I expect him to start a swing aimed at empty air or at least make an "I can't do this now" gesture. It makes no sense to queue a command for that long.
Realism should still show that your character is trying to do something and taking time to pull it off. Input lag is the delay between the input and the first sign of an attempt to do what you entered.
When it comes to things like aiming my arm introduces the realistic delay all by itself. Delaying it further just causes confusion because your physical motion is over while the ingame action keeps going for a bit.
In high school, I thought both of those were awesome (especially HL2 and Vice City, respectively) but now, in college, I just don't have time.
Why do you expect to beat the game quickly? If you use less game than you have then you're satisfied but if the game runs out before your interest does you're left dry. What does it matter if the game goes on when you stop playing as long as the experience up to that point was enjoyable? What does it matter if it takes you a month to finish one game if it remains enjoyable throughout? Just saves you from having to buy another game soon.
Interference to intercoms makes me think they didn't read the FCC rules that say unlicensed use of frequencies has no expectation to remain free of interference from licensed uses.
Since all games are run in a data center, multiplayer lag is non-existant. It's like all players are local.
Yeah, if you only measure the situation on the server. The client is still on the other end of the network connection, just instead of receiving control data and calculating the scene itself it receives a prerendered frame and only sends back inputs.
Newer meaning from the last 5 years here, chances are if your computer is that old you could replace it for cheaper than a few years of OnLive subscription (maybe even less if you consider that retail games drop into the bargain bin extremely fast and you can get your games for significantly cheaper than on a service that won't let you shop around).
Not just you. The benefits for the user are practically nil (yes you can play games on any crappy PC but you still need to have it on a non-crappy net connection so no portable gaming anyway). You apparently pay a subscription fee to use the service AND pay to purchase the games on there. They advertise that it doesn't need discs but inserted discs are just an artificial limitation created by the publishers anyway. They advertise that you'll never have to upgrade but the system requirement growth on the PC has stagnated lately and practically anything is still playable on a system that was built within the last 5 years (as long as it has a proper graphics card, of course but it can be a pretty old one too, I've been gaming on a GeForce 6800 for a long time). If we take the console market as an indicator future development will focus on things like new interfaces which OnLive doesn't deal with, the whole no-upgrades deal only works as long as it's the back end that changes, any changes to the controller or such must be done in the user's home. So it saves you from a progression that has been obsolete for years already.
Also see this, the author is quite adept at predicting gaming market movements.
In the EU it's also illegal to establish artificial barriers to trade, i.e. prevent trade within EU countries. You can't sell something in the UK and prevent people from exporting it from there to other EU countries or you get slapped with massive fines.
You notice that some things are closer to you than others (your brain does the interpretation), the effect is more of a novelty though, not really useful when you're not really trying to determine aposition in 3D space (which you won't in a movie, maybe a 3D platformer videogame but I found that moving the camera and looking for paralaxing like an owl works better and doesn't require fancy TVs, just working camera controls). I've got practically no depth perception though, only for the most extreme cases (the literally in-your-face 3D).
Games are becoming increasingly expensive to produce, with everyone expecting beautiful art, a well-made story, good voice acting, good music/sounds, an amazing graphics engine... etc.
No, that's a misconception held by the industry. Well, they're mostly becoming more expensive but people don't expect all of that. Most of the core values of gaming have been pushed in a race to outdo the competition for so long that they're far beyond what the majority of customers demands and the only ones who still demand having it pushed further (demand meaning they won't puchase it if those conditions are not fulfilled, not just "I'd like to have that") are a vocal niche that includes the game reviewers. A huge number of customers does not demand these high values, they are satisfied with much lower standards in those areas but may demand more in other areas that have never been looked at in this race to the performance crown.
The best selling games of this console generation are all on the Nintendo Wii, oftering graphics that wouldn't even push the PS2 to the limit, no real story, hardly any voice acting (while Wii Fit has a lot of voicework I'm not sure I'd call that acting, it's just tutoring, not acting a role), etc but they HAVE improved in areas that were lacking and demanded by customers. You could probably add up all their dev costs and arrive at a number that's lower than what was paid to make GTA4 yet they outsold GTA4 by far. That's a MASSIVE amount of profits that doesn't need any loss cutting by means of advertising or charging 60$ for a regular DVD game.
