I'm guessing almost all XBox360 and PS3 games will only support 480p because of speed issues. You couldn't be more wrong about that. Hell, 95% of all Xbox1 games even support 480p. Some of the really nice looking games even support 720p (like Amped 2).
You are correct that HD does have a performance hit, but these next-gen consoles are designed to be able to handle that. For example, the Xbox360 has a very tricky method to help deal with the increased bandwidth costs in that it has an integrated 10 megs of very fast RAM in the videochip itself. This is for the framebuffer and fancy/expensive things like AA. This frees up an enormous amount of graphics bandwidth (I've heard estimates of as high as 30% or so), along with giving other advantages (like 'free' AA and even crazier things). MS isn't kidding when they say all Xbox360 games must support a minimum of 720p (which is incidentally more performance-needing than 1080i in most cases) - the console is designed for that.
But among other problems, the UT2007 wasn't actually running on the PS3 videochip (which doesn't exist outside of a computer simulation right now). Epic has also said their code doesn't really take advantage of the Cell yet, so what the hardware demo was showing is a bit of a mystery. I think it was probably an underutilized Cell hooked up to a Nvidia SLI rig, since that is the kind of performance level Sony is promising.
GTA the most american game there is is the most single player game there is. Um, shouldn't "the most american game" out there at least be made by Americans?
They are only popular because little kids are the largest demographic of game players.
Since when has that been that true? For as long as I've been paying attention to the statistics (around five years), the largest group of game players is in their mid-20s to sometime in the 30s.
If the result is being displayed on flickering, grainy, interlaced, 1960s display technology it can never be immersive or photorealistic. Why would you do that even now though? The Xbox supports 480p for almost every game (so does the Gamecube AFAIK). The next-gen consoles are making an even bigger push for HDTV. Since you are making a pro-PC (ie pro-expensive) argument, why wouldn't you just spend $500 on an HDTV?
All of the demos and games we have seen so far for the Xbox360 and PS3 are running on lower powered dev kits. The real final hardware doesn't quite exist yet for either console.
Well to be fair, the improved resolution of HDTV can and will improve gameplay. It lets you fit more "player feedback" (more interface, more units, wider viewing field, things are clearer further off, etc.) on the screen. Certain console genres right now are a little limited because of the available resolution, especially strategy games. This will be improved by HDTV.
Sure, it won't matter for a lot of games. But a clearer picture (especially a jump from 480i to 720p or even 1080p, which are both HUGE) can make a big difference on the kind of gameplay developers can get away with.
And why wouldn't she have been sad too? I would assume the family of a senator would not be happy to live through the fall of the Republic they served.
It's only a plot hole if you are already reading too much into it (since it is not clear which character she is actually referring to), and if that is the case there is no reason to not also do the same for the solution.
She's actually extremely hit or miss. Sometimes she does a great job, but she's also completely sucked in plenty of other films.
And Harrison Ford did that, but the important difference is he was able to make the lines work. Natalie Portman generally can't (though she was definitely better in ROTS).
There is no way the PS3 is going to sell 25-50 million consoles when it launches in Japan (Spring 2006). Even selling 20+ million every year after that would be really shocking...
- Nintendo made profit on the N64 and the Gamecube, both on consoles sales (they didn't sell at a loss), and games sales. So Nintendo did not lose this generation's "war". It made a profit, and that's always more important than being "first". (Yes Sony also made an overall profit with PS2, if we count games).
Nintendo has sold the Gamecube at a loss.
Just copying and pasting the standard info, feel free to find links yourself (your nonsense is posted too often to bother with a custom post): May 24, 2001 In the GameCube business, industry specialists estimate the company will lose 5,000-10,000 yen per console, each carrying a 25,000 yen price tag, at least for the first year.
Spaceworld 2001 "We expect to incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially, and you're right that it hasn't been our habit in the past but we expect it to turn okay early next year." - Peter Main, Nintendo
January 14, 2004 Perrin: "I would say that our losses are really negligible. It's such a small amount. Plus with the amount of software that's being sold we're still definitely in a solid profit situation."
Wasn't part of that overturned by the Supreme Court? I know they addressed the idea of "virtual child porn" pretty recently - I think that is the same law involved with that case...
