Re:So, my original point still stands... Uhm, no.
on
Ion Storm Reorganizes
·
· Score: 2
> I challenge you to identify a single FPS made in the last three years that has been hugely successful (financially - I don't really care whether you liked it or not) without multi-player capability.
Thief (it's successful enough that they are doing the 3rd version:) and Max Payne (which just went gold. It has enough "cool" elements that it will be BIG.)
> But when it comes to running around with a first-person viewpoint and shooting the crap out of people -- AI sucks.
I wholeheartly agree. The "ultimate" AI is/are people. CTF bots are probably the best examples of this. "Simple" rules for CTF, but bots suck @$$.
> That's why I was so disappointed that it took them a freakin' year to add multi-player support. That indicated to me that they hadn't even thought multi-player through until after the game was released...
If you read the post-mortum article in Game Developers (online at Gamasutra ), it says: "We wanted to provide multiplayer support but didn't have the time to do the job we knew we needed to do, and so it got cut."
If you knew Warren Spector, he's a bit of "perfectionist." He's not one to just "add X into the game" if he feels it's not working. Multiplayer is NOT something you jsut "drop" into a game. Gameplay must be designed / changed to accomodate it. Witness all the "balancing" Unreal went through on it's transition to UT. Same with Q3 & Q3A. Secondly, shipping a game ON SCHEDULE is more important then "wish-list features".
As a game developer, I can tell you, that when a game is designed, multiplayer is not just some checklist on the list of feature, but usually thought more in terms "does multiplayer even 'work' in the confines of the game rules. e.g. Does the meta-game support multiplayer?" (Usually the publisher is the one thinking: add multiplayer so we can get more $ale$ )
> and in this day and age, that (in my mind) is unconscionable.
Obviously multiplayer support is important to a LOT of players (FPS crowd), but you have to stop jumping to the conclusion that "FPS w/o multiplayer = sucks & won't sell." (We have Deus Ex and Thief as examples)
Let me expand what I mean.
There are elements of a single-player game that just CAN'T be experienced multiplayer.
For one thing, in a single player game, the control of time. i.e. Something as basic as savegames, and pausing.
Also in single player games, the game designer has better control of the plot/story, and can immerse the player in it, MUCH better then any multiplayer version.
e.g. *You* can be the hero. Having N "heros" running around, is a b!tch to design and give everyong a rewarding experience. This is currently one of the "unsolved" problems of massive gaming.
Deus Ex is partly an RPG. Multiplayer isn't a "perfect" fit like the Deathmatch-only designed games (Q3/UT) and hence it doesn't "loose" much w/o multiplayer.
I mentioned Max Payne at the top, and the developers are basically saying the same thing.
e.g. The Max Payne interview
I think you need to look at ALL the evidence: Where have games been, what is being made, what "problems" do FPS still have, etc, and you'll come to the conclusion:
> Do you know what an FPS is? Obviously you don't play them...
LOL - When you assume, you make an ASS out of you and me.
I've been playing shooters for the past FIVE years. Doom / Quake / Half-Life / UT / Serious Sam. I *think* I know what a shooter is.
> Deus Ex is not a SIM...it's a FPS with role-playing elements much like
Excuse the french, but "no SHIT sherlock."
That is precisely why it is a such a good game: Warren Spector has taken 2 genres (FPS and RPG) and combined them in a novel way. (Aside: Majesty did the same with the SIM & RTS genres. I'd like to see more cross-genre pollination in games:)
Obviously let me spell the point out for you, since you missed it: "MULTIPLAYER is NOT a requirement for games to achieve X". Where X can be a) Sales, b) Fun.
Yes, most of the examples I provided were not FPSs. I *did* mention Thief, which is a shooter so I'm not sure why you're assuming why I don't have a clue about shooters.
You're point about shooters that don't have multiplayer support are "doomed", is noted however, and I agree. It is *very* risky* to sell a game without multiplayer support these days. (i.e. potentially cutting out a BIG section of the market.)
*Risky but not stupid. If you look at the sales numbers for Age of Empires 2, and Mech Warrior 4, compared to how many people are playing them online, you find a FAR greater number of people playing them SINGLE PLAYER.
