I think it would reduce the number of people on Xbox Live.
The mod community is not huge, but if they started going onto Live with a box that can be hacked, and have cheats installed, a lot of other subscribers would drop Live.
One of the best things about Live is the very limited amount of 'cheating' which normally has to do with people exploiting parts of the game, not modifying it to give them an advantage. I absolutely hated cheaters on PC games, so Live is a refreshing change from that.
America's Army- which has been used as an example a lot in this discussion...used to drive me nuts with the 'no respawn'.
Actually, what they did made sense. Once you died, you didn't respawn, and you had to wait until someone either won, or the time ran out. Usually the timer was somewhere in the 8:00 range.
Sometimes you could die in the first 30 seconds. Or even the first 10 seconds if you were trying something new. And then you had to wait...7 minutes plus...to play again for another 30 seconds. This really sucked sometimes.
Rainbow Six 3 is a similar game, but usually each round only lasts 2-3 minutes. Probably because the maps are smaller (although some of them are fairly large). On some maps, team A can be at team B's spawn point in less than 10 seconds. This means that the tactics you use probably won't be as sophisticated, but the game plays a little faster, and is more fun.
That's my opinion. Others may enjoy the more drawn out process, but I prefer the action.
Well, if you don't like the Japanese culture, then the Xbox is your console. It's been a huge failure in Japan, because for a number of reasons it doesn't appeal to the Japanes psyche.
Which is fine for me, I do not live in Japan, nor am I Japanese.
It does have a lot of good ole fashioned American killin' though.
I am one of the people out there who switched from PC gaming to console gaming (see my link).
The PS2 and Gamecube would not have made me switch. People repeatedly say 'the Xbox has a lot of the same games as the PC, there are no real exclusives'. Fine, right. That shows that they are going for a similar crowd. I can play first person shooters on my Xbox, which was about 60% of what I played on the PC. There are also the racing/sports/3rd person shooters and now I'm set.
The Gamecube and PS2 don't target the same audience. I wouldn't buy a Gamecube if they were only ONE buck, because it doesn't have the games I want to play.
So for me, and a few of my friends, the Xbox is the one that stopped me from buying any PC games in the past 18 months. Instead I've bought about 35 games for my Xbox. I do have a friend who is a die-hard PC gamer- and he says he will stay that way forever...even though I harass him constantly to buy an Xbox. In the past 4 years I think he has purchased 2 or 3 games for the PC. I think you would find that the number of games purchased by the average Xbox gamer is much, much higher than the number of games purchased by the average PC gamer. And buying games, translates to support.
Of course, he used to COPY my games. I had a similar 20+ per year game buying habit on the PC, and he would copy my games. But his copying does not put money in the pockets of the developers, who would be willing to make more games for the system.
I tell him that if he wants the developers to support him (make more games) he needs to support THEM (buy more games). But he figures someone else ou there will do the buying...sadly, this is why the content providers are pushing for more and more DRM.
That's what the developer wanted it to be. But most gamers (including me) would rather run-n-gun it. I thought it was a great game, but not because of the thought out strategy. Because I got to kill people who were a bunch of 'zyme addicts.
Imagine that- go around a city and kill crack-heads.
I work at a university, and my pay is okay, but not great.
We don't have deadlines, and I don't have a pager. I do check my systems to make sure they are running on the weekends, but that is for my own reasons, not my bosses. (I believe I have come in about 4 times on the weekend in the past 5 years to clear up a problem, and each time my boss says "you know you didn't have to do that")
I was offered a job at an outside company, with a 50% pay increase. My bonuses would be tied to the hours I billed to a client. Anything above 35 hours a week (billed) I would have been paid double-time. I could have easily doubled my salary by putting in some extra hours each week.
I declined the job and I have not regretted that decision at all. I spend plenty of time with my family (15 holidays/year, 12 sick days, and 3 weeks of vacation a year) and I'm not going to get an ulcer.
You would have to pay me 10 times what I make now to get me to consider switching over to a high-pressure commercial situation. My priorities are quality of LIFE, not quality of STUFF.
Okay- let's assume that I don't know the intricate workings of Xbox Live (which is exactly the case).
For instance, Rainbow Six 3- someone with a fast connection can host more users on their 'server' than someone with a slow connection. Same thing for Crimson Skies.