I didn't say it changes gameplay. I said it looks better - and it does. The original post suggested DOA4 looks identical to DOA2U, which is nonsense. Even just the higher resolution is a big change.
The shots were actually more impressive the more I looked at them. It's all the little details. In particular the hair physics are extremely amazing visually (an opponent's hand will part the hair realistically, for example). None of this offers a new gameplay experience (if you buy DOA4 it's because you want a more refined DOA game, not because you want a revolution in gaming), but let's not pretend that better graphics aren't appreciated too! I look forward to videos, as it will obviously show its stuff in motion (just like all next-gen games I've seen so far, honestly).
DoA 4 looks exactly the same as DoAU on the current box,
How do you sell videogames while being blind?:D
(Ignoring the fact the pics apparently aren't DOA4 anyway, the clothing alone is light-years beyond what DOAU offered. The character lighting is too - they self-shadow, for example.)
The lack of such stages in SC and SC2 was intentional. Namco has always felt that these sorts of gimmicks take away from the one-on-one fighting that makes a good fighting game what it is. It makes them less based on fighting skill, more based on luck and cheap throws.
Ringouts don't have that exact same quality?:D (Luck and gambling is a factor in all good fighting games.)
And DOA is more of the "VF Lite", actually. It's too bad you haven't been able to appreciate what the environments bring to the game yet, as they are far far from gimmicks. Hopefully DOA4 will catch you - I can always use more competition.:)
There is no online play in SC3. That's according to the Namco devs themselves (apparently because all regions can't take advantage of it yet - that's their claim at least). Go find the Namco video they released a while ago to show off the game
The multi-tier stages is news to me - you got a link? The Gamespot preview doesn't mention them either - it would seem to be something important to mention.
I was looking at Rare's newest offering for the X-Box and realized it isjust a rehash of Conker's Bad Fur Day. Nothing against conker, but can't Rare at least put him in a new adventure instead of just prettying up an older game? Wow, you're pretty clever. I never thought of that!
(You realize it was announced as remake, right? The new stuff is the extensive multiplayer mode.)
The arcade version of Killer Instinct (and to a lesser extent Crusing USA) was not possible to do on the N64 but the arcade game itself actually stated that it would. Maybe you could argue it wasn't Gamecube-level graphics but its inarguable that it was more than the N64 was capable of accomplishing.
Apple/Steve Jobs has fought hard against the record companies to keep a unified pricing/licensing scheme (and there always will be DRM from the major labels, so arguments against DRM have no meaning). Apple has tried to find a medium between we-want-it-all-consumers and we-want-all-control-record labels. Microsoft just gives in to whatever corporate interests want. Come on now. We know Apple would have put DRM on the songs even if the record companies didn't require it. They wanted it themselves. Let's not pretend Apple is fighting some noble crusade on behalf of the little people - they just figured correctly that cheaper (though certainly not cheap) prices and a simpler (though certainly not simple, especially with the various changes it undergoes every so often) license would do better in the marketplace.
Also, FYI don't believe that X-Box 360 will sell as fast as the original X-Box, at least where I live most people were severly disappointed with the X-Box and don't plan to buy an X-Box 360, this is also the feeling I get from talking to friends in other parts of the country.
Interesting. Where I live it's the exact opposite. The Xbox convinced a lot of people that MS was for real in this whole console business. Even just compare the amount of respect it tends to get now on Slashdot of all places (vacation home of POGs and anti-MS people alike), whereas before its release and even for sometime after the Xbox was routinely slammed by practically everybody on here.
This technology isn't that advanced really, AMD is just skipping triple core CPUs, as they have announced a quad core for 2007.
Great argument. Because AMD is planning to release a better CPU in 2007 the CPU that MS is selling in 2005 isn't advanced? (Are you just doing the whole anti-Xbox troll thing?)
You are correct the CPU probably won't be that great for desktop usage, but you hardly need much power for that anyways. For games it will be extremely powerful, and that's basically what you need the power for on a consumer PC, too. I'm not convinced it (or a derivative of it) will be used for desktops, but I think you overstate the problems with doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing almost all XBox360 and PS3 games will only support 480p because of speed issues.
You couldn't be more wrong about that. Hell, 95% of all Xbox1 games even support 480p. Some of the really nice looking games even support 720p (like Amped 2).
