Mouse Trap http://www.centralconnector.com/GAMES/mouset rap.ht ml
I'm also aware that this game isn't the original Rube Goldberg device... just wondering if anyone else played this as a kid (or an adult I guess). I had it back in the 80's.
He's not saying that you *don't need* better graphics and more powerful game machines, but that you can't rely on just having a faster processor or better graphics to attract non-gamers.
They want to create beautiful looking and fast running games as much as anyone else. But they also want to focus on innovation in the actual gameplay.
I'm a little worried that they seem too focused on the need to bring more people into the gaming market -- it's already a huge market and one that they've proven that they don't know how to sell to very well, aside from the long-time franchises of course. I just worry that whatever this "revolution" is might turn out to be something that it's going to be that interesting to people who are already into games.
Yeah, aside from the annoying Z button, I find the GameCube controller to be easier to use than the PS2 controller on some games. And, for me personally, the left analog stick is in a much more comfortable position than the Dual Shock 2. When I'm playing PS2 games I always feel like my thumb is stretching a bit too far to push the stick all the way to the right.
The GC controller is definitely not without flaws, but you've gotta be retanrded to have to "move your hands" around to reach anything.
It says that you'll be able to play on the net with other DS players.
The Revolution will have built-in WiFi. The DS has built-in WiFi. There's going to be a free service to allow DS users to connect to each other over the internet. That's really the only information that's been confirmed.
I guess I was a little unclear... I wasn't really saying that you have to redfine "stealing" to include downloading music. But you have to redefine your idea of what makes something right or wrong, regardless of all the different names we have for things. In other words, you can't just use the definition of one word ("stealing") to prove that something else is OK just because it doesn't technically qualify as "stealing"
Even still, the RIAA has more interest in movie soundtracks that the MPAA.
Soundtracks contain music that is owned and published by labels that are members of the RIAA and that is licensed to be used in the movie. An original score may be funded by a movie studio, and the copyrights may even be owned by the movie studio, but the recording is still released by an RIAA record label, and (most likly) published by an ASCAP/BMI publishing company.
Judging by your sig you're probably not being serious, but should anyone overlook the sarcasm, they should know that the MPAA would have little to do with controlling the distribution of movie sountracks on P2P networks.
"Intellectual property is considered just that: property, and taking such wrongfully is stealing. So get over it."
Thanks for deflating your own argument by even mentioning the "taking" requirement of the definition. When a copy is made of something, that something is not "taken": it still remains.
I think the point that you're missing is that, over time, these definitions need to change to accurately describe all possibilities. When the words "take" and "steal" were invented, it would have been impossible to make a digital copy of something so it just wasn't a possibility that anyone thought of.
The key here (and the point he was trying to make) is deciding whether or not it is wrong, or at least fair to all involved parties. This is the very reason these concepts need to evolve, because people will just keep saying, "Well, the dictionary says it's not stealing unless you take physical property from someone. So that must mean that it's not wrong. I'm only copying, not stealing."
I'm all for accurately describing the activity and I do think sharing mp3s is different than going into a store and taking CDs without paying for them. But just because its different, doesn't mean it's perfectly OK.
I guess what worries me is that people seem more and more convinced that they aren't doing anything wrong and that it doesn't matter because (as far as they know) none of the artists make much money from record sales anyway. This is why I think the solution to this whole thing is more about treating artists fairly then it is about treating customers unfairly. I think most people, if they know artists are getting what they deserve, would be wore willing to pay for their music. It seems like a combination of customers feeling ripped off, people knowing that (most) artists are being ripped off by the labels and the ability to easily get whatever you want for free that led to where we are now.
Actually, it's more like $0.65 is given to the label, which then gives the artist a % based on what their contract/royalty rate is. That may be nothing, depending on if the label successfully ripped off the artist or not.
According to the deal we have with our (independent) label, iTunes pays out $0.67 per song download and then the distributor and label take their cuts and then we get the rest. With a major label, that "cut" is usually going to be a lot bigger than a indie label's cut.