The industtry is paying so much money because it pushed too far in the wrong direction while fewer and fewer customers care about the advances this pushing brings (and thus the number of new customers is fairly low), expending exponentially growing efforts to push something that is gaining less and less of a return. In their desperation they try to wring more and more money out of each customer they do have with raised game prices, expensive collector's editions, paid DLC, digital distribution (to cut down on used sales), DRM (in a futile attempt to get money from the pirates, the last unclaimed customers they consider reachable) and ingame advertising.
We are paying for their failures. Do we think good games only came into existence in 2006? Of course not, we've played good games before then too. They're pushing beyond us, pushing so far we don't care and expect us to subsidize their pointless pursuit. They will only find failure and bankrupcy at the end of that path. It will take a while for new companies to fill the void that the old ones are leaving but maybe we will soon be able to play plenty of great games that don't need all this extra squeezing of customers to be sustainable.
Oh I'd take the 20$ one (unless the ads are so problematic I'm better off waiting for a pricedrop on the 60$ version) but it looks like we're going to get the 20$ edition sold at 60$ with no other choices.
The only ingame ad I really remember is one for GameStop advertising their tradein policies but mostly due to the massive irony of having that in a videogame while the whole industry seems to be whining about used sales...
They tested with a scene where everything was the same except in one you ran over pedestrians, in the other you just drove over point markers so we can't blame it on the gameplay here.
It's the third party games people want to know about, everybody knows that Nintendo's games sell craptons but people usually claim noone else can sell Wii games. Of course it only makes sense to compare within the running generation, older generations had more time to build their sales up and for most of the older generations it's not even feasible to make a new game anymore.
Nintendo doesn't build the browsers into their consoles, both the Wii and the DSi require you to download it from the shop channel (both free now). I figure it's about not paying royalties on systems that never go online but it'd also make it easy to remove Opera (temporarily?) if an injunction happens.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect him to start a swing aimed at empty air or at least make an "I can't do this now" gesture. It makes no sense to queue a command for that long.
Maybe they should price it according to what the market will bear, not according to what they would like to.
They actually did measure the screen delay and did state it's 3 frames that should be taken into account.
Realism should still show that your character is trying to do something and taking time to pull it off. Input lag is the delay between the input and the first sign of an attempt to do what you entered.
When it comes to things like aiming my arm introduces the realistic delay all by itself. Delaying it further just causes confusion because your physical motion is over while the ingame action keeps going for a bit.
In high school, I thought both of those were awesome (especially HL2 and Vice City, respectively) but now, in college, I just don't have time.
Why do you expect to beat the game quickly? If you use less game than you have then you're satisfied but if the game runs out before your interest does you're left dry. What does it matter if the game goes on when you stop playing as long as the experience up to that point was enjoyable? What does it matter if it takes you a month to finish one game if it remains enjoyable throughout? Just saves you from having to buy another game soon.
Interference to intercoms makes me think they didn't read the FCC rules that say unlicensed use of frequencies has no expectation to remain free of interference from licensed uses.
Since all games are run in a data center, multiplayer lag is non-existant. It's like all players are local.
Yeah, if you only measure the situation on the server. The client is still on the other end of the network connection, just instead of receiving control data and calculating the scene itself it receives a prerendered frame and only sends back inputs.
Newer meaning from the last 5 years here, chances are if your computer is that old you could replace it for cheaper than a few years of OnLive subscription (maybe even less if you consider that retail games drop into the bargain bin extremely fast and you can get your games for significantly cheaper than on a service that won't let you shop around).
Not just you. The benefits for the user are practically nil (yes you can play games on any crappy PC but you still need to have it on a non-crappy net connection so no portable gaming anyway). You apparently pay a subscription fee to use the service AND pay to purchase the games on there. They advertise that it doesn't need discs but inserted discs are just an artificial limitation created by the publishers anyway. They advertise that you'll never have to upgrade but the system requirement growth on the PC has stagnated lately and practically anything is still playable on a system that was built within the last 5 years (as long as it has a proper graphics card, of course but it can be a pretty old one too, I've been gaming on a GeForce 6800 for a long time). If we take the console market as an indicator future development will focus on things like new interfaces which OnLive doesn't deal with, the whole no-upgrades deal only works as long as it's the back end that changes, any changes to the controller or such must be done in the user's home. So it saves you from a progression that has been obsolete for years already.
Also see this, the author is quite adept at predicting gaming market movements.