(Sorry for the flame, but I hate people that know jack-shit about me, and then claim I know nothing in a topic just because I was quiet.)
> Who needs 15 buttons on a joy stick or a WHOLE keyboard (mech warrior 4) to play a damn game!
Get a Logitech Wingman Extreme Digital 3D joystick - only 8 buttons -- all you need for multiplayer;-)
> Oh well. I'll just pull out my Apple ][ I guess.
Hear, Hear !
My favorite Apple ][ games (Using * to designate ones that I still love playing)
* Rescue Raiders (Armor Alley on the PC sucked)
* Aquatron
* Wings of Fury
* Gemstone Warrior
- Goonies
* Lode Runner (& Championship LR)
- Ultima Series (1 - 5)
- Lady Tut
- Karetaka (Had just as much fun ripping the music hehe)
- Bruce Lee
Thx god for ApplePC ! (It even has mockingboard support!)
>> I guess this is a good indication of the status of the gaming industry, and how risky it is.
> This is a troll, right?
Why are you wrongly accusing the parent of being a troll?!
The gaming industry has ALLWAYS been a risky industry. Don't take my word, but ask other game developers. They will tell you the same thing:
If a "sequel"/clone doesn't offer enough new features people won't buy it. If it diverges too far with new ground, it also won't sell well.
i.e.
- Look at the shooters. Same old game ( & still lots of fun!) but it is STILL the same old "game"
- Look at hack-n-slashers. Diablo 2 and EQ offer nothing "new" -- they are both the standard hack-n-slashers. (Lots of fun multiplayer, but REPETITIVE/same-old gameplay)
The game industry is partly about marketing. There is a reason why Diablo 2 has sold over a million copies. Blizzard was hyping their game for a FULL year before Diablo 2 was out. If a game developer can't afford marketing, then they will have a MUCH harder time "making it big" (Exceptions being a developer with a proven track record and everyone buys their stuff regardless *cough Quake 3 cough*;-) (Yes I love Q3, but taking a break from TeamPlay for a while)
> It had no multi-player support for about a year
Talk about deadly combinations!
Neither do The Sims, Roller Coaster Tycoon, and Simcity 3K. All sold REALLY well. So much for no multiplayer being a deadly "un-feature"
> If it has no multi-player capability, then it's gotta' have a longer, more difficult storyline that takes weeks of gameplay to finish (Thief at least did the latter).
Not true. Sim's typically don't have ANY storyline at all. Don't be so quick to lamblast a game just because it has no multiplayer. Sometimes it DOES NOT make much sense for the game - in this case the Sim genre.
> Wouldn't it be funny if the government decided to copyright every law it passed, and then didn't allow anyone to publish them?
Canada already partially does this with their tax law! The government (Revenue Canada) *REFUSES* to officially publish the Tax Act (their excuse is that it is constantly changing and would be out of date)
< rant on stupid government laws >
Hello McFly, how about ONE RULE: a FLAT 5% tax ON EVERY Goods and Service. Nah, that would be EASY to follow now!
</rant >
i.e.
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/about/faq-e.html#taxa ct
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/note.html
Fortunately there is no law that requires a person to have a SIN (Social Insecurity Number)
~~
A government is as corrupt as the number of laws it has.
The only real problem is that the case is going to drag on and on (much like IBM) so any "correctional damage" (aka Justice) might not be effective if everyone could just agree to what the sentence should be.
Hardcover books are designed differently...
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 2
> Besides been too expensive, hardcovers are just harder to read.
I don't have a problem paying for the better binding and cover. That's why you will notice a lot of reference/science / math books are hardcover. They are not meant for "general reading" but more for "general lookup."
I have too many times "cracked" the spine of cheap paperbacks, and the pages have become dog-eared from carrying them around so much.
I'm certainly thankfull that my graphics and math books are all hardcover.
> with a hardcover, forget laying in bed or in a hammock and reading.
Compared to what?! Are the engineers running Linux w/KDE/GNOME, BeOS, or some other variant of Unix?
If you're forced to run a Windows OS, Win2K is the best version of windows M$ has put out to date (which isn't saying a lot, since it's easy to beat the crap they put out before.) It's relatively stable, and you can play all the latest games on it. (I haven't blue screened it in months.)