You are correct that HD does have a performance hit, but these next-gen consoles are designed to be able to handle that. For example, the Xbox360 has a very tricky method to help deal with the increased bandwidth costs in that it has an integrated 10 megs of very fast RAM in the videochip itself. This is for the framebuffer and fancy/expensive things like AA. This frees up an enormous amount of graphics bandwidth (I've heard estimates of as high as 30% or so), along with giving other advantages (like 'free' AA and even crazier things). MS isn't kidding when they say all Xbox360 games must support a minimum of 720p (which is incidentally more performance-needing than 1080i in most cases) - the console is designed for that.
But among other problems, the UT2007 wasn't actually running on the PS3 videochip (which doesn't exist outside of a computer simulation right now). Epic has also said their code doesn't really take advantage of the Cell yet, so what the hardware demo was showing is a bit of a mystery. I think it was probably an underutilized Cell hooked up to a Nvidia SLI rig, since that is the kind of performance level Sony is promising.
GTA the most american game there is is the most single player game there is.
Um, shouldn't "the most american game" out there at least be made by Americans?
They are only popular because little kids are the largest demographic of game players.
Since when has that been that true? For as long as I've been paying attention to the statistics (around five years), the largest group of game players is in their mid-20s to sometime in the 30s.
If the result is being displayed on flickering, grainy, interlaced, 1960s display technology it can never be immersive or photorealistic.
Why would you do that even now though? The Xbox supports 480p for almost every game (so does the Gamecube AFAIK). The next-gen consoles are making an even bigger push for HDTV. Since you are making a pro-PC (ie pro-expensive) argument, why wouldn't you just spend $500 on an HDTV?
All of the demos and games we have seen so far for the Xbox360 and PS3 are running on lower powered dev kits. The real final hardware doesn't quite exist yet for either console.
Well to be fair, the improved resolution of HDTV can and will improve gameplay. It lets you fit more "player feedback" (more interface, more units, wider viewing field, things are clearer further off, etc.) on the screen. Certain console genres right now are a little limited because of the available resolution, especially strategy games. This will be improved by HDTV.
Sure, it won't matter for a lot of games. But a clearer picture (especially a jump from 480i to 720p or even 1080p, which are both HUGE) can make a big difference on the kind of gameplay developers can get away with.
And why wouldn't she have been sad too? I would assume the family of a senator would not be happy to live through the fall of the Republic they served.
It's only a plot hole if you are already reading too much into it (since it is not clear which character she is actually referring to), and if that is the case there is no reason to not also do the same for the solution.
She's actually extremely hit or miss. Sometimes she does a great job, but she's also completely sucked in plenty of other films.
And Harrison Ford did that, but the important difference is he was able to make the lines work. Natalie Portman generally can't (though she was definitely better in ROTS).
I do too. It reminds me of when I was a stupid teenager. I wonder if that is part of the reason so many people don't like it?
There is no way the PS3 is going to sell 25-50 million consoles when it launches in Japan (Spring 2006). Even selling 20+ million every year after that would be really shocking...
- Nintendo made profit on the N64 and the Gamecube, both on consoles sales (they didn't sell at a loss), and games sales. So Nintendo did not lose this generation's "war". It made a profit, and that's always more important than being "first". (Yes Sony also made an overall profit with PS2, if we count games).
Nintendo has sold the Gamecube at a loss.
Just copying and pasting the standard info, feel free to find links yourself (your nonsense is posted too often to bother with a custom post):
May 24, 2001
In the GameCube business, industry specialists estimate the company will lose 5,000-10,000 yen per console, each carrying a 25,000 yen price tag, at least for the first year.
Spaceworld 2001
"We expect to incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially, and you're right that it hasn't been our habit in the past but we expect it to turn okay early next year." - Peter Main, Nintendo
January 14, 2004
Perrin: "I would say that our losses are really negligible. It's such a small amount. Plus with the amount of software that's being sold we're still definitely in a solid profit situation."
Wasn't part of that overturned by the Supreme Court? I know they addressed the idea of "virtual child porn" pretty recently - I think that is the same law involved with that case...
I didn't say it changes gameplay. I said it looks better - and it does. The original post suggested DOA4 looks identical to DOA2U, which is nonsense. Even just the higher resolution is a big change.
