Al Gore did the same thing in 2000 - then called Bush again to take back his concession. We'll see if Kerry takes a similar route. Although, it seems pretty obvious that Ohio isn't going to go for Kerry so the result isn't heavily in doubt, except in the minds of Kerry supporters who aren't good at math.
Corrected in future revisions of the hardware? Come on - why would someone buy the PSP with a statement like that? And what is Sony going to do for early adopters who purchase a PSP that drains radpily.
I'm all for people being honest BUT if you think you can correct the problem in later revisions of the hardware, why not make that later revision the first release and only bring to market a product that meets the specs?
"I'd say that if sales of the network adaptor are far beyond the number of online users, that would be a big sign that a lot of people are buying the adaptor just to get the hard drive capability."
Yeah, so? SCEA is fairly tight-lipped about how they've computed the user base. They make no mention of how sales of the network adapters correspond to their user base calculation. I'm glad that you have all this information in your head regarding how the network adapter can be used to plug a hard drive in but it's not relevant to what I was replying to.
Why would someone pay $40 for a piece of hardware and then not use it?
Your rationale is that because people pay for XBox Live, they're playing online. But people paid for network adapters so why doesn't the same argument work?
"For starters, you don't even have a very effective input device to set everything up. This alone makes the PS2 or Dreamcast or any other console out there a difficult machine to use on the net without needing a custom service."
I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's just more nonsense from someone who obviously can't admit that they're wrong. I said that the majority of PCs out there are less powerful than a PS2. You said that was untrue. I again said that the majority of PCs out there are less powerful than a PS2. You then said that gamers have more powerful machines than a PS2 in reply. Obviously, you don't respond to statements but instead like to shift arguments. Finally, a keyboard seems like a fine input device for setting up any online games.
The point is that if Rockstar is going to include multiplayer in GTA then it will be in the PS2 release. If it is not in the PS2 release, Rockstar is not going to have multiplayer in the PC release. I will not be reading any more comments from NanoGator.
"Yes I was talking about networked multiplayer, but you are wrong about two people sitting next to each other. Split screen == The suck. Even 1vs1 would be much better on the net."
Not all multiplayer experiences on the console have to be split screen. I can rattle off quite a few but my point was that I was assuming you were talking about network gaming rather than multiple people in the same room gaming because this very rarely happens with a PC, as compared to the entire history of console gaming. I was merely bringing it up because I wanted to confirm that you were indeed talking about networked gaming.
"This is ridiculously untrue. Go play Vice City on the PS2, then play it on a year old PC. HUGE difference on multiple levels."
Before you use such an obviously loaded phrase like "ridiculously untrue" you might want to understand what the main point was. I was not saying that GTA looks better on a PS2 [I don't know how you could have gotten that out of what I said] but rather, I was saying that, percentage wise, most PCs in operation right now are using outdated hardware. We all know that the manufacturers are handing out great PCs that blow the PS2 away for little money but the fact remains that there are people out there running Windows 95. The majority of PCs out there right now are less powerful than the PS2. What this means to a manufacturer is that the market to go after is the PS2 market, not the PC market.
"I agree that the PS2 would draw a bigger audience. However, few PS2 owners are on-line. Rockstar would have to put up a server and demand people pay them for it. Wouldn't work. No way. The ROI is exactly why they WOULDN'T make it work on the PS2. At least with the PC, people will set up their own servers and get it going just like Quake or UR."
Why would Rockstar have to put up a server? There's no reason that the PS2 owners cannot host their own games. Perhaps they would need a server up to play the role of matchmaker but beyond that, the world of GTA would not be Everquest-style [at least in your suggestion of it being in a similar style as Quake] and therefore, games could be hosted by the individual PS2. For instance, Madden 2004 games are hosted by the PS2 hardware that is also running the game. EA has servers that allow players to connect to each other but once they are connected, EA has no more responsibilities. Furthermore, there is no charge for this so I don't understand your assertion that Rockstar would have to charge money. There's no fundamental reason for the difference between PS2 online gaming and PC online gaming that you suggest. You know how people are hosting Unreal servers? Guess what - that's just software running on a PC. There's no reason why that same software could not be run on a PS2. Perhaps you should try thinking a little bit outside of the box - and not even that much, this is not a huge stretch [ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE EXAMPLES ON THE PS2 OF EXACTLY THIS!!!]
