatures, there are also plenty of historical strategy wargames that you play with cardboard counters on a hex board.
There's a whole, rich, unexplored world of boardgaming waiting for you out there!
Contrary to popular belief, hit points don't actually have anything to do with roleplaying. There are plenty of excellent RPGs that don't use hit points, and there are plenty of games with hit points that don't bother with roleplaying. Videogames, for example.
The sample for rocky planets being closer to the sun than gas giants is really small: just us. There are a lot of systems out there with gas giants in very close orbits around their sun, however. So basically, we have no idea where rocky planets are in your average solar system, or how common they should be. We have a lot of theories about the formation of planetary systems, but none of them are good enough to predict all our current observations, and our observations aren't detailed enough to be sure about anything anyway. We know virtually nothing.
Again, this is all speculation. We have too little data to tell exactly what is necessary for the development of life as we know it. Liquid water (seas, lakes, not just clouds) seems rather vital, but volcanism, plate tectonics, regular (but not too frequent) asteroid impacts, tides, weather, could all play an important role. Or not. Maybe it all depends on your definition of "life as we know it". Or not. Again, we know nothing.
Exactly. SETI wouldn't be able to detect Earth from 0.5 lightyears away. Broadcast transmissions are as good as undetectable over interstellar distances.
The situation of 3000 years ago is hardly relevant. Do you consider the US government a foreign power occupying native American land? 70 years ago, there was no nation called Israel. 60 years ago, there was, but it was much smaller than it is today. There have been a number of wars since then, and for the last couple of decades, they have been occupying land that they once recognised as Palestinian. And they still have not legally annexed it, which means that whichever way you turn it, it's still foreign occupation.
If you're seriously denying that, then you're deluding yourself.
From my point of view this isn't insane at all. I only buy these kind of high-graphics action games if: a) I consistently hear good stuff about them, b) I own a PC that can handle them (which takes a while), and c) they're in the bargain bin. So that's at least 2 or 3 years later. How nice of them to design their graphics with this in mind!
Besides, really good games do have a life span of more than 6 months. 10 years is not unheard of.
And there you've got the real problem: for many games, the "story" is a break from the actual game. I don't want story interspersed with my game, I want the story to be an integral part of the game. Cutscenes are not the way to do that. Cutscenes are a lame shortcut for developers who have no idea how to make the story part of the game itself.
There are many games that tell excellent stories without resorting to cutscenes, and I'll always prefer those over the games that resort to lame shortcuts.
CRPGs are exactly the kind of game that shouldn't have to make do with cutscenes. In CRPGs, the story is vital to the game. It's what the game is about. If the game doesn't support the ability to tell a story, then your game is wrong. Clear an simple. Cutscenes aren't a reward for progress, progress should be its own reward. The story should be told by that progress itself.
I also revel it story, but I hate cutscenes. I don't want to watch a movie interspersed with bits of game, I want to play a game that's all about story, where the story is part of the game. A cutscene for the intro at the start of the game is okay, since it allows you to learn a bit more about the background of the setting before you start to play. Maybe the occasional cutscene for when you go to a completely different location by helicopter or something, but monologues (dialogues, preferably) should be supported by the game engine itself. Planescape:Torment, possibly the most story-driven CRPG ever, tells it story entirely through the game itself. Why can't other games do that?
But you'll have to admit that the foreign occupation of Palestine territory has been going on for quite a bit longer than the current mess in Darfur. That and the fact that one is an external affair and the other is an internal one may have something to do with this. I'm not saying it's right, but global politics tend to move slowly.
That (calling your enemy "towelhead", "kraut", "infidel", whatever) is quite common, but at that point he still looks human. When he becomes just a blip on a screen, it becomes even easier.
But why do you get upset when someone looks at this from a US/EU point of view? Do you think it's okay for western armies to dehumanise their enemy, but not the other way around? Do you always complain about the mote in your neighbour's eye and ignore the beam in your own?
He has done some very decent movies. Go and watch Heavenly Creatures. That movie convinced me he might be able to do Lord of the Rings justice (I was disappointed with the result, though). The real problem is that nowadays he gets a big enough budget to thoroughly ruin any story. Some directors are better on a small budget.
Personally, I think think this is the winner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat.
Seriously, how does Wikipedia justify the large, informative categories frequently nominated for mass deletion while something this ridiculous is allowed to exist? I don't think any of these fighting styles are even mentioned in any of the films. If they don't fit on the general Light Saber page, they're too trivial for Wikipedia. Certainly a lot more trivial than dozens of popular webcomics.
It really looks like Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia of Star Wars and Star Trek trivia, instead of a serious repository of knowledge with some information about absolutely everything.
I use Eclipse every single day, and while I've had lots of problems with it (it freezes up for a couple of minutes every once in a while, the subclipse SVN plugin corrupts my projects (subversive is much, much better), EasyWebdav throws away files (but someone fixed the discontinued WebdavPilot to work with Eclipse 3.2)), I've never seen a workspace corrupted.
I have had that a workspace became unusable under eclipse 3.1 because I had way too many projects open (clean them up!), so I switched to 3.2 and created a new workspace, but now 3.2 can actually open my old workspace, which I thought had been corrupted. My advice: clean up your projects, and clean up your plugins. Use only the ones you actually use.