As a game developer, all my coworkers will take Win2K over win99 (aka win98se) anyday. (Now if only VC++ 6 wouldn't hog the system when it's linking...)
> Squeak's VM is written completely in Squeak for one thing,
From the website:
Squeak is an open, highly-portable Smalltalk-80 implementation whose virtual machine is written entirely in Smalltalk, making it easy to debug, analyze, and change. To
achieve practical performance, a translator produces an equivalent C program whose performance is comparable to commercial Smalltalks.
By having the VM written in the same language as the VM, you just lost a lot of performance.
There is a reason that Java's VM isn't written in Java (It's written in C)
> I don't know about America, but in the UK the money is not ours, but lent to us while still being property of the Bank of England (and the Queen).
The American government doesn't own the money either. It is lent to them by the Federal Reserve Board. (e.g. On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest)
Canada is just as corrupt with the "Bank of Canada" (e.g . The Bank was founded in 1934 as a privately owned corporation.)
> Please explain which things in nature or human design are not the expression of, or at least expressable in, mathematical formulas.
Art. Ok, so maybe ALL art can be expressed as a formula. I'm suprised somone hasn't started patenting their art yet.:)
> To exempt anything from a patent because it essentially involves an algorithm may be to exempt all things from patents.
An ideal goal that I support, but I don't think that's feasible at this time. The *root* of the question is, how do we make a "fair" compromise.
One of the main problems I have with the whole idea of "intellectal property" is that it effectively says you need permission to think.
e.g. I thought of this (idea) first. You can't use this idea, even if you come up with it yourself, and it doesn't matter if you never have seen my idea.
Ownership over meta-physical objects is absurd. You didn't create them, you can't destory them, so what gives you the "right" to own them?
Does that mean I believe people are free to trade digital copies of books, music, etc? No, because the artist doesn't (usually) want his stuff freely traded away.
> If no one else thought of it before, then why shouldn't the inventor get a short monopoly to take advantage of it.
I agree, granting people a time-limited-monopoly to create and use their implemtnation is an acceptable compromise. i.e. They get a chance to make money on it. But after X number of years the device should become public knowledge for the betterment of society. Or at least that was the orginal *intent* with copyright, since it is not a "natural right", but a government created one.
People will argue over exactly how long "short" X means, but I'm of the opinion that 5 to 10 years (MAX) for patents and copyright is long enough. (Unlike the current perversion of 75+ years for copyright.)
> In the physical world, there's lots of simple ideas that people come up with that are relatively trivial to implement but now one thought of before,
The physical world is no different then the software world. You have 2 parts: a) an idea, b) an implementation.
The main reason I am against software patents is because it effectively says "you need permission to think."
I should be able to use *any* algorithm that I come up with on my own, irregardless if someone else has already patentend. I don't need their permission to come up with (good) ideas, and they don't "own" my ideas.
I don't have a problem with people trying to make money off their formulas (i.e. drug research find different chemical formulas) But stopping someone else because they came to the same conclusion as you, is draconian.
> But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product?
*NO* algorithm should be able to be patented. Else you start down the slipperly slope "Well this one algo is slightly complicated, so it should be patented as well." Where do you draw the line for "complex" algorithms. A algo may complex to the layman, but not to someone versed in the field.
Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
Why can't the hardware and bios just use a 64-bit sector number. There, problem solved, and no more stupid limititions because someone is trying to save a buck or two since they only used a 12-bit address, er, now 16, er, now 28-bit address.
Slashdot Mirror
> I challenge you to identify a single FPS made in the last three years that has been hugely successful (financially - I don't really care whether you liked it or not) without multi-player capability.
:) and Max Payne (which just went gold. It has enough "cool" elements that it will be BIG.)
Thief (it's successful enough that they are doing the 3rd version
> But when it comes to running around with a first-person viewpoint and shooting the crap out of people -- AI sucks.
I wholeheartly agree. The "ultimate" AI is/are people. CTF bots are probably the best examples of this. "Simple" rules for CTF, but bots suck @$$.
> That's why I was so disappointed that it took them a freakin' year to add multi-player support. That indicated to me that they hadn't even thought multi-player through until after the game was released...
