I really expected the first few titles to all be super-popular titles everyone has played. Then I saw Solomon's Key. Sometimes I've wondered if I'm the only person who has ever played that game. It isn't fantastic but it's very good. I'm glad it will have the chance to get a little more much-deserved exposure. And when I saw Mario Bros I was preparing to lambaste the article post on not differentiating between Mario Bros and Super Mario Bros but the article got it right. It IS Mario Bros. That is so cool. I've always been a fan of it and its derivatives (especially Mario Clash on the Virtual Boy).
It is a shame that they're almost certainly using the NES version of Donkey Kong without all the levels and that Super Mario World and Zelda Link to the Past aren't available at launch but I'm sure they won't be far behind.
Just playing Devil's Advocate (the pinall machine of course) but they do have those golf games that you hit into the screen and it tracks where your ball should've gone. They could probably do something similar here (though if I read this right that's not at all what they are planning in this case).
Leaning on the Playstation name? That'll be fine... at first. Even the almost unplayayble Atari 5200 did well off its name for a while. After that, it had to survive on its own merits and did poorly. I don't think the name alone will make the PS3 a success.
"Firstly, equating a $1000 watch to a $10 razor is... well it's about what I expect here, but it makes no sense at all."
It does very much make sense. I have a dollar figure I am willing to spend on a razor blade and the Mach 3 exceeds that. It doesn't matter by how much. A $10 blade or a $1000 blade would not make a difference. Too high is too high.
And for what it's worth disliking something is not the equivalent of considering it inferior. Much like the Rolex example you obviously don't think much of, I assume the Rolex is far superior to my Timex (even though it may or may not be) but that's largely irrelevant to why I won't buy a Rolex. Nobody from my original post down ever said the 3+ razor was inferior. That's something that only you have mentioned.
"But I say again, if you don't want to try it, I couldn't care less"
Then why reply the first time and then why reply again?
Why lose even a small amount of performance by running everything through a layer of virtualization? You not only negate any advantage of using Oracle's custom file system, but you also put a translator between Orace and the OS. Orace isn't something you use when you don't need to squeeze a heck of a lot of performance out fo a system. The more it talks to the metal, the better.
Why indeed? I have a razor that works and is cheaper. Have you tried a Rolex? It may be better than your current watch. You probably haven't because it costs an awful lot for a watch even if it is better than what you have. I don't know about the GP's reasoning but as the GGP I can tell you that I am against the idea of the 3+blade razor. That skit illustrates some of my concerns even though I'd almost certainly feel the same way if the skit never existed. 3 blade razors are probably and furthermore they're a sham we saw coming 20 years ago.
I'm pretty sure that was a Not Neccesarily the News "commercial." I've always been anti 3+ blade razors and when someone questions me about that stance I always point out that "commercial." I wonder if it's on YouTube anywhere?
By let it be, do you mean to suggest that Google should let it be or that any outside influences should let it be. As far as outside influences, I do agree. However, Google really should be doing something about this. If I'm searching for a political candidate via Google, it's because I'm searching for information on them. Info crafted by the opposing candidate or party that is heavily biased against the person being searched is not what I'd consider a relevant result.
The first time I saw the LCD ad system in a bar restroom, the LCD was broken and I didn't spot it right away. I did think the toilet was talking to me. I was horrified that we now lived in a world where businesses try to sell products via talking toilets. Fortunately, I saw the broken LCD setup and realized we don't have that sort of world... yet.
...even though it's not because the 360 has more exclusives. Isn't the Wii getting enough good press on its own merits that we don't have make excuses as to why it doesn't have as many exclusives in the pipeline?
"By your logic no game should ever be released, they should just keep "waiting a month" for it to keep getting better and better."
No, that's not what this is about at all. The point is that at launch everyone who is buying a console will also buy a game. (I realize that this doesn't happen 100% of the time but it happens far more often than not.) Why not release the game when your audience is almost guaranteed to buy a game instead of waiting until week 2 when those who have already bought a console in the first week may or may not buy another game yet? Instead of spendign a week polishing, it may be better to go ahead and push your game out the door as a launch title.
"'If Microsoft were doing this for altruistic reasons, it would be a first,' Greve said. 'I think they are probably trying to get more machines on the Windows platform, and they may also be trying to improve relations in Brussels.'"
So what? Do you think IBM is backing Linux out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they're trying to sell hardware. Likewise, Microsoft is trying to sell software and if they think this will lead to increased software sales, it's in their best interests to do it.
