The new consoles and televisions could start making things a bit more confusing, however. Let's take StarCraft II as an example. I'd never even think of playing that on a console.
However, all new consoles have USB ports, so it solves the keyboard+mouse problem. HD televisions solve the minimum resolution requirement problem.
If they made Starcraft II for consoles, I'd rather buy those versions than a PC/Mac version, if only to have less headaches about configuration and minimum requirements vs graphics tweaking problems/slowdown. SC2 would be coded for a fixed hardware setup, not a multitude of CPU speeds, GPU features and RAM values.
You make good points, however the same arguments don't work if we replace Nintendo Wii with Nintendo DS. How are these people able to code good games on an even less powerful platform? Sure there is a few 2D games, but there's also a lot of 3D games on the DS, so I don't think that's the determining factor.
I also doubt that most people get the pleasure on working on games they like. Seeing what comes out of EA, I would even presume that very few people work on "good games" (whatever these people like).
And last, as a programmer myself, I think there is more challenge to work around the limitations of a system than to simply push it to its limits. I've seen popular games on the Xbox 360 and PS3, and seeing slowdowns makes me question wether the programmers even understand what gameplay is all about. I'd rather see a good-lucking game run at a constant 30 frames per second then an incredibly-looking game that keeps dropping to 15-20 fps half the time.
If anyone is working in the field, it's quite simple: Wii owners want to play games, not look at amazing interactive slideshows. Apply graphics to the game, don't try to apply a game to your graphics routines.
I bought it for the Zelda and Metroid series, not to mention the compatibility with the Gamecube. I'm hoping there will be at least a half-dozen games that will interest me during the lifetime of the console. Perhaps there already is, but I'm not really searching either, I don't have the time for that + playing the games in question, if any.
I didn't have a PS2 or Xbox, so I really don't care about the sequels and franchises on the PS3/Xbox 360.
All modern games (should) have a save feature, so it's not really a matter of how much time you have to play, just a question of how long it takes to complete a game.
Let's say you are correct about the number of Wiis being the same number as the total of PS3 and Xbox 360. It still shows that Nintendo knows what they're doing and how to price their hardware. Now, if only they could keep up with the production...
You'd have to show me numbers, but yes, there could be more PC/Mac gamers than console gamers. But I'm talking about gamers who buy Xbox 360 and/or PS3 simply because these consoles are powerful.
As for your "PC gaming isn't dead, consoles are just entering their golden age" comment, I'd guess you are probably pretty young. The power of gaming computers and consoles keep leaping each other at every console generation, this is nothing new.
Yes, as an older gamer I also wish there was more interesting games for it. However, I still haven't finished Metroid Prime 3 so any new game would simply gather dust until I finished MP3.
There's also the fact that a lot of companies dismissed the Wii at first, because it's a lot less powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm hoping this new "US Console Leader" will make them wake up and start making games for it.
It's not like they're obligated to use the Wii-mote/nunchuck for the games, they could make "classic controller required" games.
This, combined with the popularity of the Nintendo DS, should be proof enough that normal people want to play games, not brag about their system's capabilities.
I don't think it would be a "Mac Pro mini" if you go that route:
- same built-in GPU as the iMacs (ATI/nVidia). Mac Pro has a slot for the video card. - 4GB maximum RAM, the Mac Pro goes up to 32GB. - keep the same Core 2 Duo CPU. The Mac Pro has quad-core Xeon(s). - one 3.5" hard drive, the Mac Pro can have four.
Think "iMac specs" without the screen, not "smaller Mac Pro".
Why would it be sarcasm? A lot of people are simply asking for a more powerful Mac mini (better/real GPU, desktop 3.5" hard drive) so it would end up being a headless iMac, why not simply put the actual iMac motherboard in an external case?
I haven't see recent pictures of the iMac motherboard, but surely it's not the size of the LCD screen.
Who here would expect Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft to NOT do anything if a competitor suddenly started to sell compatible systems or even just emulators for their own systems?
Remember that Apple sells systems, not computers. This may be an alien concept to kids today, but at the beginning, all companies were selling computer+OS systems and they were all proprietary (Apple II, Mac, Atari ST, Amiga, CoCo2+OS9, C64+GeOS, etc).
Also, don't be two-faced about this: you don't like it when companies don't follow GPL and other similar licenses, but when it's Apple or Microsoft, why wouldn't they be allowed to do the same?
I hope there's one good thing to come out of this mess: Apple selling a headless, iMac-specs computer (i.e. ATI/nVidia GPU with a 3.5" desktop hard drive). Heck, why don't they just make a case for the actual iMac motherboard to lower R&D costs?
Slashdot Mirror
The new consoles and televisions could start making things a bit more confusing, however. Let's take StarCraft II as an example. I'd never even think of playing that on a console.
However, all new consoles have USB ports, so it solves the keyboard+mouse problem. HD televisions solve the minimum resolution requirement problem.
If they made Starcraft II for consoles, I'd rather buy those versions than a PC/Mac version, if only to have less headaches about configuration and minimum requirements vs graphics tweaking problems/slowdown. SC2 would be coded for a fixed hardware setup, not a multitude of CPU speeds, GPU features and RAM values.
