They use different cores. The PS3 has one PPC core and 7 "SPUs" (vector processors) that are very specialized, the 360 uses 3 PPC cores. The power drain of the cores is most likely different as well.
The tariff difference between computers and consoles was abolished before the PS3 came out AFAIK. At the time they had the PS2 examined that was mostly to get the pre-abolition taxes back. Either way, the PS3 still locks parts of the hardware when running another OS so it's not really open.
They can cry about being the only big fish in that pond as long as they want, a broken product is a broken product no matter how rare products in that market are (though I'm getting the impression that the number of console games with PC versions is increasing a lot or maybe it's just PC games becoming console games and native console gaming dying out...).
Why exactly do companies join this Games for Windows crap anyway, is there something in it for them? There's no platform royalties that could go down, there's no gatekeeper that could tell them they can't release their game there without the label, it's fucking ugly and seems to end mostly in compatibility issues and crap with the "Windows Live" service that doesn't seem to do anything either except charge money for some features (and I suspect the game developer won't see any of that money).
Apparently these are prison busses, not the public transportation kind. Unless they're transferring alien visitors that are invisible to human eyes they're not serving any purpose (maybe budget retention? We all know how budgets work...).
On the other hand, any PDF reader that Microsoft ships wouldn't support all of Adobe's fancy features unless Microsoft licensed them from Adobe, so there would still be reason for some people to get Adobe's software.
Or, more likely, most people wouldn't download Adobe's viewer and instead complain that the document is broken.
What I'm more wondering about is how we know they are in a superposition and actually collapse when we measure rather than collapsing when they are separated.
MS already sold off the Train Simulator long ago, judging by the amount of shelf space stores allocate to addons for it and the flight sim there's probably a pretty big market for stuff like that.
Then again from what I heard the Train Simulator was a flop in the US...
If the new technology can become more efficient then improve it until it is, don't throw it out there in a rough state where it's worse than the stuff that's already on the market.
The GC was a clear indication for Nintendo's future, it showed that if they stayed the course they would be eliminated. Nintendo chose to change the course. We're counting Sony out because it looks like they are not learning from their mistakes and not planning to change their course.
A next gen that would sink the PS3 would probably not try to do it on graphical power (though I think the PS3 will sink naturally once Sony goes over to making the PS4 because I don't see the PS3 turning around and somehow grabbing large chunks of the market all of a sudden). Nintendo is already looking for other directions to develop into (they aren't going to release a mere sustaining update because that would give the others an opportunity to outdo them) and whatever direction they take will probably make the PS3 even more irrelevant (it's already irrelevant because the Wii's massive marketshare comes mostly from customers who don't want a PS3 because the PS3 can't do the things they want).
What's important about the Wii's success is that it's not a fluke or the result of inferior hardware, it's the result of a successfully applied business strategy. It won't randomly lift another console next time, it will lift the one that was designed with the right goals in mind. The PS3 will go through a normal non-first-place lifecycle where it pretty much ceases to exist once something newer comes along that development can shift to. Then again it doesn't take something new, there's plenty of development that can be shifted to the Wii and that will happen, the easy (publishers redirecting resources) or the hard way (publishers going bankrupt and being replaced by ones that focus more on the Wii). Either way, I don't see Sony being able to turn this ship around and boost it up, they lack both the mindset and the capabilities to perform a maneuver like Nintendo did with the Wii.
Also he probably needs some time to get to a save point, it's not funny when you have to lose progress because you have to turn the systm off without much warning.
As I said, I don't think the file size is making gameplay the focus, instead it puts the focus on, well, filesize. Look at.kkrieger, that was designed for filesize and ended up as 64kB IIRC but it wasn't terribly interesting to play. Technical limitations create a focus on the technology. If you had e.g. the restriction "here are 10 images, your job is to make a game that uses no other assets" then the focus would be free from hardware constraints though I guess people would still try to bend that 10 image restriction into absurd stuff like Vectorman-style graphics... Of course you can just say "make a game" without any restrictions...
