Sorry to seem ad hominem. I never meant you said that, I'm just providing a reply here so that hopefully people will read it. Hopefully people will realize what went on is a direct example of the issues people don't realize exist.
Really, you can only hack a game so much without dedicated servers - the reason is that you don't know what the server side data is. Even if you know what the client is requesting it isn't telling you what the server does with it.
really? You think this would happen if it was on a PC and for things that allowed dedicated servers?
I'll give you a clue: it wouldn't.
Welcome to what happens when non-technical console users get shoved into the world of pc gaming/become more techie as a result of MS's poor business choices. I hope people realize this applies to apple and any company/services that uses DRM (such as windows live gaming or whatever it's called) as well.
intel graphics isn't prevalent. For a simple explanation: It *was* prevalent.
Gaming itself is a cultural pasttime of our generation. In the last 30 years, it has exploded. So to deny that as a concept is to deny that if you ask absolutely anyone anywhere in the world if they've heard of mario, or world of warcraft, to expect them to not know what those are.
Gaming isn't rare, or a mythical beast, or special, it's just dejected by many people as it is such a new concept. Not unlike rock music in the 50's or 60's, marijuana in the 70's, etc. You can easily throw in talking on a phone in an airplane (while in the air) of the new dejected concepts. There's actually no real base for it (it= things that people deject), people just don't like it.
Enterprise/business does not define, nor is it a part of or reflective of, the market for gaming or gaming pc's or any attribute of that. Consumers (at ground level) define that. If there was no such market for gaming, gaming pcs, etc, then no such products would be offered. Capitalism reflects on this. The market itself would beg to differ from that concept.
In the consumer market, the amount of pc's that are "gaming" or "hardcore" doesn't reflect at all on the market *for* gaming, hardcore included, as someone with a crappy pc but buys 200$ for games would be considered non-gaming under your model versus someone who has a $2300 gaming capable computer but spends 0$ on games. Neither market nor your definition of hardcore gaming is reasonably defined.
PC's are super modular as well. You can drop in laptop graphics cards, ram, hard drives and processors. This was an unknown beast years ago, but now you can buy things like that. The same thing applies to regular desktops and even enterprise.
Actually I feel that you misunderstood. The terms are not separate. There's no way to discern that a PC, as it's purchased is destined for being a gaming PC, considering that computers are modular. The term itself doesn't even specify the type of gaming. If any pc can run games, are all pc's gaming pc's? I'm not trying to actually imply such a circular argument, but I mean that question rhetorically.
If I buy one with integrated graphics but later put a HD5870 in it was it a gaming pc, or was it a non-gaming pc? This is why your logic is not correct.
I'm confused, here. What are you talking about that most games up till now were consoles? People were playing games on computers before atari existed. Secondly, there are not many console exclusive titles. The only stuff that does that really is sports games. Of course people who bought consoles are supposedly only doing it for gaming, although that would be a lie, not a fact. Especially in comparison to that many people bought PS3 for bluray playback capability as well.
Intel GMA has the markethold because it is the cheapest bottom rung product (and the first) which is also tied into many laptops by default. Want the cheapest laptop? Intel GMA. Want one that even play video? Not Intel GMA. A typical PC user can play whatever they want, but to state that all they play is facebook or casual games is disingenuous to the entire gaming industry. Integrated graphics doesn't account for even remotely what you assume, either. From my first google result for "marketshare of intel graphics" I see: http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/43383-amd-eats-into-nvidia-intel-graphics-market-share . Suffice to say, if 90% was integrated graphics, not only PC but Console gaming would suffer too - as it's the same companies that make the graphics capability for both.
What does it say? Intel at best has 50%. Where does Nvidia's 30% come from, huh? So integrated graphics doesn't account for 90% of the machines. Hell, even netbooks come with discrete graphics cards.
you're making a statement with 0 fact. People usually don't play games on a PC?
What the hell else do you think people do with a PC other than gaming and porn? Porn takes up 20 minutes, so what is the other 1-4 hours a night of average usage?
Why do we mention big franchises? Well, what are you going to cite for PS3 or other consoles successes? Flower? Little big planet? Other games which are not console exclusive?
I hear this "PC gaming is insignificant" yet I can state multiple pc games that easily dwarf console purchases. Lets see. Most recent? Mass effect 2? Modern Warfare 2? Further back, Bioshock/Bioshock 2?
Are you going to tell me these games run on an ARM? Short and long answer: no.
Steam is always cited because they can gather a lot of data on their customers. Games like MW2 and Mass effect 2 are just harder to quantify, but in no ways any less significant than console gaming.
Really, what do you think it takes to run MW2/Mass Effect 2? An Arm PC that's running facebook? An Atom running facebook? An Intel graphics running computer with a C2D Mobile?
for example purposes: just because a judge disagrees on this ruling doesn't mean they might not have another reason to strike down the lawsuit or whatever.
It's not like the opposite of ISP safe harbor is a lack of safe harbor. Maybe the judge feels the law is ambiguous, or that the case should just be dismissed. etc.
So as much as what we feel about the job of an ISP is, the precedent here has been set. It was already well known, this judge basically consolidated his cites. So "next time" means nothing, unless it's in Australia. Why be so doom and gloom and make a statement that nobody can rationally affirm or deny? "the next time it might not be?"
really? You know, most judges worldwide do tend to read into the decisions made by other countries and cite them, as there are many smart law folks. Whether they disagree or not sure, but simple jurisprudence does exist.