Either way, the point is, Apple takes whatever's left over after they pay out the 65 or 67 cents or whatever it is. They don't split anything with the artist.
Yeah, actually that sort of makes sense. But you would think they could just re-render them at higher resolutions. It's pretty lame to use 640x480-only video in a PC game. It would have looked better if they were redone with the game engine.
I think it will be OK to stop buying things at all. It strikes me as absurd to insist that people have to keep working when there's no need for it. If you can copy everything like that, most jobs will disappear. Are you going to insist that large numbers of people should starve because they have no job and no money, when they could replicate food at no cost to anyone - well, except possibly the food companies, since they are reducing the cost of food by getting theirs for free, when they should be begging to get enough money to live on, or something. In a world where you can copy anything for free, saying you are allowed to copy anything seems to me to be the only sensible choice.
I do see your point. But I don't think it's that simple. I guess it's sort of an absurd argument, because I don't think we're going to get to the point where you can just make copies of anything you want any time soon... But I can't imagine that the ability to easily make copies of everything will allow everyone to quit their jobs and live in some utopian society where everything is free and everyone gets what they want.
Sure, it would probably solve a lot of the food shortage problems of the world, which would be a great thing. But I can imagine negative effects as well. Once everyone starts copying things instead of of buying them, there's no incentive for people to spend the time and money making new things. Why would Sony invest time and money in making the next generation of TVs (or whatever) if no one's gonna buy them?
In this (somewhat ridiculous) scenario, even the "copying machine" itself could be copied so they would be accessable to everyone, which would in turn make everything that currently exists accessible to everyone. So really, only the people who actually like what they do would continue working. For example I could see a lot of research and development work continuing, but all those shitty jobs that no one wants? Looks like everyone decided to quit. Hey, if you can copy whatever you need, why work?
Obviously there's a huge amount a grey area here. Who's to say what would happen in such a far-fetched scenario? I guess the point is that, a lot of things sound good in science-fiction, but it doesn't mean it would actually happen that way in reality.
One last argument: the great artists did not live by having control over the reproduction of their works. Michaelangelo, Beethoven, Shakespeare didn't make a living getting royalties of the copies sold - Shakespeare sold copies of his scripts for a few pence on the way out. They made their money through commissioned works, and selling them to people who wanted to see them first. Some owners would then keep an original painting secret and their own - but most would sell copies of it to others, at far lower prices than they had paid, and not give the original artist any of it.
Hmm... sounds familiar. Technically, recording artists get a % of royalties now, but the contracts are structured so that the record company makes most of the money anyway... the artist makes little to nothing on royalties until you get into millions of album sold.
Also, whether or not the artist got any of the money seems irrelevant. People were still being charged for the copies. Sounds to me like when they "commissioned" the work what they were really doing was buying the copyright. Copyright law may not have existed, but it's the same idea. And how do you know that the great artists were happy with these sort of agreements? Maybe they just took what they could get? There wasn't a "music industry" like there is today, so they really had no other options except to just starve to death (or get another job).
It's the original which costs the money, the copying is peanuts - which was reflected in the pricing. It's only in the past few centuries that a business model based on restricting copying and selling every copy for the same price has existed.
I don't know of any piece of art or music where th
I don't think the basic principle is the same at all. If I steal from a supermarket, I'm costing them real money, in terms of buying the bread from the manufacturers, paying people to stock the shelves, etc. So even if I'm still buying all the bread I can afford, I'm costing them money. If I download a song, I don't directly cost them anything. The only way you can argue they lose anything is because I didn't buy something that I might otherwise have done. If I'm still buying all the CDs I can afford, there's no way I cost them anything. So there is an important difference. Different enough to make it moral? Maybe, maybe not, depends on your point of view. But certainly a major difference.
I can't stand this argument. And before I get into this, let me just say that this isn't directed at you personally. Just a general rant in the direction of anyone who uses these arguments to justify what they're doing. I realize you're not really doing that, but a lot of people do...
