Remember that most Xbox 360 gamers see the resolution upgrade as minuscule because their games aren't really rendering in HD.
An upscaled 540p or 640p game isn't that much higher of a resolution than an upscaled 480p game would be in the last generation.
But could the physics and AI interactions in MGS4 with battlefields of that size with that number of enemies have been done just as well last generation? Of course not.
Incidentally, MGS4 doesn't render at a typical HD resolution internally either because its creator didn't see the advantage of HD graphics. The audio on the other hand is simply incredible and requires a lot of storage space.
You haven't actually played any of those games, have you?
You didn't notice that those games render internally at a full 720p or 1080i and that the "comparable" 360 games are upscaled from 640p or lower.
Does upscaling matter? Yes. If you can't actually pull off those nice graphics at full resolution, you're not comparing apples to apples. Every game I mentioned runs at least a full 720p (although Ratchet and Clank has 8px of black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, often clipped by CRTs) and some at 1080i.
Yes, all you fanboys, the PS3 is really actually enabling the HD gaming experience it promised, and I'm enjoying it thoroughly.
No, shareholders care about overall revenues and future prospects. Sony doesn't just sell consoles, like everyone else, they sell licenses for games as well. More importantly, they didn't burn their bridges and kept selling the PS2 at a massive profit and are doing fairly well with the PSP as a platform too.
I love my Tomtom 720 GPS, but I'll only defend them as a company when they give me a portable interface for updating the thing.
Their Windows interface is horrible and slow, and there's no reason for it to even exist -- just let me download the updates manually like McAfee dat files and use a Java updater if you want to authorize my unit against the database first.
While people often cite the kind of idiocy you've stated, that's not actually what companies have a duty to do.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders over the long term, not just the short term, and an obvious duty to make that money legally.
Offending every possible business partner you sell product to (do you think Tomtom uses Windows on their PCs? How about their mapping servers? What desktop SDKs do you think they buy?), you're hurting yourself in the long term.
A company like Microsoft is obviously too short-cited to deserve to be in business when their own biggest partners will testify in court against them. Microsoft tried to hurt Dell, Compaq and others who actually promote product for MS. That's not fulfilling your duties at all.
Same goes for making your customers want to use a competing product just to get the bad taste out of their mouths for being treated like criminals all the time.
How about you stop abusing your monopolistic power, allow free competition in your area of business and still win by force of being better than everyone else instead of because you're bigger?
Why is there an option of a jury trial? Because the law in America is supposed to be about what the people want, not what some random guy with a crown thinks.
The legal opinion of the masses is actually relevant in a democracy, no matter what your lawyer tells you.
Sony was willing to take risks on this platform. They may suffer or gain, but they took the risks. Those risks entailed a whole new hardware platform that had huge performance capacities at relatively low costs (cell vs. equivalent traditional hardware with equal processing power). The result is a harder platform to develop for initially, but some incredible game potential in the long-run.
PS Sony and its first parties help third parties all the time if they ask for it.
Other "actual developers" have not had this problem by designing their engine for the PS3 and then porting it to the 360 instead. Have a chat with the guys at Criterion about Burnout: Paradise, why don't you?
Targeting the PS3 as your primary platform helps make your code work smarter from day one, and actually makes it more efficient on the 360 as well.
Some people obviously didn't read even the subtitle of the DDJ article: "It may be tricky, but the performance gains are worth the effort."
Yes, that's right, DDJ said its worth the effort.
The games being written directly to the PS3 are incredible in quality and performance. Games like Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank, Killzone 2 and the Motorstorm games simply aren't being made for other platforms. These games are unparalleled on other systems, and just being ignored by fanboys who think console sales are everything.
This, I think, is the reason why OSS is generally of poor quality (generally speaking) compared to closed source competition.
While you're trolling, here's some fodder:
Commercial version of faxing system that is more reliable than Hylafax please?
Commercial web server that's more reliable than Apache please?
Commercial E-mail software more reliable than Thunderbird or even Mutt?
Commercial software that can compete with Python or PERL in their markets?
Yeah, NASA standardized on Python because it sucks, that must be it.
There's a lot more FOSS out there than you may be aware of, and its a lot higher quality than you're giving it credit for. Kraptasticapp123 doesn't count; I can find a million of those on 'commercial' shareware CDs.
And by the same token, bragging that you wrote a bunch of good code that you/can't/ show off because its proprietary isn't nearly as useful as it sounds.