If you read the post-mortum article in Game Developers (online at Gamasutra ), it says: "We wanted to provide multiplayer support but didn't have the time to do the job we knew we needed to do, and so it got cut."
If you knew Warren Spector, he's a bit of "perfectionist." He's not one to just "add X into the game" if he feels it's not working. Multiplayer is NOT something you jsut "drop" into a game. Gameplay must be designed / changed to accomodate it. Witness all the "balancing" Unreal went through on it's transition to UT. Same with Q3 & Q3A. Secondly, shipping a game ON SCHEDULE is more important then "wish-list features".
As a game developer, I can tell you, that when a game is designed, multiplayer is not just some checklist on the list of feature, but usually thought more in terms "does multiplayer even 'work' in the confines of the game rules. e.g. Does the meta-game support multiplayer?" (Usually the publisher is the one thinking: add multiplayer so we can get more $ale$ )
> and in this day and age, that (in my mind) is unconscionable.
Obviously multiplayer support is important to a LOT of players (FPS crowd), but you have to stop jumping to the conclusion that "FPS w/o multiplayer = sucks & won't sell." (We have Deus Ex and Thief as examples)
Let me expand what I mean.
There are elements of a single-player game that just CAN'T be experienced multiplayer.
For one thing, in a single player game, the control of time. i.e. Something as basic as savegames, and pausing.
Also in single player games, the game designer has better control of the plot/story, and can immerse the player in it, MUCH better then any multiplayer version.
e.g. *You* can be the hero. Having N "heros" running around, is a b!tch to design and give everyong a rewarding experience. This is currently one of the "unsolved" problems of massive gaming.
Deus Ex is partly an RPG. Multiplayer isn't a "perfect" fit like the Deathmatch-only designed games (Q3/UT) and hence it doesn't "loose" much w/o multiplayer.
I mentioned Max Payne at the top, and the developers are basically saying the same thing.
e.g. The Max Payne interview
I think you need to look at ALL the evidence: Where have games been, what is being made, what "problems" do FPS still have, etc, and you'll come to the conclusion:
Single-player FPS's are NOT dead.
Cheers
> Do you know what an FPS is? Obviously you don't play them...
:)
LOL - When you assume, you make an ASS out of you and me.
I've been playing shooters for the past FIVE years. Doom / Quake / Half-Life / UT / Serious Sam. I *think* I know what a shooter is.
> Deus Ex is not a SIM...it's a FPS with role-playing elements much like
Excuse the french, but "no SHIT sherlock."
That is precisely why it is a such a good game: Warren Spector has taken 2 genres (FPS and RPG) and combined them in a novel way. (Aside: Majesty did the same with the SIM & RTS genres. I'd like to see more cross-genre pollination in games
Obviously let me spell the point out for you, since you missed it: "MULTIPLAYER is NOT a requirement for games to achieve X". Where X can be a) Sales, b) Fun.
Yes, most of the examples I provided were not FPSs. I *did* mention Thief, which is a shooter so I'm not sure why you're assuming why I don't have a clue about shooters.
You're point about shooters that don't have multiplayer support are "doomed", is noted however, and I agree. It is *very* risky* to sell a game without multiplayer support these days. (i.e. potentially cutting out a BIG section of the market.)
*Risky but not stupid. If you look at the sales numbers for Age of Empires 2, and Mech Warrior 4, compared to how many people are playing them online, you find a FAR greater number of people playing them SINGLE PLAYER.
(Sorry for the flame, but I hate people that know jack-shit about me, and then claim I know nothing in a topic just because I was quiet.)
> Who needs 15 buttons on a joy stick or a WHOLE keyboard (mech warrior 4) to play a damn game! ;-)
Get a Logitech Wingman Extreme Digital 3D joystick - only 8 buttons -- all you need for multiplayer
> Oh well. I'll just pull out my Apple ][ I guess.
Hear, Hear !
My favorite Apple ][ games (Using * to designate ones that I still love playing)
* Rescue Raiders (Armor Alley on the PC sucked)
* Aquatron
* Wings of Fury
* Gemstone Warrior
- Goonies
* Lode Runner (& Championship LR)
- Ultima Series (1 - 5)
- Lady Tut
- Karetaka (Had just as much fun ripping the music hehe)
- Bruce Lee
Thx god for ApplePC ! (It even has mockingboard support!)