I think Nintendo's original strategy was to jump the track and release consoles on a much higher frequency than Sony or Microsoft.
No, their goal was to disrupt the market. That's what they hired "Reggie" for, he had experience with matters like that. They accidentally disrupted the market in the past with the NES but now they wanted to do it on purpose. They tried a part of it, the "blue ocean strategy", with the DS to great success so they went for the full thing as an all-or-nothing gambit for the Wii.
Maintaining a large market is good for software makers and Nintendo is one of those. Shorting the generation would increase hardware sales but make the software suffer and I think they're making more money with software than hardware (especially new hardware, old hardware becomes cheaper to make but the Wii and DS haven't dropped in price so their margins grew over time).
For large numbers of enemies, the PS2 could do pretty large numbers too in the Earth Defense Force games.
A problem with rendering any scene you wish is that it costs money to make that scene. The costs are skyrocketing at the moment and companies are going out of business or massively downsizing because of it.
Careful, racing games have a much easier time hitting the graphical ceiling than other games. Cars are mechanical objects that behave according to fairly simple physics. They are the best case for something to display with a computer. Compare that with a human. An organic creature with tons of details on the surface where there is no artistic freedom (people can spot a wrong face very quickly) and with material properties that are damn complex to display (a car has regular diffusion, specularity, etc, flesh has subsurface scattering and such) or simulate (steel is pretty much rigid for most purposes, flesh contains many visibly moving parts, is soft and many of the things that cause the shape are underneath the top layer and thus usually aren't part of a computer model).
Slashdot Mirror
They use different cores. The PS3 has one PPC core and 7 "SPUs" (vector processors) that are very specialized, the 360 uses 3 PPC cores. The power drain of the cores is most likely different as well.
The tariff difference between computers and consoles was abolished before the PS3 came out AFAIK. At the time they had the PS2 examined that was mostly to get the pre-abolition taxes back. Either way, the PS3 still locks parts of the hardware when running another OS so it's not really open.
They can cry about being the only big fish in that pond as long as they want, a broken product is a broken product no matter how rare products in that market are (though I'm getting the impression that the number of console games with PC versions is increasing a lot or maybe it's just PC games becoming console games and native console gaming dying out...).
Why exactly do companies join this Games for Windows crap anyway, is there something in it for them? There's no platform royalties that could go down, there's no gatekeeper that could tell them they can't release their game there without the label, it's fucking ugly and seems to end mostly in compatibility issues and crap with the "Windows Live" service that doesn't seem to do anything either except charge money for some features (and I suspect the game developer won't see any of that money).
Apparently these are prison busses, not the public transportation kind. Unless they're transferring alien visitors that are invisible to human eyes they're not serving any purpose (maybe budget retention? We all know how budgets work...).
On the other hand, any PDF reader that Microsoft ships wouldn't support all of Adobe's fancy features unless Microsoft licensed them from Adobe, so there would still be reason for some people to get Adobe's software.
Or, more likely, most people wouldn't download Adobe's viewer and instead complain that the document is broken.
Oil? The US got sold to Canada because President Max needed the money!
Oh, so the non-bureaucratic approach of simply torching their buildings and lynching their leaders is not so good?
Also, has there ever been a game sold with child porn in it? That comment just makes no sense.
Japan is FULL of those! Or at least that's what the sensationalist media tells us...
It can also mean that the operation costs are lower than the impact they cause but raising them is not feasible enough.
Yeah but someone who's out of a job might be more interested in projects that pay.
What I'm more wondering about is how we know they are in a superposition and actually collapse when we measure rather than collapsing when they are separated.
It probably appeals to those who buy model train sets too. I think the common way to play it is as the driver though.
X-Plane is on shelves right next to MSFS so they probably knew that MSFS isn't the only one out there :P.
Hm, yeah, X-Planes doesn't get many addons it seems. An Amazon search returned 35 results for X-Plane and 666 for Flight Simulator.