OSS contributions are very valuable because of the open licensing.
Getting code merged into the kernel also shows some specific technical skills and inter-personal work dynamics with other programmers, something worth pointing out at least:-).
If you want truly astonishing sound for a last-generation platform, play Black on the PS2. Because of how audio was compressed, the sound effects weren't as nice as they'd hoped, and the developed a way to re-integrate the missing frequencies into the audio after the mixing stage.
There's a description of it on Criterion's website somewhere.
Resistance: FoM in 7.1 uncompressed though? Outstanding.
Excuse me, but I actually purported that it sounds better to me. It sounds better to my wife too, and she's no audiophile, just a music lover.
When you watch "Blood Diamond" and hear it in 7.1 uncompressed audio, the difference between that and dts or DD is obvious and enveloping.
Nobody's saying there aren't trade-offs -- but in gaming, uncompressed audio also requires less processing power to handle and therefore frees up processing time for other useful functions of the game. No need to decompress that MP3 or FLAC data, just mix and go.
Is it over kill? For some people it may be. Me? Its probably the best feature of blu-ray.
And blind people don't live real lives? How about the deaf or otherwise physically impaired?
In the same way that your living is restricted in action between school, the mall, work, the theatre and a coffee shop, you live differently on-line, but it is no less real living than playing paint ball with your friends and acting like soldiers when you're not.
Actually, your point about climatologists missed the similarities with (private) doctors. Since research money is easier to come by if the grant providers feel there is an imminent need for the research, those doing said research are in a biased position to try and exaggerate any potential ill effects so as to guarantee future funding.
I'm not saying they/do/ lie to get more money, but they're human, so leaving them beyond suspicion is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that most Xbox 360 gamers see the resolution upgrade as minuscule because their games aren't really rendering in HD.
An upscaled 540p or 640p game isn't that much higher of a resolution than an upscaled 480p game would be in the last generation.
But could the physics and AI interactions in MGS4 with battlefields of that size with that number of enemies have been done just as well last generation? Of course not.
Incidentally, MGS4 doesn't render at a typical HD resolution internally either because its creator didn't see the advantage of HD graphics. The audio on the other hand is simply incredible and requires a lot of storage space.
You haven't actually played any of those games, have you?
You didn't notice that those games render internally at a full 720p or 1080i and that the "comparable" 360 games are upscaled from 640p or lower.
Does upscaling matter? Yes. If you can't actually pull off those nice graphics at full resolution, you're not comparing apples to apples. Every game I mentioned runs at least a full 720p (although Ratchet and Clank has 8px of black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, often clipped by CRTs) and some at 1080i.
Yes, all you fanboys, the PS3 is really actually enabling the HD gaming experience it promised, and I'm enjoying it thoroughly.
No, shareholders care about overall revenues and future prospects. Sony doesn't just sell consoles, like everyone else, they sell licenses for games as well. More importantly, they didn't burn their bridges and kept selling the PS2 at a massive profit and are doing fairly well with the PSP as a platform too.
Nice FUD though.
I love my Tomtom 720 GPS, but I'll only defend them as a company when they give me a portable interface for updating the thing.
Their Windows interface is horrible and slow, and there's no reason for it to even exist -- just let me download the updates manually like McAfee dat files and use a Java updater if you want to authorize my unit against the database first.
You think Microsoft wouldn't sue you because they got to use your code for free? Which Microsoft is this you speak of?
"Thanks for the more efficient long filename algorithm, and here's your bill for using our interface."
While people often cite the kind of idiocy you've stated, that's not actually what companies have a duty to do.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders over the long term, not just the short term, and an obvious duty to make that money legally.
Offending every possible business partner you sell product to (do you think Tomtom uses Windows on their PCs? How about their mapping servers? What desktop SDKs do you think they buy?), you're hurting yourself in the long term.
A company like Microsoft is obviously too short-cited to deserve to be in business when their own biggest partners will testify in court against them. Microsoft tried to hurt Dell, Compaq and others who actually promote product for MS. That's not fulfilling your duties at all.
Same goes for making your customers want to use a competing product just to get the bad taste out of their mouths for being treated like criminals all the time.
How about you stop abusing your monopolistic power, allow free competition in your area of business and still win by force of being better than everyone else instead of because you're bigger?
Why is there an option of a jury trial? Because the law in America is supposed to be about what the people want, not what some random guy with a crown thinks.
The legal opinion of the masses is actually relevant in a democracy, no matter what your lawyer tells you.