P.S.
Feel free to add your own to the list !
>> I guess this is a good indication of the status of the gaming industry, and how risky it is.
;-) (Yes I love Q3, but taking a break from TeamPlay for a while)
> This is a troll, right?
Why are you wrongly accusing the parent of being a troll?!
The gaming industry has ALLWAYS been a risky industry. Don't take my word, but ask other game developers. They will tell you the same thing:
If a "sequel"/clone doesn't offer enough new features people won't buy it. If it diverges too far with new ground, it also won't sell well.
i.e.
- Look at the shooters. Same old game ( & still lots of fun!) but it is STILL the same old "game"
- Look at hack-n-slashers. Diablo 2 and EQ offer nothing "new" -- they are both the standard hack-n-slashers. (Lots of fun multiplayer, but REPETITIVE/same-old gameplay)
The game industry is partly about marketing. There is a reason why Diablo 2 has sold over a million copies. Blizzard was hyping their game for a FULL year before Diablo 2 was out. If a game developer can't afford marketing, then they will have a MUCH harder time "making it big" (Exceptions being a developer with a proven track record and everyone buys their stuff regardless *cough Quake 3 cough*
Cheers
> It had no multi-player support for about a year
Talk about deadly combinations!
Neither do The Sims, Roller Coaster Tycoon, and Simcity 3K. All sold REALLY well. So much for no multiplayer being a deadly "un-feature"
> If it has no multi-player capability, then it's gotta' have a longer, more difficult storyline that takes weeks of gameplay to finish (Thief at least did the latter).
Not true. Sim's typically don't have ANY storyline at all. Don't be so quick to lamblast a game just because it has no multiplayer. Sometimes it DOES NOT make much sense for the game - in this case the Sim genre.
Cheers
> Most of the documentation avaliable for linux is useless to them because they don't understand the terminology involved.
That, and NO FRICKEN examples.
i.e.
- man for
- How do I change my timezone?
- etc.
Not that Window$ software is much better, but 4NT sure has a nice help system.
> I can see how all the canadian /.'ers out there would be offended by such a laim attemp at humer
Speak for yourself. Most Canadians couldn't give a shit BECAUSE the American/Canadian humor is more like friendly siblings teasing one another.
> but it *is* on the Dept. of Justice Canada's web site
They don't *make* the laws, they just enforce them.
Sorry, but not good enough.
> Wouldn't it be funny if the government decided to copyright every law it passed, and then didn't allow anyone to publish them?
/rant >
a ct
Canada already partially does this with their tax law! The government (Revenue Canada) *REFUSES* to officially publish the Tax Act (their excuse is that it is constantly changing and would be out of date)
< rant on stupid government laws >
Hello McFly, how about ONE RULE: a FLAT 5% tax ON EVERY Goods and Service. Nah, that would be EASY to follow now!
<
i.e.
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/about/faq-e.html#tax
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/note.html
Fortunately there is no law that requires a person to have a SIN (Social Insecurity Number)
~~
A government is as corrupt as the number of laws it has.
Guess I forgot the < rhetorial question > tag :)
How many states are still involved in the suit?
The only real problem is that the case is going to drag on and on (much like IBM) so any "correctional damage" (aka Justice) might not be effective if everyone could just agree to what the sentence should be.
> Besides been too expensive, hardcovers are just harder to read.
/science / math books are hardcover. They are not meant for "general reading" but more for "general lookup."
I don't have a problem paying for the better binding and cover. That's why you will notice a lot of reference
I have too many times "cracked" the spine of cheap paperbacks, and the pages have become dog-eared from carrying them around so much.
I'm certainly thankfull that my graphics and math books are all hardcover.
> with a hardcover, forget laying in bed or in a hammock and reading.
I agree. Softcovers have that "comfy" level.
> And when you don't like the laws, you don't break the laws.
Uhm, sorry no. Civil disobediance at an unjust law works faster then any "by the book" method.
I agree.
Another interesting tidbit: Business are required to list losses on their financial statements, but they never list Piracy as one. Go figure.