I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the central Xbox Live server got everyone together, handed out my IP address to the rest of the players, then we went ahead and played- with my box (the host) sending/receiving traffic to everyone. The next time we talked to the central server was to upload stats.
So- this is not the case? Microsoft has servers that host all of these games? If so, why does the quality of service vary so much depending on who 'hosts' the game?
I've experience the same thing (slow/fast 'servers') in just about every Live game I've played. I just assumed from the results, that the hosts really were sending/receiving the traffic. I didn't think this was beyond the real of possibility, because for instance, here are the specs for a Quake 2 server: This depends on the max amount of players you want on the server. There is no set recommended specifications, but you need at the very least a 486. A high-end Pentium CPU is recommended. More CPU horsepower is required for more players. RAM should be at the very least 16 megs, with a recommended amount of 1 meg per player. which the Xbox exceeds, and I can imagine it would still have enough to play the game.
Also- in Rainbow Six 3, you can host more people if you set up a dedicated server.
I've attempted to find a source that gave information on the Xbox Live Infrastructure- but I can't locate anything. Anyone got more info on this?
This arguement is heard over and over 'Xbox sucks because the same games are on the PC'.
So?
This might be a factor if someone A: already has a PC and B: is wondering which console to purchase. But when it comes down to it, the important part is 'what games can I play'. Not, 'what games can I play on my console, that nobody else can play, unless they own the same console.'
But I don't see how it relates to the quality of the Xbox. But if you are all jizzed up about exclusives, take a look at Chronicles of Riddick.
Wow- this is similar to the last story about XSN Sports...at least both are on-line.
I would like Xbox Live to switch from the peer-to-peer network, to something with more centralized servers. I believe this would cut down on lag in the games, and allow for more players on a server (of course).
But the important thing for me, is that the story focuses on 'elves and wizards'. I know there are a few games out there that do NOT focus on standard D&D type characters (Star Wars Galaxies for one) but when will we get more HUGE FPS worlds?
Instead of paladins and mages storming a castle, how about the Allies attempting to enter a city that is full of German snipers? This could be Medal of Honor, with nothing but human players. The D-Day invasion played out with teams of 400 people? That would be great.
Of course, as worn-out as the D&D worlds are, World War II is almost as bad. The western genre is starting to get more attention, and I can imagine a game with a map the size of Nebraska. You could have classes like 'gunfighter' 'blacksmith' 'saloon girl' and 'stagecoach driver'.
This kind of game would need some huge back-end power, and enough on the client side to keep track of anyone within a few hundred yards. The infrastructure is getting there though.
I think that peer-to-peer (Xbox Live) may have run its course, and we need to see something really big happen for Xbox 2.
Counterstrike is used as example of so many things it's sick- and tired.
In my opinion, the reason for Counterstrike's continued success, is that it was one of the first popular on-line tactical shooters, and a lot of the players never moved on to anything else. *
It's just like walking into an arcade with a bunch of 'old people'** and they all say 'oohh, Pac Man!'.
Guys! Give it up! Move on! There is better stuff out there!
But even worse, a lot of these Counterstrike players have machines that won't run any modern games, so they are even more entrenched. Like if the same old people walked into an arcade, and Pac Man was the only game that took quarters, and everything else took foreign money. "Why change my money? Pac Man gives me everything I need, and it takes quarters."
Well, it's hard to argue with a man wearing Gloria Vanderbilt jeans, so just let him have at it.
Anyway...Medal of Honor is still a good game, and worth playing- but bringing up Counterstrike in every discussion gets a little old.
The mod community is awesome! Look at Counterstrike Great games can run on old hardware! Look at Counterstrike The best games have already been made! Look at Counterstrike OpenGL games are best! Look at Counterstrike
Okay, okay...we gotcha. Counterstrike is the best thing in the world.
* Yes, of course a lot of people who play Counterstrike have the best rigs in the world, and they are the top gamers, blah blah blah. But as far as popularity is concerned, I still feel that it is riding on the wave of gamers who are just won't move forward.
** I fall into the 'old people' demographic, but I believe I have moved forward, beyond Pac Man. BUT- I will say this. If you are in your mid to late 30's, and you've been in an arcade (usually the kind attached to a mini-golf course) you may have noticed the same phenomenon that I have. This little brats who go the arcade now- you know, the 8-12 year olds that feel the need to drip ice cream on the controllers? They have hot moms. Poor chicks have to hang out and play Pac Man while their kids play on the newfangled machines. Nothing hotter than a 34 year old woman in little khaki shorts and a tank top playing videogames. At least the ones who kept themselves together...the other ones are sitting in the food area sucking down a 3 scoop ice cream...ignore those.