The shots were actually more impressive the more I looked at them. It's all the little details. In particular the hair physics are extremely amazing visually (an opponent's hand will part the hair realistically, for example). None of this offers a new gameplay experience (if you buy DOA4 it's because you want a more refined DOA game, not because you want a revolution in gaming), but let's not pretend that better graphics aren't appreciated too! I look forward to videos, as it will obviously show its stuff in motion (just like all next-gen games I've seen so far, honestly).
Who is pretending this was a release of the Xbox 360? Wasn't this just the announcement of it?
DoA 4 looks exactly the same as DoAU on the current box,
:D
How do you sell videogames while being blind?
(Ignoring the fact the pics apparently aren't DOA4 anyway, the clothing alone is light-years beyond what DOAU offered. The character lighting is too - they self-shadow, for example.)
The lack of such stages in SC and SC2 was intentional. Namco has always felt that these sorts of gimmicks take away from the one-on-one fighting that makes a good fighting game what it is. It makes them less based on fighting skill, more based on luck and cheap throws.
:D (Luck and gambling is a factor in all good fighting games.)
:)
Ringouts don't have that exact same quality?
And DOA is more of the "VF Lite", actually. It's too bad you haven't been able to appreciate what the environments bring to the game yet, as they are far far from gimmicks. Hopefully DOA4 will catch you - I can always use more competition.
Umm yeah, it doesn't (especially since the environments don't really take advantage of the 8-way run). Go play some more fighting games! :)
There is no online play in SC3. That's according to the Namco devs themselves (apparently because all regions can't take advantage of it yet - that's their claim at least). Go find the Namco video they released a while ago to show off the game
The multi-tier stages is news to me - you got a link? The Gamespot preview doesn't mention them either - it would seem to be something important to mention.
And it still will never show up on the Gamecube. :D
I was looking at Rare's newest offering for the X-Box and realized it isjust a rehash of Conker's Bad Fur Day. Nothing against conker, but can't Rare at least put him in a new adventure instead of just prettying up an older game?
Wow, you're pretty clever. I never thought of that!
(You realize it was announced as remake, right? The new stuff is the extensive multiplayer mode.)
The arcade version of Killer Instinct (and to a lesser extent Crusing USA) was not possible to do on the N64 but the arcade game itself actually stated that it would. Maybe you could argue it wasn't Gamecube-level graphics but its inarguable that it was more than the N64 was capable of accomplishing.
Who wanted DRM?
The RIAA.
Bzzt. The correct answer is "The RIAA and Apple." Apple has admitted they would have put DRM on the songs even if the RIAA didn't care.
Apple/Steve Jobs has fought hard against the record companies to keep a unified pricing/licensing scheme (and there always will be DRM from the major labels, so arguments against DRM have no meaning). Apple has tried to find a medium between we-want-it-all-consumers and we-want-all-control-record labels. Microsoft just gives in to whatever corporate interests want.
Come on now. We know Apple would have put DRM on the songs even if the record companies didn't require it. They wanted it themselves. Let's not pretend Apple is fighting some noble crusade on behalf of the little people - they just figured correctly that cheaper (though certainly not cheap) prices and a simpler (though certainly not simple, especially with the various changes it undergoes every so often) license would do better in the marketplace.
Also, FYI don't believe that X-Box 360 will sell as fast as the original X-Box, at least where I live most people were severly disappointed with the X-Box and don't plan to buy an X-Box 360, this is also the feeling I get from talking to friends in other parts of the country.
Interesting. Where I live it's the exact opposite. The Xbox convinced a lot of people that MS was for real in this whole console business. Even just compare the amount of respect it tends to get now on Slashdot of all places (vacation home of POGs and anti-MS people alike), whereas before its release and even for sometime after the Xbox was routinely slammed by practically everybody on here.
This technology isn't that advanced really, AMD is just skipping triple core CPUs, as they have announced a quad core for 2007.
Great argument. Because AMD is planning to release a better CPU in 2007 the CPU that MS is selling in 2005 isn't advanced? (Are you just doing the whole anti-Xbox troll thing?)
You are correct the CPU probably won't be that great for desktop usage, but you hardly need much power for that anyways. For games it will be extremely powerful, and that's basically what you need the power for on a consumer PC, too. I'm not convinced it (or a derivative of it) will be used for desktops, but I think you overstate the problems with doing that.