Just because technology now exists to be able to make copies of certain things doesn't mean it is then automatically OK to share those certain things with whoever you want just because you're not physically taking property from someone. If technology advances to the point where its possible to make an exact copy of *anything*, is it going to be OK to stop buying things at all? I'm not costing anyone money, I'm just making copies of stuff. My friend just got a new plasma TV. Sweet, I'll make a copy. It's not stealing though, cause it's not like I went into the store and took one of *their* TVs. That's *totally* different. I realize this scenario is pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon, but if we're talking "basic principles" here...
And the argument that they aren't losing any money just because you already spend what you can afford on CDs? So, that entitles you to just take whatever you can't afford on top of that since you can't spend any more money anyway? What if you just spend what you can afford each month, and then instead of just taking everything above and beyond that, you put it on the list for next month. I'll be that's what you do with all the stuff that's not able to be copied. Oh yeah, that's because you have no other choice. Well, no other choice besides stealing. I mean, what lucky artists get on your "I can afford it" list and which ones end up on the "I can't afford it, but I still want it right now so I'll just take it. It's not like I could buy it right now even if I wanted to" list? How do you decide which artists deserve to be paid and which ones don't?
I realize you pointed out that this difference doesn't necessarily make it moral, and obviously I agree, but I don't think there's as much difference as you say there is. The types of things that get copied -- music, movies, software -- are all produced by going into large amounts of debt, or at least spending a LOT of money up front, in the hopes that enough people will have a use for the product so that they'll make their money back and maybe even some profit. Technically yeah, you're not *directly* costing them money because there was no physical object that needed to be created, shipped, stored, etc. But I don't see a big difference between "losing" money and not being paid for something that I created, or own the rights to, when someone else is getting the value from it.
I'd like to see someone just give away something -- an good piece of software, a movie, whatever -- something that there is already a demand for, people know about it....and then ask all the people that take it if they would have paid for it if there was no way of getting it free. Naturally, some people will say yes and some will say no. And yeah *saying* you'd buy it is difference from *actually* buying it, but there would inevitably be a certain number of people who would have paid for this product. Let's say 50,000 downloaded this thing and 20,000 would have actually paid for it. Now, this is your thing. You created i
the most irritating being that everytime it plays an ingame cinematic it changes to 640x480x60hz from the 1600x1200x75hz i'm playing at...
The same thing happened to me on KOTOR I, although I think I was running at 1024x768. Either way, it's just kind of annoying that all the cinematics look horrible because they're at such a low resolution. I don't remember having any framerate issues after the cinematics, but the resolution definitely changed.
And I have an ATI card, so its obviously not an issue with a particular card or driver or something.
Based on my experience with the WaveBird, you pretty much need a somewhat direct line of sight to the reciever to control the game. There have been times where I would lose control of the game for a second and then realize that I had the controller behind the arm of the couch or something like that. It may work fine around corners, but if the signal is totally blocked from the reciever you might be out of luck.
I doubt Nintendo came up with the idea. Sure, they were the first one of the major console manufacturers to make their own wireless controller, which just so happens to be the best one out there, but I seem to rememeber third party wireless controllers being available for the PSOne (back when it was just called PlayStation). I don't remember any for the N64, but if they were available they weren't made by Nintendo.
Having said all that, I own a WaveBird and it's definitely the best wireless controller I've ever used.
Hopefully, all 3 companies decide to copy whoever it was that came up with the idea and make wireless a standard option. I'm all for innovation, but sometimes a good idea is just a good idea. Not everyone can invent the wheel.
I think the current hardware on the PS2/GameCube/X-Box is more than enough to make great games for the next year or so.
That works out well then, considering "XBox 2" won't be coming out until late this year (at the earliest) and both PS3 and Revolution aren't coming out until sometime in 2006.