"I hope I've clarified. There's a reason why the PC is mopping the floor with consoles in the on-line arena.
The reason is that PC online gaming is a much more mature medium. The market has been in development for a lot longer than the Dreamcast made the first real serious push for console online gaming. There's no reason why console games cannot play just the same online as a PC counterpart. Honestly, don't be so closeminded.
What now? I don't see your reasoning for believing that the PS2 is not a good system to have a multiplayer option. Let's assume that we're all talking about networked multiplayer [because if we're talking about two people playing the game while sitting next to each other, the PC is the worst option]. While the PS2 hardware is beginning to show its age, most of the PCs out there today still have less powerful hardware than the PS2. If Rockstar wants to spend extra time and cash on adding multiplayer to GTA, it would make the most sense to add it to the version of GTA that is going to sell the most copies - the PC version of GTA is not the one. This is simple ROI here.
Did I miss something? Your argument was rather brief. A statement without any supporting details. Please expand on that.
I think you missed the point there pal. It was a joke in reference to the fact that when students head off to college, they spend quite a bit of time playing computer games and thus would be in line to earn a living as a professional gamer.
Next time you go off on a rant, make sure you understand the statement you're responding to.
Well, first off - you're completely and totally wrong. This is an EA venture but the results of the league are not based on games of Madden 2005 [yeah, 2005 - not 2004, as you said]. This is a standard fantasy football league based on real games which just happens to have the EA branding. How did you manage to read the summary and/or linked articles and conclude that games of Madden 2004 [last year's game no less!] were involved? Please reply, I am curious how you made that connection.
There are plenty of new phones that are plain. Maybe what you mean to say is that the particular provider you chose to shop with wasn't offering any deals for phones with the purchase of a contract.
You want a plain phone? Go to amazon.com. There's a huge selection of phones plenty of which do not have any features. What is your problem? You went to some kiosk in the mall and they had a limited selection? Guess what - kiosks are pretty small and they only keep in stock what phones move.
Furthermore, you are living in a free market economy. If only you and a few other knuckleheads want the plain jane phones, they're going to stop making them. You don't get to complain about it because no company is willing to make exactly what you want. Move to China and get a position in government where you can dictate exactly the phone everyone uses. And quit your whining you baby.
Why can't a "nerd" enjoy sports? Of all sports, I would think that football would appeal most naturally to the "nerd" in the wild due to the very strategic nature of the game. Furthermore, why did you bother posting at all?
Okay, you don't like sports. It's been noted. Obviously some people who read Slashdot do because articles about sports video games are read and commented on. I am sure you look down your nose at people who enjoy sports but guess what - I look down my nose at people who look down their nose.
You don't have the right idea. Here's how fantasy football works. All the players in the league, draft players to build their team roster. Then, once the season gets started [the real season that is, in real life] the players in the fantasy league decide which players they want to start and play on a given gameday. Stats from the actual games [again, the real life games] have point values. Say your running back runs for 100 yards, you get a certain number of points for this. But your quarterback throws two picks - you lose a certain number of points. You win the league by gaining the most points throughout the season.
Also, different fantasy leagues have different rules, different point values, et cetera but this should give you a basic overview of what's going on. EA's fantasy football operation is completely separate from any games of Madden 2005 online. And it's not really a MMO because the leagues are usually 8 teams or so, on average.
" You would do well to realize that gameplay and graphics are independent of each other."
That's the point I was making, idiot.
"I doubt that anyone would state that simply because a game has outmoded graphics, its gameplay must be excellent."
Again, you're an idiot. Try reading games.slashdot.org for any length of time and you'll see that this argument gets made quite frequently. Try reading what people are meaning rather than what they are simply saying. In conclusion, don't ever reply to anything I post again. You're obviously not intelligent enough to communicate with me you moron.
How much gameplay is there in many of those old DOS games though? I see this opinion that today's games look better but the gameplay is poor in comparison to the games of yesteryear bandied about on Slashdot quite a bit. Just because a game looks like crap, does not mean that it's got amazing gameplay. Likewise, just because a game looks good, the gameplay is not guaranteed to be garbage. Comparing say Commander Keen to Ratchet and Clank, I would say that the latter takes the prize in both the gameplay and graphics departments easily.