"So if you wanted to get a reveiw of cars, would you completely ignore any review by a site that only did a review of one of the cars you wanted?"
No, but automobile reviews contain actual measurable data more often than not. I can get actual metrics from one vehicle and compare it to the same metrics gathered elsewhere for another vehicle. I sure wouldn't go take one person's personal impressions of the car and put them up against one other person's personal impressions of another car, especially if one of the cars in question wasn't even the focal point of one of the reviews but merely a side commentary.
For the Slashdot editors to trot this crap out as some sort of legitimate comparison is deplorable.
But we're not looking at apples and oranges. They're both gaming controllers. They have an awful lot in common. A single review (or even two reviews that review the same metrics) would be a much better defense of the headline than the rather disjointed reviews they've used up here.
This post is grabbing one review for one piece of hardware and comaring it to a completely different review of another piece of hardware? That's just silly. Somebody let me know when there are some side-by-side comparisons of both controllers actually comparing the featuresets and performance of each.
When it comes to judges rendering legally binding opinions, no it's not. I tend to take everything a judge has to say very seriously as future decisions will be based not only on a judge's ruling but also his or her reasoning behind that ruling.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should've been. I completely understand and agree with the logic of your statement. However, your specific argument isn't what I'm concerned with. I'm far more concerned with the premise itself. That (AA is even mentioned bothers me because there should IMHO be no implication relationship involving A and B. My main point (though I may have originally botched it) is that if (AA even exists then there must be a C at which (A>=C)->!A or else the judge wouldn't have even brought it up. And in my opinion there should be no C.
"I have enough spares of all my PC parts lying around to build an entire spare computer or two,"
While I do think they should've been thinking more about keeping enough spares handy, they can't exactly afford to propel an entire second space station into orbit. If you think $10 is expensive for shipping computer parts, imagine the bill for shipping into space.
"It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world."
I'm not so sure. Such an argument seems to imply that if the violence were worse than what you'd see on TV, there would be some grounds to have this game forcibly prevented from sales. So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
I really expected the first few titles to all be super-popular titles everyone has played. Then I saw Solomon's Key. Sometimes I've wondered if I'm the only person who has ever played that game. It isn't fantastic but it's very good. I'm glad it will have the chance to get a little more much-deserved exposure. And when I saw Mario Bros I was preparing to lambaste the article post on not differentiating between Mario Bros and Super Mario Bros but the article got it right. It IS Mario Bros. That is so cool. I've always been a fan of it and its derivatives (especially Mario Clash on the Virtual Boy).
It is a shame that they're almost certainly using the NES version of Donkey Kong without all the levels and that Super Mario World and Zelda Link to the Past aren't available at launch but I'm sure they won't be far behind.
I also hear they don't have a Quarter Pounder over there.
Just playing Devil's Advocate (the pinall machine of course) but they do have those golf games that you hit into the screen and it tracks where your ball should've gone. They could probably do something similar here (though if I read this right that's not at all what they are planning in this case).
Leaning on the Playstation name? That'll be fine... at first. Even the almost unplayayble Atari 5200 did well off its name for a while. After that, it had to survive on its own merits and did poorly. I don't think the name alone will make the PS3 a success.
"Firstly, equating a $1000 watch to a $10 razor is... well it's about what I expect here, but it makes no sense at all."
It does very much make sense. I have a dollar figure I am willing to spend on a razor blade and the Mach 3 exceeds that. It doesn't matter by how much. A $10 blade or a $1000 blade would not make a difference. Too high is too high.
And for what it's worth disliking something is not the equivalent of considering it inferior. Much like the Rolex example you obviously don't think much of, I assume the Rolex is far superior to my Timex (even though it may or may not be) but that's largely irrelevant to why I won't buy a Rolex. Nobody from my original post down ever said the 3+ razor was inferior. That's something that only you have mentioned.
"But I say again, if you don't want to try it, I couldn't care less"
Then why reply the first time and then why reply again?
Why lose even a small amount of performance by running everything through a layer of virtualization? You not only negate any advantage of using Oracle's custom file system, but you also put a translator between Orace and the OS. Orace isn't something you use when you don't need to squeeze a heck of a lot of performance out fo a system. The more it talks to the metal, the better.
Why indeed? I have a razor that works and is cheaper. Have you tried a Rolex? It may be better than your current watch. You probably haven't because it costs an awful lot for a watch even if it is better than what you have. I don't know about the GP's reasoning but as the GGP I can tell you that I am against the idea of the 3+blade razor. That skit illustrates some of my concerns even though I'd almost certainly feel the same way if the skit never existed. 3 blade razors are probably and furthermore they're a sham we saw coming 20 years ago.