I'm a huge Xbox fan. Okay...probably to the lengths of being a 'fanboy'- but I have the same problems with the XSN Sports thingy.
If I sign up for a tournament on my PC, which is linked to the gamertag- then why do I have to put in all the info again, on my Xbox? Unlike the author though, I finally got smart enough to write the shit down on paper. Even that was annoying, because the way the screens are set up on the XSN site, you can only print ONE password at a time- because the other rounds are behind 'tabs'. So, I end up writing them. This sucks, because in my daily life I don't write anything anymore.
Another problem with the XSN setup, is that I have to go to my PC to sign up for a tournament. The tournament usually doesn't start for a few days. By that time, I probably will be busy or something. Here is a scenario that would be a lot better:
I'm playing on my Xbox, and decide to start a tournament.
On my Xbox I go to the XSN tab and 'Start a Tournament'
I invite friends and stuff, and boom- an hour later the tournament starts.
The tournament only runs a few hours, and we know who the winner is by the end of the day
We can stare at the stats for the rest of the week on XSN.
Also, the only game that I have successfully taken part in tournaments in Links 2004 (golf). Because there, you are only competing for a low score, and you don't need to go head-to-head. I guess you can do this in Rallisport Challenge 2 also, but I am so bad at that game that entering a tournament would be an absolute joke. But the important thing is that I don't need to arrange a play time with a stranger. Like I really want some dumbass e-mailing/calling/IMing me because we are scheduled to play a game of basketball.
The delay of days, or in some cases weeks before a tournament starts is crazy. If I get the itch to start a tournament, I want to start it NOW not sometime in the distant future.
That's why I end up playing 'Optimatch' all the time. I don't want to wait around for this stuff. But if tournaments were immediately available, and I know I can sit and play for a few hours- sure, I might as well. Otherwise it's too damn complicated. What's next- mandatory practices?
XSN is a great concept. They just need to integrate it into the games a little more. Bigger tournaments are usually not better, because getting 64 people to cooperate is never gonna happen. But if Microsoft keeps trying, and they come out with XSN 2.0, I'm sure this could kick some butt.
Actually, come to think of it. XSN is really not necessary if the games themselves have this built in. But at least it was a push in the right direction.
Oh no- all of the people on my Xbox Live friends list will have to do without me. Maybe I should wear a heart-beat monitor for realsies so my Rainbow Six 3 clan knows when I kick the bucket.
"Dude...Noodle must just be taking a crap, he's been AFK for 3 rounds"
"No man, I just checked. He is REALLY dead. Too bad he's hosting this server, otherwise I'd just kick him right now."
"Hey- call his wife, and have her change this to a dedicated server...we could use this forever!"
A lot of people assume that Microsoft is a bunch of idiots for dropping Psychonauts.
Hell, we the public have seen screenshots and know the premise of the game. What the hell do those morons at Microsoft know about it that we haven't been able to surmise from a few previews on gaming sites?
Well- I'm sure they've see everything the game has to offer at this point. And possibly, the game just isn't what they want to sell. Maybe it isn't good enough. Maybe the concept just didn't work as well as it should have.
I'd rather they drop a game, than decide to just send it out there, and market the crap out of it before we find out that it is garbage.
Getting new games out for the current console can change the public opinon from "the Xbox was a horrible console" to "Hey- it wasn't real popular, but it had some good games".
So you're not married yet.
My guess is that after a few years of marriage, numbing your mind with the Xbox won't seem like such a bad thing.
Really- some guys drink to ease the pain. If all you are doing is playing games, I don't think that is too bad.
That's a good point. Because current WE need to GO TO the computer. Soon, the computer will just be where we need it.
Tablet computers are an example of this. A small tablet, that is hooked wirelessly to your network can be used for e-mail, etc. Of course the tablet will get smaller and smaller, and soon not recognizable as a 'computer'. It will be similar to a piece of paper.
Now, most people connect their MP3 type player to their computer, and download the music. Eventually, your MP3 player will once again, connect wirelessly, and just download everything- because storage won't be an issue. Of course it will be smaller, and barely noticable. But once again, you won't need to go to your computer.