And even with new consoles being released, there will probably be games released for current-gen consoles for at least the next 2-3 years. There won't be as many, but it's not like your PS2 or XBox immediately becomes worthless the minute a new console comes out.
I am inclined to agree with the statement that the only reason M$ is doing this is for profit.
You really think Sony and Nintendo do what they do for anything other than profit? Sure they'll talk about the artistry involved in creating games and how they're inspired to push the limits of technology, but that's mostly PR. All three companies want to own the video game market and make as much money as possible.
Actually, they have to pay whoever owns the rights to the songs, which would be the record label(s), the artist(s), or someone else who happens to own the rights to a particular piece of music.
The RIAA is paid membership fees from all of its member companies. They don't actually collect money from royalties or digital downloads or anything like that.
I haven't RTFA, but I'll bet that it's mostly a developement process woe, rather than a hardware or performance limitation that is causing the frustrations.
I'll take that bet.
From TFA: "According to various Japanese publications, the new Resident Evil 4 team is encountering a few problems porting Resident Evil 4 to the PS2. Why do you ask? Hardware, Hardware, Hardware."
"One of the big issues the team over at Capcom is facing is the fact that the PS2's texture memory capacity is far smaller than the Gamecube's. In the Gamecube version of Resident Evil 4, players were treated to 24 bit textures. However, in the PS2 version, expect 8 and 4 bit textures, which is quite a downgrade."
"But no sir, it doesn't end there."
"Leon's polygon count, in order to run on the inferior PS2 hardware, will have to drop from the original 10,000 polygons to a mere 5,000, slightly more than Snake from Metal Gear Solid 3."
Slashdot Mirror
Mouse Trapt rap.ht ml
http://www.centralconnector.com/GAMES/mouse
I'm also aware that this game isn't the original Rube Goldberg device... just wondering if anyone else played this as a kid (or an adult I guess). I had it back in the 80's.
He's not saying that you *don't need* better graphics and more powerful game machines, but that you can't rely on just having a faster processor or better graphics to attract non-gamers.
They want to create beautiful looking and fast running games as much as anyone else. But they also want to focus on innovation in the actual gameplay.
I'm a little worried that they seem too focused on the need to bring more people into the gaming market -- it's already a huge market and one that they've proven that they don't know how to sell to very well, aside from the long-time franchises of course. I just worry that whatever this "revolution" is might turn out to be something that it's going to be that interesting to people who are already into games.
Yeah, aside from the annoying Z button, I find the GameCube controller to be easier to use than the PS2 controller on some games. And, for me personally, the left analog stick is in a much more comfortable position than the Dual Shock 2. When I'm playing PS2 games I always feel like my thumb is stretching a bit too far to push the stick all the way to the right.
The GC controller is definitely not without flaws, but you've gotta be retanrded to have to "move your hands" around to reach anything.
No it doesn't.
It says that you'll be able to play on the net with other DS players.
The Revolution will have built-in WiFi. The DS has built-in WiFi. There's going to be a free service to allow DS users to connect to each other over the internet. That's really the only information that's been confirmed.
Yeah, because every artist is as rich as Britney Spears and Michael Jackson.
I guess I'm more of a pessimist than I thought.
If everything you are talking about were to actually happen, it would be great. I just really don't see things happening like that.
I guess I was a little unclear... I wasn't really saying that you have to redfine "stealing" to include downloading music. But you have to redefine your idea of what makes something right or wrong, regardless of all the different names we have for things. In other words, you can't just use the definition of one word ("stealing") to prove that something else is OK just because it doesn't technically qualify as "stealing"
Even still, the RIAA has more interest in movie soundtracks that the MPAA.
Soundtracks contain music that is owned and published by labels that are members of the RIAA and that is licensed to be used in the movie. An original score may be funded by a movie studio, and the copyrights may even be owned by the movie studio, but the recording is still released by an RIAA record label, and (most likly) published by an ASCAP/BMI publishing company.