You make good points, however the same arguments don't work if we replace Nintendo Wii with Nintendo DS. How are these people able to code good games on an even less powerful platform? Sure there is a few 2D games, but there's also a lot of 3D games on the DS, so I don't think that's the determining factor.
I also doubt that most people get the pleasure on working on games they like. Seeing what comes out of EA, I would even presume that very few people work on "good games" (whatever these people like).
And last, as a programmer myself, I think there is more challenge to work around the limitations of a system than to simply push it to its limits. I've seen popular games on the Xbox 360 and PS3, and seeing slowdowns makes me question wether the programmers even understand what gameplay is all about. I'd rather see a good-lucking game run at a constant 30 frames per second then an incredibly-looking game that keeps dropping to 15-20 fps half the time.
If anyone is working in the field, it's quite simple: Wii owners want to play games, not look at amazing interactive slideshows. Apply graphics to the game, don't try to apply a game to your graphics routines.
I bought it for the Zelda and Metroid series, not to mention the compatibility with the Gamecube. I'm hoping there will be at least a half-dozen games that will interest me during the lifetime of the console. Perhaps there already is, but I'm not really searching either, I don't have the time for that + playing the games in question, if any.
I didn't have a PS2 or Xbox, so I really don't care about the sequels and franchises on the PS3/Xbox 360.
All modern games (should) have a save feature, so it's not really a matter of how much time you have to play, just a question of how long it takes to complete a game.
Let's say you are correct about the number of Wiis being the same number as the total of PS3 and Xbox 360. It still shows that Nintendo knows what they're doing and how to price their hardware. Now, if only they could keep up with the production...
You'd have to show me numbers, but yes, there could be more PC/Mac gamers than console gamers. But I'm talking about gamers who buy Xbox 360 and/or PS3 simply because these consoles are powerful.
As for your "PC gaming isn't dead, consoles are just entering their golden age" comment, I'd guess you are probably pretty young. The power of gaming computers and consoles keep leaping each other at every console generation, this is nothing new.
Yes, as an older gamer I also wish there was more interesting games for it. However, I still haven't finished Metroid Prime 3 so any new game would simply gather dust until I finished MP3.
There's also the fact that a lot of companies dismissed the Wii at first, because it's a lot less powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm hoping this new "US Console Leader" will make them wake up and start making games for it.
It's not like they're obligated to use the Wii-mote/nunchuck for the games, they could make "classic controller required" games.
This, combined with the popularity of the Nintendo DS, should be proof enough that normal people want to play games, not brag about their system's capabilities.
How about "Flow Dab"?
Yeah but once viewed in a mirror it just becomes confusing:
"Dog eht fo eraweb".
Anyone else see similarities with Super Mario?!
Yes I knew that.
But shouldn't that be your 66.6 cents worth?
I don't think it would be a "Mac Pro mini" if you go that route:
- same built-in GPU as the iMacs (ATI/nVidia). Mac Pro has a slot for the video card.
- 4GB maximum RAM, the Mac Pro goes up to 32GB.
- keep the same Core 2 Duo CPU. The Mac Pro has quad-core Xeon(s).
- one 3.5" hard drive, the Mac Pro can have four.
Think "iMac specs" without the screen, not "smaller Mac Pro".
Wow, now they're playing cards and next they're playing Guitar Hero. Selling Unix licenses sure sounds fun!
Wasn't it $666?
We get sun rays too, you know.
Well, some of the time.
Well, at least half the time.
It's called "day time".
And the pilot will be called Bond... James Bond.
Will it become AIMSN?
It's going to be funny to watch, given Apple's association with AOL for AIM/iChat.
<Nelson>Ha-Ha!</Nelson>
Why would it be sarcasm? A lot of people are simply asking for a more powerful Mac mini (better/real GPU, desktop 3.5" hard drive) so it would end up being a headless iMac, why not simply put the actual iMac motherboard in an external case?
I haven't see recent pictures of the iMac motherboard, but surely it's not the size of the LCD screen.
Nintendo doesn't sell their consoles at a loss, they're not idiots.
From what I've read even the free creature editor comes with SecuROM, so yes, you should stay far away from it.
How about "PowerPC corrupts, x86 corrupts absolutely"?
Cool, it's gonna fit right in with my Panaphonic plasma TV and Somy PS3!
Who here would expect Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft to NOT do anything if a competitor suddenly started to sell compatible systems or even just emulators for their own systems?
Remember that Apple sells systems, not computers. This may be an alien concept to kids today, but at the beginning, all companies were selling computer+OS systems and they were all proprietary (Apple II, Mac, Atari ST, Amiga, CoCo2+OS9, C64+GeOS, etc).
Also, don't be two-faced about this: you don't like it when companies don't follow GPL and other similar licenses, but when it's Apple or Microsoft, why wouldn't they be allowed to do the same?
I hope there's one good thing to come out of this mess: Apple selling a headless, iMac-specs computer (i.e. ATI/nVidia GPU with a 3.5" desktop hard drive). Heck, why don't they just make a case for the actual iMac motherboard to lower R&D costs?
Unfortunately all we have in Canada is metric ethernet cable.
I read your title line as "Skycasters has speeds in which we can vommit data in".