Currently you can buy things on-line on your computer. But wouldn't that be better from your TV? Just yesterday there was an article the next Xbox having more computer functionality. With HDTV quality screens, I would rather make my purchases from my couch, not sitting at my desk. Why go to the computer, when the rest of my house is more comfortable?
Sitting in my 'office' at home isn't fun- it's not where I want to spend my time. I'd rather be out with everyone else. We've been tied to the keyboard long enough, and I think we'll start moving away.
Yes- I really would like a web-enabled refrigerator...It would be nice to walk into the kitchen, and get my news/e-mail while standing there drinking out of the orange juice container.
When display devices get advanced enough that they can simply be 'printed' then we can have them everywhere. This will be the biggest step forward.
Your TV is actually a great display device- because it streams in a lot of different information. But it is too big, bulky, expensive and ugly to have everywhere. But when I can place a display in the wall of my bathroom, I can use it while I take a crap. It won't be the luxury device of a Texas oilman anymore- it will show up in everyday life.
I've been in the computer industry for 20 years. And I would LOVE to use what you just described.
That is what the holy grail of consumer computing has always been. Make it easy, and make sure it doesn't break.
We've made inroads on the 'easy' part, and then it breaks. We keep adding features, but then it isn't easy. Windows can support a gazillion hardware combinations, but then it isn't easy, and it breaks.
I really don't need to upgrade constantly, I'd be thrilled to just have the thing work every time I turn it on.
I'm just tired of dicking with computers- I want them to finally make my life easier..not harder.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would reduce the number of people on Xbox Live.
The mod community is not huge, but if they started going onto Live with a box that can be hacked, and have cheats installed, a lot of other subscribers would drop Live.
One of the best things about Live is the very limited amount of 'cheating' which normally has to do with people exploiting parts of the game, not modifying it to give them an advantage. I absolutely hated cheaters on PC games, so Live is a refreshing change from that.
America's Army- which has been used as an example a lot in this discussion...used to drive me nuts with the 'no respawn'.
Actually, what they did made sense. Once you died, you didn't respawn, and you had to wait until someone either won, or the time ran out. Usually the timer was somewhere in the 8:00 range.
Sometimes you could die in the first 30 seconds. Or even the first 10 seconds if you were trying something new. And then you had to wait...7 minutes plus...to play again for another 30 seconds. This really sucked sometimes.
Rainbow Six 3 is a similar game, but usually each round only lasts 2-3 minutes. Probably because the maps are smaller (although some of them are fairly large). On some maps, team A can be at team B's spawn point in less than 10 seconds. This means that the tactics you use probably won't be as sophisticated, but the game plays a little faster, and is more fun.
That's my opinion. Others may enjoy the more drawn out process, but I prefer the action.
Well, if you don't like the Japanese culture, then the Xbox is your console. It's been a huge failure in Japan, because for a number of reasons it doesn't appeal to the Japanes psyche.
Which is fine for me, I do not live in Japan, nor am I Japanese.
It does have a lot of good ole fashioned American killin' though.
I am one of the people out there who switched from PC gaming to console gaming (see my link).
The PS2 and Gamecube would not have made me switch. People repeatedly say 'the Xbox has a lot of the same games as the PC, there are no real exclusives'. Fine, right. That shows that they are going for a similar crowd. I can play first person shooters on my Xbox, which was about 60% of what I played on the PC. There are also the racing/sports/3rd person shooters and now I'm set.
The Gamecube and PS2 don't target the same audience. I wouldn't buy a Gamecube if they were only ONE buck, because it doesn't have the games I want to play.
So for me, and a few of my friends, the Xbox is the one that stopped me from buying any PC games in the past 18 months. Instead I've bought about 35 games for my Xbox. I do have a friend who is a die-hard PC gamer- and he says he will stay that way forever...even though I harass him constantly to buy an Xbox. In the past 4 years I think he has purchased 2 or 3 games for the PC. I think you would find that the number of games purchased by the average Xbox gamer is much, much higher than the number of games purchased by the average PC gamer. And buying games, translates to support.
Of course, he used to COPY my games. I had a similar 20+ per year game buying habit on the PC, and he would copy my games. But his copying does not put money in the pockets of the developers, who would be willing to make more games for the system.
I tell him that if he wants the developers to support him (make more games) he needs to support THEM (buy more games). But he figures someone else ou there will do the buying...sadly, this is why the content providers are pushing for more and more DRM.