Judging by your sig you're probably not being serious, but should anyone overlook the sarcasm, they should know that the MPAA would have little to do with controlling the distribution of movie sountracks on P2P networks.
"Intellectual property is considered just that: property, and taking such wrongfully is stealing. So get over it."
Thanks for deflating your own argument by even mentioning the "taking" requirement of the definition. When a copy is made of something, that something is not "taken": it still remains.
I think the point that you're missing is that, over time, these definitions need to change to accurately describe all possibilities. When the words "take" and "steal" were invented, it would have been impossible to make a digital copy of something so it just wasn't a possibility that anyone thought of.
The key here (and the point he was trying to make) is deciding whether or not it is wrong, or at least fair to all involved parties. This is the very reason these concepts need to evolve, because people will just keep saying, "Well, the dictionary says it's not stealing unless you take physical property from someone. So that must mean that it's not wrong. I'm only copying, not stealing."
I'm all for accurately describing the activity and I do think sharing mp3s is different than going into a store and taking CDs without paying for them. But just because its different, doesn't mean it's perfectly OK.
I guess what worries me is that people seem more and more convinced that they aren't doing anything wrong and that it doesn't matter because (as far as they know) none of the artists make much money from record sales anyway. This is why I think the solution to this whole thing is more about treating artists fairly then it is about treating customers unfairly. I think most people, if they know artists are getting what they deserve, would be wore willing to pay for their music. It seems like a combination of customers feeling ripped off, people knowing that (most) artists are being ripped off by the labels and the ability to easily get whatever you want for free that led to where we are now.
Actually, it's more like $0.65 is given to the label, which then gives the artist a % based on what their contract/royalty rate is. That may be nothing, depending on if the label successfully ripped off the artist or not.
According to the deal we have with our (independent) label, iTunes pays out $0.67 per song download and then the distributor and label take their cuts and then we get the rest. With a major label, that "cut" is usually going to be a lot bigger than a indie label's cut.
Either way, the point is, Apple takes whatever's left over after they pay out the 65 or 67 cents or whatever it is. They don't split anything with the artist.
Yeah, actually that sort of makes sense. But you would think they could just re-render them at higher resolutions. It's pretty lame to use 640x480-only video in a PC game. It would have looked better if they were redone with the game engine.
Parent is not flamebait. Most likely a mod down from a disgruntled Nintendo fanboy.
I think it will be OK to stop buying things at all. It strikes me as absurd to insist that people have to keep working when there's no need for it. If you can copy everything like that, most jobs will disappear. Are you going to insist that large numbers of people should starve because they have no job and no money, when they could replicate food at no cost to anyone - well, except possibly the food companies, since they are reducing the cost of food by getting theirs for free, when they should be begging to get enough money to live on, or something. In a world where you can copy anything for free, saying you are allowed to copy anything seems to me to be the only sensible choice.
I do see your point. But I don't think it's that simple. I guess it's sort of an absurd argument, because I don't think we're going to get to the point where you can just make copies of anything you want any time soon... But I can't imagine that the ability to easily make copies of everything will allow everyone to quit their jobs and live in some utopian society where everything is free and everyone gets what they want.
Sure, it would probably solve a lot of the food shortage problems of the world, which would be a great thing. But I can imagine negative effects as well. Once everyone starts copying things instead of of buying them, there's no incentive for people to spend the time and money making new things. Why would Sony invest time and money in making the next generation of TVs (or whatever) if no one's gonna buy them?
In this (somewhat ridiculous) scenario, even the "copying machine" itself could be copied so they would be accessable to everyone, which would in turn make everything that currently exists accessible to everyone. So really, only the people who actually like what they do would continue working. For example I could see a lot of research and development work continuing, but all those shitty jobs that no one wants? Looks like everyone decided to quit. Hey, if you can copy whatever you need, why work?
Obviously there's a huge amount a grey area here. Who's to say what would happen in such a far-fetched scenario? I guess the point is that, a lot of things sound good in science-fiction, but it doesn't mean it would actually happen that way in reality.