In the EU it's also illegal to establish artificial barriers to trade, i.e. prevent trade within EU countries. You can't sell something in the UK and prevent people from exporting it from there to other EU countries or you get slapped with massive fines.
You notice that some things are closer to you than others (your brain does the interpretation), the effect is more of a novelty though, not really useful when you're not really trying to determine aposition in 3D space (which you won't in a movie, maybe a 3D platformer videogame but I found that moving the camera and looking for paralaxing like an owl works better and doesn't require fancy TVs, just working camera controls). I've got practically no depth perception though, only for the most extreme cases (the literally in-your-face 3D).
Games are becoming increasingly expensive to produce, with everyone expecting beautiful art, a well-made story, good voice acting, good music/sounds, an amazing graphics engine... etc.
No, that's a misconception held by the industry. Well, they're mostly becoming more expensive but people don't expect all of that. Most of the core values of gaming have been pushed in a race to outdo the competition for so long that they're far beyond what the majority of customers demands and the only ones who still demand having it pushed further (demand meaning they won't puchase it if those conditions are not fulfilled, not just "I'd like to have that") are a vocal niche that includes the game reviewers. A huge number of customers does not demand these high values, they are satisfied with much lower standards in those areas but may demand more in other areas that have never been looked at in this race to the performance crown.
The best selling games of this console generation are all on the Nintendo Wii, oftering graphics that wouldn't even push the PS2 to the limit, no real story, hardly any voice acting (while Wii Fit has a lot of voicework I'm not sure I'd call that acting, it's just tutoring, not acting a role), etc but they HAVE improved in areas that were lacking and demanded by customers. You could probably add up all their dev costs and arrive at a number that's lower than what was paid to make GTA4 yet they outsold GTA4 by far. That's a MASSIVE amount of profits that doesn't need any loss cutting by means of advertising or charging 60$ for a regular DVD game.
The industtry is paying so much money because it pushed too far in the wrong direction while fewer and fewer customers care about the advances this pushing brings (and thus the number of new customers is fairly low), expending exponentially growing efforts to push something that is gaining less and less of a return. In their desperation they try to wring more and more money out of each customer they do have with raised game prices, expensive collector's editions, paid DLC, digital distribution (to cut down on used sales), DRM (in a futile attempt to get money from the pirates, the last unclaimed customers they consider reachable) and ingame advertising.
We are paying for their failures. Do we think good games only came into existence in 2006? Of course not, we've played good games before then too. They're pushing beyond us, pushing so far we don't care and expect us to subsidize their pointless pursuit. They will only find failure and bankrupcy at the end of that path. It will take a while for new companies to fill the void that the old ones are leaving but maybe we will soon be able to play plenty of great games that don't need all this extra squeezing of customers to be sustainable.
Oh I'd take the 20$ one (unless the ads are so problematic I'm better off waiting for a pricedrop on the 60$ version) but it looks like we're going to get the 20$ edition sold at 60$ with no other choices.
The only ingame ad I really remember is one for GameStop advertising their tradein policies but mostly due to the massive irony of having that in a videogame while the whole industry seems to be whining about used sales...
They tested with a scene where everything was the same except in one you ran over pedestrians, in the other you just drove over point markers so we can't blame it on the gameplay here.
No, a capacitor.
Nintendo released the DS version? Last I checked Square-Enix is in charge of Chrono Trigger, not Nintendo.
It's the third party games people want to know about, everybody knows that Nintendo's games sell craptons but people usually claim noone else can sell Wii games. Of course it only makes sense to compare within the running generation, older generations had more time to build their sales up and for most of the older generations it's not even feasible to make a new game anymore.
The Wii has the highest number of third party million sellers this generation.
Deliberate damage is one thing but just losing the admin shouldn't cause this much damage, what if the guy was killed in a car accident?
I've seen sites that alone could cause an out of memory error so I wouldn't be surprised if tabs just weren't feasible.
Nintendo doesn't build the browsers into their consoles, both the Wii and the DSi require you to download it from the shop channel (both free now). I figure it's about not paying royalties on systems that never go online but it'd also make it easy to remove Opera (temporarily?) if an injunction happens.
More flexible pricing. XBLA games are priced in increments of 5€, indie games have to cost 1, 3 or 5€ and aren't available in many regions.
They said something about people who make money off pirated games, don't seem very interested in going after P2P and stuff like that.