Exactly. In Deus Ex, the most valuable items were lockpicks and multi-tools. And the BEST use of a lockpick, was to open a locker with multitools.
We've gotten used to conserving that resource- where health and bullets are a little more common.
Plus-
Lockpicks are rare. Going toward the lasers and machine guys might just suck up health, but there is usually more health than lockpicks.
That's what the developer wanted it to be. But most gamers (including me) would rather run-n-gun it. I thought it was a great game, but not because of the thought out strategy. Because I got to kill people who were a bunch of 'zyme addicts.
Imagine that- go around a city and kill crack-heads.
Yeah...13 was a pain in the ass, and 14 isn't looking too rosy either.
True dat-
I work at a university, and my pay is okay, but not great.
We don't have deadlines, and I don't have a pager. I do check my systems to make sure they are running on the weekends, but that is for my own reasons, not my bosses. (I believe I have come in about 4 times on the weekend in the past 5 years to clear up a problem, and each time my boss says "you know you didn't have to do that")
I was offered a job at an outside company, with a 50% pay increase. My bonuses would be tied to the hours I billed to a client. Anything above 35 hours a week (billed) I would have been paid double-time. I could have easily doubled my salary by putting in some extra hours each week.
I declined the job and I have not regretted that decision at all. I spend plenty of time with my family (15 holidays/year, 12 sick days, and 3 weeks of vacation a year) and I'm not going to get an ulcer.
You would have to pay me 10 times what I make now to get me to consider switching over to a high-pressure commercial situation. My priorities are quality of LIFE, not quality of STUFF.
Okay- let's assume that I don't know the intricate workings of Xbox Live (which is exactly the case).
For instance, Rainbow Six 3- someone with a fast connection can host more users on their 'server' than someone with a slow connection. Same thing for Crimson Skies.
I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the central Xbox Live server got everyone together, handed out my IP address to the rest of the players, then we went ahead and played- with my box (the host) sending/receiving traffic to everyone. The next time we talked to the central server was to upload stats.
So- this is not the case? Microsoft has servers that host all of these games? If so, why does the quality of service vary so much depending on who 'hosts' the game?
I've experience the same thing (slow/fast 'servers') in just about every Live game I've played. I just assumed from the results, that the hosts really were sending/receiving the traffic. I didn't think this was beyond the real of possibility, because for instance, here are the specs for a Quake 2 server: This depends on the max amount of players you want on the server. There is no set recommended specifications, but you need at the very least a 486. A high-end Pentium CPU is recommended. More CPU horsepower is required for more players. RAM should be at the very least 16 megs, with a recommended amount of 1 meg per player. which the Xbox exceeds, and I can imagine it would still have enough to play the game.
Also- in Rainbow Six 3, you can host more people if you set up a dedicated server.
I've attempted to find a source that gave information on the Xbox Live Infrastructure- but I can't locate anything. Anyone got more info on this?
Do games have to be exclusive to be good?
This arguement is heard over and over 'Xbox sucks because the same games are on the PC'.
So?
This might be a factor if someone A: already has a PC and B: is wondering which console to purchase. But when it comes down to it, the important part is 'what games can I play'. Not, 'what games can I play on my console, that nobody else can play, unless they own the same console.'
But I don't see how it relates to the quality of the Xbox. But if you are all jizzed up about exclusives, take a look at Chronicles of Riddick.
Wow- this is similar to the last story about XSN Sports...at least both are on-line.
I would like Xbox Live to switch from the peer-to-peer network, to something with more centralized servers. I believe this would cut down on lag in the games, and allow for more players on a server (of course).
But the important thing for me, is that the story focuses on 'elves and wizards'. I know there are a few games out there that do NOT focus on standard D&D type characters (Star Wars Galaxies for one) but when will we get more HUGE FPS worlds?
Instead of paladins and mages storming a castle, how about the Allies attempting to enter a city that is full of German snipers? This could be Medal of Honor, with nothing but human players. The D-Day invasion played out with teams of 400 people? That would be great.
Of course, as worn-out as the D&D worlds are, World War II is almost as bad. The western genre is starting to get more attention, and I can imagine a game with a map the size of Nebraska. You could have classes like 'gunfighter' 'blacksmith' 'saloon girl' and 'stagecoach driver'.
This kind of game would need some huge back-end power, and enough on the client side to keep track of anyone within a few hundred yards. The infrastructure is getting there though.