One last argument: the great artists did not live by having control over the reproduction of their works. Michaelangelo, Beethoven, Shakespeare didn't make a living getting royalties of the copies sold - Shakespeare sold copies of his scripts for a few pence on the way out. They made their money through commissioned works, and selling them to people who wanted to see them first. Some owners would then keep an original painting secret and their own - but most would sell copies of it to others, at far lower prices than they had paid, and not give the original artist any of it.
Hmm... sounds familiar. Technically, recording artists get a % of royalties now, but the contracts are structured so that the record company makes most of the money anyway... the artist makes little to nothing on royalties until you get into millions of album sold.
Also, whether or not the artist got any of the money seems irrelevant. People were still being charged for the copies. Sounds to me like when they "commissioned" the work what they were really doing was buying the copyright. Copyright law may not have existed, but it's the same idea. And how do you know that the great artists were happy with these sort of agreements? Maybe they just took what they could get? There wasn't a "music industry" like there is today, so they really had no other options except to just starve to death (or get another job).
It's the original which costs the money, the copying is peanuts - which was reflected in the pricing. It's only in the past few centuries that a business model based on restricting copying and selling every copy for the same price has existed.
I don't know of any piece of art or music where th
I don't think the basic principle is the same at all. If I steal from a supermarket, I'm costing them real money, in terms of buying the bread from the manufacturers, paying people to stock the shelves, etc. So even if I'm still buying all the bread I can afford, I'm costing them money. If I download a song, I don't directly cost them anything. The only way you can argue they lose anything is because I didn't buy something that I might otherwise have done. If I'm still buying all the CDs I can afford, there's no way I cost them anything. So there is an important difference. Different enough to make it moral? Maybe, maybe not, depends on your point of view. But certainly a major difference.
I can't stand this argument. And before I get into this, let me just say that this isn't directed at you personally. Just a general rant in the direction of anyone who uses these arguments to justify what they're doing. I realize you're not really doing that, but a lot of people do...
Just because technology now exists to be able to make copies of certain things doesn't mean it is then automatically OK to share those certain things with whoever you want just because you're not physically taking property from someone. If technology advances to the point where its possible to make an exact copy of *anything*, is it going to be OK to stop buying things at all? I'm not costing anyone money, I'm just making copies of stuff. My friend just got a new plasma TV. Sweet, I'll make a copy. It's not stealing though, cause it's not like I went into the store and took one of *their* TVs. That's *totally* different. I realize this scenario is pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon, but if we're talking "basic principles" here...
And the argument that they aren't losing any money just because you already spend what you can afford on CDs? So, that entitles you to just take whatever you can't afford on top of that since you can't spend any more money anyway? What if you just spend what you can afford each month, and then instead of just taking everything above and beyond that, you put it on the list for next month. I'll be that's what you do with all the stuff that's not able to be copied. Oh yeah, that's because you have no other choice. Well, no other choice besides stealing. I mean, what lucky artists get on your "I can afford it" list and which ones end up on the "I can't afford it, but I still want it right now so I'll just take it. It's not like I could buy it right now even if I wanted to" list? How do you decide which artists deserve to be paid and which ones don't?
I realize you pointed out that this difference doesn't necessarily make it moral, and obviously I agree, but I don't think there's as much difference as you say there is. The types of things that get copied -- music, movies, software -- are all produced by going into large amounts of debt, or at least spending a LOT of money up front, in the hopes that enough people will have a use for the product so that they'll make their money back and maybe even some profit. Technically yeah, you're not *directly* costing them money because there was no physical object that needed to be created, shipped, stored, etc. But I don't see a big difference between "losing" money and not being paid for something that I created, or own the rights to, when someone else is getting the value from it.