Actually patents aren't to give you control at all, but to give you revenue for others using your idea.
If you wanted control, you'd make it a trade secret and never share your idea (like the Coke formula).
Patents require registration and proof of functionality (or are supposed to) specifically so that others can use your ideas in the future.
His spin is accurate and intelligent.
Sony was willing to take risks on this platform. They may suffer or gain, but they took the risks. Those risks entailed a whole new hardware platform that had huge performance capacities at relatively low costs (cell vs. equivalent traditional hardware with equal processing power). The result is a harder platform to develop for initially, but some incredible game potential in the long-run.
PS Sony and its first parties help third parties all the time if they ask for it.
Other "actual developers" have not had this problem by designing their engine for the PS3 and then porting it to the 360 instead. Have a chat with the guys at Criterion about Burnout: Paradise, why don't you?
Targeting the PS3 as your primary platform helps make your code work smarter from day one, and actually makes it more efficient on the 360 as well.
Shhh, don't confuse the fanboys with math.
Its a good question with an answer already: PS2 the most played console of 2008.
Please note the PS2 still sold 410 thousand consoles in December of 2008. That's after already saturating the market with 43.6 million total sales.
At $100, you can't beat buying a PS2 as a gaming platform. In five years' time, Sony hopes the PS3 will be in the same position.
Some people obviously didn't read even the subtitle of the DDJ article: "It may be tricky, but the performance gains are worth the effort."
Yes, that's right, DDJ said its worth the effort.
The games being written directly to the PS3 are incredible in quality and performance. Games like Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank, Killzone 2 and the Motorstorm games simply aren't being made for other platforms. These games are unparalleled on other systems, and just being ignored by fanboys who think console sales are everything.
Last I checked, the PS2 worked the same way and didn't suffer in any way because of it.
Stop with the FUD already.
I have three mini-USB cables in my living room that I can see, two attached to my PS3, one to my PC for the camera.
I have no iDock connectors, because I have a PSP and a Walkman (mp3 / FM / video player).
I want the Apple that made the Newton which didn't have this problem.
So the six to ten USB connectors on each PC in the house don't count? How many iDock connectors on your TV or laptop? How about your DVD player?
Those all have USB connections in my home.
While you're trolling, here's some fodder:
Yeah, NASA standardized on Python because it sucks, that must be it.
There's a lot more FOSS out there than you may be aware of, and its a lot higher quality than you're giving it credit for. Kraptasticapp123 doesn't count; I can find a million of those on 'commercial' shareware CDs.
And by the same token, bragging that you wrote a bunch of good code that you /can't/ show off because its proprietary isn't nearly as useful as it sounds.
OSS contributions are very valuable because of the open licensing.
Getting code merged into the kernel also shows some specific technical skills and inter-personal work dynamics with other programmers, something worth pointing out at least :-).
Except that gold plating isn't snake oil -- it prevents corrosion of the (hopefully) copper connectors.
If you want truly astonishing sound for a last-generation platform, play Black on the PS2. Because of how audio was compressed, the sound effects weren't as nice as they'd hoped, and the developed a way to re-integrate the missing frequencies into the audio after the mixing stage.
There's a description of it on Criterion's website somewhere.
Resistance: FoM in 7.1 uncompressed though? Outstanding.
Excuse me, but I actually purported that it sounds better to me. It sounds better to my wife too, and she's no audiophile, just a music lover.
When you watch "Blood Diamond" and hear it in 7.1 uncompressed audio, the difference between that and dts or DD is obvious and enveloping.
Nobody's saying there aren't trade-offs -- but in gaming, uncompressed audio also requires less processing power to handle and therefore frees up processing time for other useful functions of the game. No need to decompress that MP3 or FLAC data, just mix and go.
Is it over kill? For some people it may be. Me? Its probably the best feature of blu-ray.
And blind people don't live real lives? How about the deaf or otherwise physically impaired?
In the same way that your living is restricted in action between school, the mall, work, the theatre and a coffee shop, you live differently on-line, but it is no less real living than playing paint ball with your friends and acting like soldiers when you're not.
Actually, your point about climatologists missed the similarities with (private) doctors. Since research money is easier to come by if the grant providers feel there is an imminent need for the research, those doing said research are in a biased position to try and exaggerate any potential ill effects so as to guarantee future funding.
I'm not saying they /do/ lie to get more money, but they're human, so leaving them beyond suspicion is silly.