I think that peer-to-peer (Xbox Live) may have run its course, and we need to see something really big happen for Xbox 2.
Counterstrike is used as example of so many things it's sick- and tired.
In my opinion, the reason for Counterstrike's continued success, is that it was one of the first popular on-line tactical shooters, and a lot of the players never moved on to anything else. *
It's just like walking into an arcade with a bunch of 'old people'** and they all say 'oohh, Pac Man!'.
Guys! Give it up! Move on! There is better stuff out there!
But even worse, a lot of these Counterstrike players have machines that won't run any modern games, so they are even more entrenched. Like if the same old people walked into an arcade, and Pac Man was the only game that took quarters, and everything else took foreign money. "Why change my money? Pac Man gives me everything I need, and it takes quarters."
Well, it's hard to argue with a man wearing Gloria Vanderbilt jeans, so just let him have at it.
Anyway...Medal of Honor is still a good game, and worth playing- but bringing up Counterstrike in every discussion gets a little old.
The mod community is awesome! Look at Counterstrike
Great games can run on old hardware! Look at Counterstrike
The best games have already been made! Look at Counterstrike
OpenGL games are best! Look at Counterstrike
Okay, okay...we gotcha. Counterstrike is the best thing in the world.
* Yes, of course a lot of people who play Counterstrike have the best rigs in the world, and they are the top gamers, blah blah blah. But as far as popularity is concerned, I still feel that it is riding on the wave of gamers who are just won't move forward.
** I fall into the 'old people' demographic, but I believe I have moved forward, beyond Pac Man. BUT- I will say this. If you are in your mid to late 30's, and you've been in an arcade (usually the kind attached to a mini-golf course) you may have noticed the same phenomenon that I have. This little brats who go the arcade now- you know, the 8-12 year olds that feel the need to drip ice cream on the controllers? They have hot moms. Poor chicks have to hang out and play Pac Man while their kids play on the newfangled machines. Nothing hotter than a 34 year old woman in little khaki shorts and a tank top playing videogames. At least the ones who kept themselves together...the other ones are sitting in the food area sucking down a 3 scoop ice cream...ignore those.
If I sign up for a tournament on my PC, which is linked to the gamertag- then why do I have to put in all the info again, on my Xbox? Unlike the author though, I finally got smart enough to write the shit down on paper. Even that was annoying, because the way the screens are set up on the XSN site, you can only print ONE password at a time- because the other rounds are behind 'tabs'. So, I end up writing them. This sucks, because in my daily life I don't write anything anymore.
Another problem with the XSN setup, is that I have to go to my PC to sign up for a tournament. The tournament usually doesn't start for a few days. By that time, I probably will be busy or something. Here is a scenario that would be a lot better:
- I'm playing on my Xbox, and decide to start a tournament.
- On my Xbox I go to the XSN tab and 'Start a Tournament'
- I invite friends and stuff, and boom- an hour later the tournament starts.
- The tournament only runs a few hours, and we know who the winner is by the end of the day
- We can stare at the stats for the rest of the week on XSN.
Also, the only game that I have successfully taken part in tournaments in Links 2004 (golf). Because there, you are only competing for a low score, and you don't need to go head-to-head. I guess you can do this in Rallisport Challenge 2 also, but I am so bad at that game that entering a tournament would be an absolute joke. But the important thing is that I don't need to arrange a play time with a stranger. Like I really want some dumbass e-mailing/calling/IMing me because we are scheduled to play a game of basketball.The delay of days, or in some cases weeks before a tournament starts is crazy. If I get the itch to start a tournament, I want to start it NOW not sometime in the distant future.
That's why I end up playing 'Optimatch' all the time. I don't want to wait around for this stuff. But if tournaments were immediately available, and I know I can sit and play for a few hours- sure, I might as well. Otherwise it's too damn complicated. What's next- mandatory practices?
XSN is a great concept. They just need to integrate it into the games a little more. Bigger tournaments are usually not better, because getting 64 people to cooperate is never gonna happen. But if Microsoft keeps trying, and they come out with XSN 2.0, I'm sure this could kick some butt.
Actually, come to think of it. XSN is really not necessary if the games themselves have this built in. But at least it was a push in the right direction.
Oh no- all of the people on my Xbox Live friends list will have to do without me. Maybe I should wear a heart-beat monitor for realsies so my Rainbow Six 3 clan knows when I kick the bucket.