I'd like to see someone just give away something -- an good piece of software, a movie, whatever -- something that there is already a demand for, people know about it. ...and then ask all the people that take it if they would have paid for it if there was no way of getting it free. Naturally, some people will say yes and some will say no. And yeah *saying* you'd buy it is difference from *actually* buying it, but there would inevitably be a certain number of people who would have paid for this product. Let's say 50,000 downloaded this thing and 20,000 would have actually paid for it. Now, this is your thing. You created i
Personally, I think having a "Free iPods" link in your sig is a more immoral use of computing power than searching for prime numbers.
the most irritating being that everytime it plays an ingame cinematic it changes to 640x480x60hz from the 1600x1200x75hz i'm playing at...
The same thing happened to me on KOTOR I, although I think I was running at 1024x768. Either way, it's just kind of annoying that all the cinematics look horrible because they're at such a low resolution. I don't remember having any framerate issues after the cinematics, but the resolution definitely changed.
And I have an ATI card, so its obviously not an issue with a particular card or driver or something.
Based on my experience with the WaveBird, you pretty much need a somewhat direct line of sight to the reciever to control the game. There have been times where I would lose control of the game for a second and then realize that I had the controller behind the arm of the couch or something like that. It may work fine around corners, but if the signal is totally blocked from the reciever you might be out of luck.
I have to admit though, that would be fun.
-5 Conspiracy Theory
I doubt Nintendo came up with the idea. Sure, they were the first one of the major console manufacturers to make their own wireless controller, which just so happens to be the best one out there, but I seem to rememeber third party wireless controllers being available for the PSOne (back when it was just called PlayStation). I don't remember any for the N64, but if they were available they weren't made by Nintendo.
Having said all that, I own a WaveBird and it's definitely the best wireless controller I've ever used.
Hopefully, all 3 companies decide to copy whoever it was that came up with the idea and make wireless a standard option. I'm all for innovation, but sometimes a good idea is just a good idea. Not everyone can invent the wheel.
Metropolitan Area Network is a MAN, BABY!!!
OK, back to work...
Now, what IGN does is called "farming". They get 30 or 40 players to all stand around in the cave...
Let's not confuse IGE with IGN. IGN has no involvement in this.
I think the current hardware on the PS2/GameCube/X-Box is more than enough to make great games for the next year or so.
That works out well then, considering "XBox 2" won't be coming out until late this year (at the earliest) and both PS3 and Revolution aren't coming out until sometime in 2006.
And even with new consoles being released, there will probably be games released for current-gen consoles for at least the next 2-3 years. There won't be as many, but it's not like your PS2 or XBox immediately becomes worthless the minute a new console comes out.
I am inclined to agree with the statement that the only reason M$ is doing this is for profit.
You really think Sony and Nintendo do what they do for anything other than profit? Sure they'll talk about the artistry involved in creating games and how they're inspired to push the limits of technology, but that's mostly PR. All three companies want to own the video game market and make as much money as possible.
Actually, they have to pay whoever owns the rights to the songs, which would be the record label(s), the artist(s), or someone else who happens to own the rights to a particular piece of music.
The RIAA is paid membership fees from all of its member companies. They don't actually collect money from royalties or digital downloads or anything like that.
"Charity is when you do something for people while other people are watching."
- Mr. Show
I haven't RTFA, but I'll bet that it's mostly a developement process woe, rather than a hardware or performance limitation that is causing the frustrations.
I'll take that bet.
From TFA: "According to various Japanese publications, the new Resident Evil 4 team is encountering a few problems porting Resident Evil 4 to the PS2. Why do you ask? Hardware, Hardware, Hardware."
"One of the big issues the team over at Capcom is facing is the fact that the PS2's texture memory capacity is far smaller than the Gamecube's. In the Gamecube version of Resident Evil 4, players were treated to 24 bit textures. However, in the PS2 version, expect 8 and 4 bit textures, which is quite a downgrade."
"But no sir, it doesn't end there."
"Leon's polygon count, in order to run on the inferior PS2 hardware, will have to drop from the original 10,000 polygons to a mere 5,000, slightly more than Snake from Metal Gear Solid 3."
Sounds like hardware issues to me.