Just like with firefox, too many bad plugins will turn even the smoothest piece of software (which neither firefox nor eclipse are, mind you) to a steaming pile of shit.
It's obvious that they make more money this way, but the question here is: do you really want a free market or not? Suppose I bake bread. One customer is rich, and can easily afford to pay $5 for my bread, another is poor and can pay only $0.5. Should I sell each for what they can afford or should I set one price for everybody?
Are free market and globalisation only for the big players, or should they be for everyone? Suppose a company is looking for labour, and they can buy it here for $50 an hour or overseas for $10 an hour. They think they can save some money by importing labour from abroad (or having their work done there), but when they import the goods, the government suddenly says: "since you didn't buy your labour in the local market, you can't sell those goods here." That's basically what's happening here. It's a kind of protectionism.
I'm afraid Greenpeace membership is very low in communist countries, and the opinion of the western public (which is basically the only weapon in Greenpeace's arsenal) has a negligible effect on those governments. Besides, that opinion was never very high in the first place. I also doubt Saddam would have cared very much about Greenpeace's opinion, and if he cared so much about the opinion of Europeans and Americans, I think history would have looked quite a bit different from how it currently does.
Unfortunately for those corporations, Greenpeace doesn't take their money.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Greenpeace most certainly did protest against Chirac's nuclear tests.
This is simply not true. Some 10 years ago, Greenpeace has even modified a car, simply to show that it is possible to make cars more environmentally friendly than they currently are. Back then I was horrified to see anti-pollution group Greenpeace promote something as polluting as a car, but it shows they accept current lifestyles, they just want those lifestyles to pollute less.
"Overrated" I might be able to understand (if the parent actually was rated high), but who the hell rates an informative and insightful post like this "flamebait"? One of the mysteries of the slashdot modding system, I guess.
But Greenpeace isn't promoting itself here, it's drawing attention to an environmental issue. Perhaps manipulating public attention this way doesn't rate as highly on the charity scale as going to Africa to help starving children, but drawing attention to the misbehaviour of large companies can (and often does) change the behaviour of those companies and hopefully makes the world a slightly better place.
But that is not what they said. They said that they're well aware that their criticism of Apple will catch more headlines than similar criticism of lesser known manufacturers, but they also point out that that criticism is as well founded as it can reasonably be. Whether they're actually correct is another matter, ofcourse. Greenpeace has been known to be wrong before, but as far as I can tell, it's not part of their standard policy. Also, they're not promoting themselves, but urging manufacturers to use less or no toxic chemicals. This isn't fundraising, this is shaming companies into doing what is right, and that is part of Greenpeace's standard policy.
They do? Perhaps the US branch of Greenpeace is clumsy (possibly even corrupt?) that way, but in Netherland (the country with by far the highest percentage of Greenpeace sympathisers), it has a reasonably good reputation. But over here, it's not whaling and seal clubbing that are their biggest issues, but energy and Big Oil and stuff like that. The invest in solar power, and shame big oil companies into doing what's right. Well, usually. Their misjudgement in the Shell Brent Spar thing did damage them, but not permanently, as far as I can tell.
Does this count as slander, or is it simply FUD?
Greenpeace is funded by private citizens, and doesn't even accept funding from governments, corporations, or other organisations that might compromise their independence. The only way in which companies are requested to "pay up" is by reducing their damage to the environment. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.
They do earn the money they get, exactly because they do their job (bringing environmental issues to attention) so well. That's why people who care about these issues give them that money in the first place. And Greenpeace is about the only NGO that can stand up to multinational corporations, so while smaller NGOs might be nicer and friendlier and more accurate and effective on a small scale, if you want to accomplish something on a large scale, you simply need something like Greenpeace.
Exactly. Almost every organisation loves headlines, whether it is for commercial or ideological purposes. Greenpeace admitting this isn't hypocrisy at all, it's the exact opposite. The people who do the same yet complain about Greenpeace doing it (like, oh, the submitter), they are the hypocrites.
People can call Greenpeace an attention whore all they like, but it's no different from the money whoring of publicly owned corporations. It's Greenpeace's job to grab attention, to grab headlines, to bring environmental issues to the attention of the public. And they're doing a good job of it. If you don't like it, then don't give them money. It's that simple.
I think it's somewhere in the distance. You should be able to walk there, if only you had time...
This apparently comes as a surprise to you, but you are not the only colorblind person in the world. There are a lot of colorblind people out there, and many of them don't see color the same way you do.
But if they're owned publicly and required to maximise profits, doesn't that also mean they're required to minimise damage? Could a MS stockholder sue MS for neglecting to minimise the damage caused by this patent infringement due to MS not specifying which patents are infringed in what way?
And if MS then pays that stockholder damages for lost profits, does that mean they admitted they didn't defend their patent and minimise damage caused by the alleged infringement?
With them contantly changing their mind, releasing slightly modified versions for limited markets, with or without backwards compatibility, with or without rumble, new sizes for harddisks, etc, I'm definitely getting the impression of a general panic. And probably with reason.
I think they keep looking for something that works, something that makes them seem more attractive than the opposition without losing them too much money, and it's just not working.
Perhaps they should have put a bit more thought into their market strategy before release. Or maybe they should work harder to show off the few real advantages that the PS3 has: raw power and the blu-ray. So make games that really make use of that power, do more with the blu-ray than just play movies, etc.