"Dude...Noodle must just be taking a crap, he's been AFK for 3 rounds"
"No man, I just checked. He is REALLY dead. Too bad he's hosting this server, otherwise I'd just kick him right now."
"Hey- call his wife, and have her change this to a dedicated server...we could use this forever!"
What is a 'jumble sale'?
Anything like grumble cakes? I gotta get my hands on those.
A lot of people assume that Microsoft is a bunch of idiots for dropping Psychonauts.
Hell, we the public have seen screenshots and know the premise of the game. What the hell do those morons at Microsoft know about it that we haven't been able to surmise from a few previews on gaming sites?
Well- I'm sure they've see everything the game has to offer at this point. And possibly, the game just isn't what they want to sell. Maybe it isn't good enough. Maybe the concept just didn't work as well as it should have.
I'd rather they drop a game, than decide to just send it out there, and market the crap out of it before we find out that it is garbage.
Getting new games out for the current console can change the public opinon from "the Xbox was a horrible console" to "Hey- it wasn't real popular, but it had some good games".
This could affect the next generation greatly.
Well, let's not forget about Ubisoft.
And DICE..
So you're not married yet. My guess is that after a few years of marriage, numbing your mind with the Xbox won't seem like such a bad thing. Really- some guys drink to ease the pain. If all you are doing is playing games, I don't think that is too bad.
Xbox Live is just sweet.
I've never had a problem with it.
Yesterday I bought Rainbow Six 3. Threw the disk in the Xbox- downloaded all of the new levels (like 7 of them) and started playing.
One guy who I had played earlier, using the demo version, sent me a friend invite- and we were playing against each other on-line in about a minute.
After that, I used Optimatch and got into a couple of good games. It was easy- and there were no fricking cheaters.
That's a good point. Because current WE need to GO TO the computer. Soon, the computer will just be where we need it.
Tablet computers are an example of this. A small tablet, that is hooked wirelessly to your network can be used for e-mail, etc. Of course the tablet will get smaller and smaller, and soon not recognizable as a 'computer'. It will be similar to a piece of paper.
Now, most people connect their MP3 type player to their computer, and download the music. Eventually, your MP3 player will once again, connect wirelessly, and just download everything- because storage won't be an issue. Of course it will be smaller, and barely noticable. But once again, you won't need to go to your computer.
Currently you can buy things on-line on your computer. But wouldn't that be better from your TV? Just yesterday there was an article the next Xbox having more computer functionality. With HDTV quality screens, I would rather make my purchases from my couch, not sitting at my desk. Why go to the computer, when the rest of my house is more comfortable?
Sitting in my 'office' at home isn't fun- it's not where I want to spend my time. I'd rather be out with everyone else. We've been tied to the keyboard long enough, and I think we'll start moving away.
Yes- I really would like a web-enabled refrigerator...It would be nice to walk into the kitchen, and get my news/e-mail while standing there drinking out of the orange juice container.
When display devices get advanced enough that they can simply be 'printed' then we can have them everywhere. This will be the biggest step forward.
Your TV is actually a great display device- because it streams in a lot of different information. But it is too big, bulky, expensive and ugly to have everywhere. But when I can place a display in the wall of my bathroom, I can use it while I take a crap. It won't be the luxury device of a Texas oilman anymore- it will show up in everyday life.
No...
BC is an Xbox exclusive.
I've been in the computer industry for 20 years. And I would LOVE to use what you just described.
That is what the holy grail of consumer computing has always been. Make it easy, and make sure it doesn't break.
We've made inroads on the 'easy' part, and then it breaks. We keep adding features, but then it isn't easy. Windows can support a gazillion hardware combinations, but then it isn't easy, and it breaks.
I really don't need to upgrade constantly, I'd be thrilled to just have the thing work every time I turn it on.
I'm just tired of dicking with computers- I want them to finally make my life easier..not harder.
The biggest problem with WebTV, was it came out before HDTV was gaining popularity.
The screen simply looked like crap.
Browsers hadn't been 'standardized' yet, and the layout looked like crap.
The 'column' of text on the screen was too narrow- and looked like crap.
My HDTV has a much higher resolution than my monitor (at either progressive, or interlaced). My HDTV is bigger, and has a far better sound system.
WebTV was an idea without the hardware to back it up. With HDTV, I would have no problem surfing the web on TV...