> The developers despise using NT/2k.
Compared to what?! Are the engineers running Linux w/KDE/GNOME, BeOS, or some other variant of Unix?
If you're forced to run a Windows OS, Win2K is the best version of windows M$ has put out to date (which isn't saying a lot, since it's easy to beat the crap they put out before.) It's relatively stable, and you can play all the latest games on it. (I haven't blue screened it in months.)
As a game developer, all my coworkers will take Win2K over win99 (aka win98se) anyday. (Now if only VC++ 6 wouldn't hog the system when it's linking...)
That was the command prompt of the old Apple, ][, ][+, etc, which I still use when playing games on the emulator
:)
And $p] when on a PC.
From the website:
By having the VM written in the same language as the VM, you just lost a lot of performance.
There is a reason that Java's VM isn't written in Java (It's written in C)
> I don't know about America, but in the UK the money is not ours, but lent to us while still being property of the Bank of England (and the Queen).
The American government doesn't own the money either. It is lent to them by the Federal Reserve Board. (e.g. On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest)
Canada is just as corrupt with the "Bank of Canada" (e.g . The Bank was founded in 1934 as a privately owned corporation.)
> Also take note that this is certainly the first "killer app" for Linux.
:)
Nah, that would of been Quake 1
> Please explain which things in nature or human design are not the expression of, or at least expressable in, mathematical formulas.
:)
Art. Ok, so maybe ALL art can be expressed as a formula. I'm suprised somone hasn't started patenting their art yet.
> To exempt anything from a patent because it essentially involves an algorithm may be to exempt all things from patents.
An ideal goal that I support, but I don't think that's feasible at this time. The *root* of the question is, how do we make a "fair" compromise.
One of the main problems I have with the whole idea of "intellectal property" is that it effectively says you need permission to think.
e.g. I thought of this (idea) first. You can't use this idea, even if you come up with it yourself, and it doesn't matter if you never have seen my idea.
Ownership over meta-physical objects is absurd. You didn't create them, you can't destory them, so what gives you the "right" to own them?
Does that mean I believe people are free to trade digital copies of books, music, etc? No, because the artist doesn't (usually) want his stuff freely traded away.
Cheers
> If no one else thought of it before, then why shouldn't the inventor get a short monopoly to take advantage of it.
I agree, granting people a time-limited-monopoly to create and use their implemtnation is an acceptable compromise. i.e. They get a chance to make money on it. But after X number of years the device should become public knowledge for the betterment of society. Or at least that was the orginal *intent* with copyright, since it is not a "natural right", but a government created one.
People will argue over exactly how long "short" X means, but I'm of the opinion that 5 to 10 years (MAX) for patents and copyright is long enough. (Unlike the current perversion of 75+ years for copyright.)
> In the physical world, there's lots of simple ideas that people come up with that are relatively trivial to implement but now one thought of before,
The physical world is no different then the software world. You have 2 parts: a) an idea, b) an implementation.
The main reason I am against software patents is because it effectively says "you need permission to think."
I should be able to use *any* algorithm that I come up with on my own, irregardless if someone else has already patentend. I don't need their permission to come up with (good) ideas, and they don't "own" my ideas.
I don't have a problem with people trying to make money off their formulas (i.e. drug research find different chemical formulas) But stopping someone else because they came to the same conclusion as you, is draconian.
Cheers
> But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product?
*NO* algorithm should be able to be patented. Else you start down the slipperly slope "Well this one algo is slightly complicated, so it should be patented as well." Where do you draw the line for "complex" algorithms. A algo may complex to the layman, but not to someone versed in the field.
Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
> Unfortunately, it really needs a lot of fans to move air around. I have nine fans in mine,
C ables/
Yeap, they got TONS of room. I have 3 fans inside mine.
Two words dude: rounded-cables !
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/Rounded%20
Why can't the hardware and bios just use a 64-bit sector number. There, problem solved, and no more stupid limititions because someone is trying to save a buck or two since they only used a 12-bit address, er, now 16, er, now 28-bit address.
ENOUGH already. Design it RIGHT the 1st time.
Is it just us game programmers using SSE2 or are other apps using it?
*gets a feeling of PPro all over again*