I found this PDF press release that mentions a Robert Kirkpatrick at All Digital Satellite. Perhaps you can contact those responsible for this site to clue you in as to how you can get in touch with Mr. Kirkpatrick. Here's a link to the actual PDF file at the Winegard company's website.
Games can also be enables of health problems. For instance, a person with OCD may thrive in a MMORPG where the best players are the ones who play the most and go on the most quests. Clicking repeatedly to kill monsters will appeal quite a bit to those with a disorder like that. I've also noticed that games such as The Sims can also enable people with mental health disorders to further their behavior. Rearranging furniture, building and rebuilding over and over, et cetera, all seem like activities someone with an OCD-type disorder would enjoy. Better than playing these games, people with these disorders should try to seek help for the problem rather than just moving it into a different medium than real life.
Of course, games, like most forms of entertainment, can be a great stress reliever. But all things in moderation.
Slashdot Mirror
Al Gore did the same thing in 2000 - then called Bush again to take back his concession. We'll see if Kerry takes a similar route. Although, it seems pretty obvious that Ohio isn't going to go for Kerry so the result isn't heavily in doubt, except in the minds of Kerry supporters who aren't good at math.
I'm all for people being honest BUT if you think you can correct the problem in later revisions of the hardware, why not make that later revision the first release and only bring to market a product that meets the specs?
Your rationale is that because people pay for XBox Live, they're playing online. But people paid for network adapters so why doesn't the same argument work?
Cute, very cute.
The point is that if Rockstar is going to include multiplayer in GTA then it will be in the PS2 release. If it is not in the PS2 release, Rockstar is not going to have multiplayer in the PC release. I will not be reading any more comments from NanoGator.
Did I miss something? Your argument was rather brief. A statement without any supporting details. Please expand on that.
Next time you go off on a rant, make sure you understand the statement you're responding to.
Well, first off - you're completely and totally wrong. This is an EA venture but the results of the league are not based on games of Madden 2005 [yeah, 2005 - not 2004, as you said]. This is a standard fantasy football league based on real games which just happens to have the EA branding. How did you manage to read the summary and/or linked articles and conclude that games of Madden 2004 [last year's game no less!] were involved? Please reply, I am curious how you made that connection.
You want a plain phone? Go to amazon.com. There's a huge selection of phones plenty of which do not have any features. What is your problem? You went to some kiosk in the mall and they had a limited selection? Guess what - kiosks are pretty small and they only keep in stock what phones move.
Furthermore, you are living in a free market economy. If only you and a few other knuckleheads want the plain jane phones, they're going to stop making them. You don't get to complain about it because no company is willing to make exactly what you want. Move to China and get a position in government where you can dictate exactly the phone everyone uses. And quit your whining you baby.
Okay, you don't like sports. It's been noted. Obviously some people who read Slashdot do because articles about sports video games are read and commented on. I am sure you look down your nose at people who enjoy sports but guess what - I look down my nose at people who look down their nose.
Also, different fantasy leagues have different rules, different point values, et cetera but this should give you a basic overview of what's going on. EA's fantasy football operation is completely separate from any games of Madden 2005 online. And it's not really a MMO because the leagues are usually 8 teams or so, on average.
How much gameplay is there in many of those old DOS games though? I see this opinion that today's games look better but the gameplay is poor in comparison to the games of yesteryear bandied about on Slashdot quite a bit. Just because a game looks like crap, does not mean that it's got amazing gameplay. Likewise, just because a game looks good, the gameplay is not guaranteed to be garbage. Comparing say Commander Keen to Ratchet and Clank, I would say that the latter takes the prize in both the gameplay and graphics departments easily.
I found this PDF press release that mentions a Robert Kirkpatrick at All Digital Satellite. Perhaps you can contact those responsible for this site to clue you in as to how you can get in touch with Mr. Kirkpatrick. Here's a link to the actual PDF file at the Winegard company's website.
Of course, games, like most forms of entertainment, can be a great stress reliever. But all things in moderation.