Looks like I was wrong. In a reply mentioned above, it was SNL.
I'm pretty sure that was a Not Neccesarily the News "commercial." I've always been anti 3+ blade razors and when someone questions me about that stance I always point out that "commercial." I wonder if it's on YouTube anywhere?
By let it be, do you mean to suggest that Google should let it be or that any outside influences should let it be. As far as outside influences, I do agree. However, Google really should be doing something about this. If I'm searching for a political candidate via Google, it's because I'm searching for information on them. Info crafted by the opposing candidate or party that is heavily biased against the person being searched is not what I'd consider a relevant result.
So is that the picture of you or the picture of Tom Cruise? I can't tell.
The first time I saw the LCD ad system in a bar restroom, the LCD was broken and I didn't spot it right away. I did think the toilet was talking to me. I was horrified that we now lived in a world where businesses try to sell products via talking toilets. Fortunately, I saw the broken LCD setup and realized we don't have that sort of world... yet.
Seanbaby has his moments. I for one liked his review of the NES game Taboo.
...even though it's not because the 360 has more exclusives. Isn't the Wii getting enough good press on its own merits that we don't have make excuses as to why it doesn't have as many exclusives in the pipeline?
"By your logic no game should ever be released, they should just keep "waiting a month" for it to keep getting better and better."
No, that's not what this is about at all. The point is that at launch everyone who is buying a console will also buy a game. (I realize that this doesn't happen 100% of the time but it happens far more often than not.) Why not release the game when your audience is almost guaranteed to buy a game instead of waiting until week 2 when those who have already bought a console in the first week may or may not buy another game yet? Instead of spendign a week polishing, it may be better to go ahead and push your game out the door as a launch title.
"'If Microsoft were doing this for altruistic reasons, it would be a first,' Greve said. 'I think they are probably trying to get more machines on the Windows platform, and they may also be trying to improve relations in Brussels.'" So what? Do you think IBM is backing Linux out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they're trying to sell hardware. Likewise, Microsoft is trying to sell software and if they think this will lead to increased software sales, it's in their best interests to do it.
It didn't work for Pee Wee's bike. Why would it work for this? Francis will get that DVD anyways if he really wants it.
"So if you wanted to get a reveiw of cars, would you completely ignore any review by a site that only did a review of one of the cars you wanted?"
No, but automobile reviews contain actual measurable data more often than not. I can get actual metrics from one vehicle and compare it to the same metrics gathered elsewhere for another vehicle. I sure wouldn't go take one person's personal impressions of the car and put them up against one other person's personal impressions of another car, especially if one of the cars in question wasn't even the focal point of one of the reviews but merely a side commentary.
For the Slashdot editors to trot this crap out as some sort of legitimate comparison is deplorable.
But we're not looking at apples and oranges. They're both gaming controllers. They have an awful lot in common. A single review (or even two reviews that review the same metrics) would be a much better defense of the headline than the rather disjointed reviews they've used up here.
This post is grabbing one review for one piece of hardware and comaring it to a completely different review of another piece of hardware? That's just silly. Somebody let me know when there are some side-by-side comparisons of both controllers actually comparing the featuresets and performance of each.
"It seems that sarcasm isn't your strong point."
When it comes to judges rendering legally binding opinions, no it's not. I tend to take everything a judge has to say very seriously as future decisions will be based not only on a judge's ruling but also his or her reasoning behind that ruling.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should've been. I completely understand and agree with the logic of your statement. However, your specific argument isn't what I'm concerned with. I'm far more concerned with the premise itself. That (AA is even mentioned bothers me because there should IMHO be no implication relationship involving A and B. My main point (though I may have originally botched it) is that if (AA even exists then there must be a C at which (A>=C)->!A or else the judge wouldn't have even brought it up. And in my opinion there should be no C.
That would severly weaken that point in your argument. If we used to pay for cable but now don't, why would we pay for radio now?
"I have enough spares of all my PC parts lying around to build an entire spare computer or two,"
While I do think they should've been thinking more about keeping enough spares handy, they can't exactly afford to propel an entire second space station into orbit. If you think $10 is expensive for shipping computer parts, imagine the bill for shipping into space.
"It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world."
I'm not so sure. Such an argument seems to imply that if the violence were worse than what you'd see on TV, there would be some grounds to have this game forcibly prevented from sales. So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.