MS already sold off the Train Simulator long ago, judging by the amount of shelf space stores allocate to addons for it and the flight sim there's probably a pretty big market for stuff like that.
Then again from what I heard the Train Simulator was a flop in the US...
Of course it's more work for your AC in the summer and I think ACs are less efficient than heating when it comes to temperature adjustments.
If the new technology can become more efficient then improve it until it is, don't throw it out there in a rough state where it's worse than the stuff that's already on the market.
In a democracy? The elected representatives.
The GC was a clear indication for Nintendo's future, it showed that if they stayed the course they would be eliminated. Nintendo chose to change the course. We're counting Sony out because it looks like they are not learning from their mistakes and not planning to change their course.
A next gen that would sink the PS3 would probably not try to do it on graphical power (though I think the PS3 will sink naturally once Sony goes over to making the PS4 because I don't see the PS3 turning around and somehow grabbing large chunks of the market all of a sudden). Nintendo is already looking for other directions to develop into (they aren't going to release a mere sustaining update because that would give the others an opportunity to outdo them) and whatever direction they take will probably make the PS3 even more irrelevant (it's already irrelevant because the Wii's massive marketshare comes mostly from customers who don't want a PS3 because the PS3 can't do the things they want).
What's important about the Wii's success is that it's not a fluke or the result of inferior hardware, it's the result of a successfully applied business strategy. It won't randomly lift another console next time, it will lift the one that was designed with the right goals in mind. The PS3 will go through a normal non-first-place lifecycle where it pretty much ceases to exist once something newer comes along that development can shift to. Then again it doesn't take something new, there's plenty of development that can be shifted to the Wii and that will happen, the easy (publishers redirecting resources) or the hard way (publishers going bankrupt and being replaced by ones that focus more on the Wii). Either way, I don't see Sony being able to turn this ship around and boost it up, they lack both the mindset and the capabilities to perform a maneuver like Nintendo did with the Wii.
Also he probably needs some time to get to a save point, it's not funny when you have to lose progress because you have to turn the systm off without much warning.
As I said, I don't think the file size is making gameplay the focus, instead it puts the focus on, well, filesize. Look at .kkrieger, that was designed for filesize and ended up as 64kB IIRC but it wasn't terribly interesting to play. Technical limitations create a focus on the technology. If you had e.g. the restriction "here are 10 images, your job is to make a game that uses no other assets" then the focus would be free from hardware constraints though I guess people would still try to bend that 10 image restriction into absurd stuff like Vectorman-style graphics... Of course you can just say "make a game" without any restrictions...
I think Nintendo's original strategy was to jump the track and release consoles on a much higher frequency than Sony or Microsoft.
No, their goal was to disrupt the market. That's what they hired "Reggie" for, he had experience with matters like that. They accidentally disrupted the market in the past with the NES but now they wanted to do it on purpose. They tried a part of it, the "blue ocean strategy", with the DS to great success so they went for the full thing as an all-or-nothing gambit for the Wii.
Maintaining a large market is good for software makers and Nintendo is one of those. Shorting the generation would increase hardware sales but make the software suffer and I think they're making more money with software than hardware (especially new hardware, old hardware becomes cheaper to make but the Wii and DS haven't dropped in price so their margins grew over time).
For large numbers of enemies, the PS2 could do pretty large numbers too in the Earth Defense Force games.
A problem with rendering any scene you wish is that it costs money to make that scene. The costs are skyrocketing at the moment and companies are going out of business or massively downsizing because of it.
Careful, racing games have a much easier time hitting the graphical ceiling than other games. Cars are mechanical objects that behave according to fairly simple physics. They are the best case for something to display with a computer. Compare that with a human. An organic creature with tons of details on the surface where there is no artistic freedom (people can spot a wrong face very quickly) and with material properties that are damn complex to display (a car has regular diffusion, specularity, etc, flesh has subsurface scattering and such) or simulate (steel is pretty much rigid for most purposes, flesh contains many visibly moving parts, is soft and many of the things that cause the shape are underneath the top layer and thus usually aren't part of a computer model).