Again, only if the laptop is set to recharge to 100% every time you hit 90% battery or something. Oherwise, most laptops in the last 10+ years usually recharge to full from an increasingly lower charge amount. It's built into both windows and linux (I have no idea if Mac does). Plus you can change that setting yourself too. I have my laptop down to 65% (checked, yaeh)? It's plugged in 100% of the time and does not spend the time at 100%.
Abridged version: even plugged in laptops will not stay at 100% battery under any circumstance, even will continually plugged in.
well, netbooks do have DVD drives. However, they are not gaming suited at all. So no, there's no reasonable way that 90% of the pc market is going to be netbooks ever. A significant portion? Sure. Gaming? Never.
Also yes, wish you had a +10. People don't realize the atom is so crappy that it's pitiful. Small step forward in size/power usage, major step backwards in performance.
what you're saying has minimal significance on new laptops. Most new ones are a-okay with having the battery in and plugged in. They don't just blow an extra recharge cycle when it's plugged unless the battery is below the automated (or user set) threshold to recharge the battery. Example: Thinkpads do that. I've had mine cycle maybe 15 times over the course of a year, since it's plugged in most of the time anyway.
Batteries do discharge over time, so if you always keep it out when plugged in and forget, it's equally likely you won't remember to charge it for when it's needed.
It's underwhelming to everyone, including apple fanatics. So no, not just geeks. You are backwards. Geeks are the group who want this the most in comparison, actually. Meanwhile, geeks are still underwhelmed in many cases.
sanity on the riaa side? Marginally. Meanwhile attorney fees and the RIAA avoiding precedent are things which are still to be dealt with. Essentially they want to sweep this under the rug, and it's not going to happen.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
Well, you're right, via the way I was wording it was a faulty circular logic. It's a hard thing to put what I'm implying into specifics, and my explanations have been horrible if not misguided.
I'm just trying to make the concept of actions and turns in a video game less abstract, and achieving the opposite, apparently due to shitty wording.
lots of people have interest in the ipad, but that doesn't mean purchasing or even positive interest. Just "hmm, something interesting from apple - lets look up more info".
This is a result of the hype and the ipad underwhelming in general.
yeah. I have a 300gig raptor along with 6 gigs of ram, an I7 920, a 4890, and a basically serious machine, and I will definitely say that the load times are noticeable even for me at times. I pity anyone on PS3 or Xbox360. I do like the elevator concept but as you notice, all it's doing is hiding a loading screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to seem ad hominem. I never meant you said that, I'm just providing a reply here so that hopefully people will read it. Hopefully people will realize what went on is a direct example of the issues people don't realize exist.
Really, you can only hack a game so much without dedicated servers - the reason is that you don't know what the server side data is. Even if you know what the client is requesting it isn't telling you what the server does with it.
I think you're right for most games, but not for all. Some games actually think long term such as Eve online.
really?
You think this would happen if it was on a PC and for things that allowed dedicated servers?
I'll give you a clue: it wouldn't.
Welcome to what happens when non-technical console users get shoved into the world of pc gaming/become more techie as a result of MS's poor business choices. I hope people realize this applies to apple and any company/services that uses DRM (such as windows live gaming or whatever it's called) as well.
so the real answer is that you're saying you forgot to check off "post anonymously", then.
intel graphics isn't prevalent. For a simple explanation: It *was* prevalent.
Gaming itself is a cultural pasttime of our generation. In the last 30 years, it has exploded. So to deny that as a concept is to deny that if you ask absolutely anyone anywhere in the world if they've heard of mario, or world of warcraft, to expect them to not know what those are.
Gaming isn't rare, or a mythical beast, or special, it's just dejected by many people as it is such a new concept. Not unlike rock music in the 50's or 60's, marijuana in the 70's, etc. You can easily throw in talking on a phone in an airplane (while in the air) of the new dejected concepts. There's actually no real base for it (it= things that people deject), people just don't like it.
Enterprise/business does not define, nor is it a part of or reflective of, the market for gaming or gaming pc's or any attribute of that. Consumers (at ground level) define that. If there was no such market for gaming, gaming pcs, etc, then no such products would be offered. Capitalism reflects on this. The market itself would beg to differ from that concept.
In the consumer market, the amount of pc's that are "gaming" or "hardcore" doesn't reflect at all on the market *for* gaming, hardcore included, as someone with a crappy pc but buys 200$ for games would be considered non-gaming under your model versus someone who has a $2300 gaming capable computer but spends 0$ on games. Neither market nor your definition of hardcore gaming is reasonably defined.
PC's are super modular as well. You can drop in laptop graphics cards, ram, hard drives and processors. This was an unknown beast years ago, but now you can buy things like that. The same thing applies to regular desktops and even enterprise.
Actually I feel that you misunderstood. The terms are not separate. There's no way to discern that a PC, as it's purchased is destined for being a gaming PC, considering that computers are modular. The term itself doesn't even specify the type of gaming. If any pc can run games, are all pc's gaming pc's? I'm not trying to actually imply such a circular argument, but I mean that question rhetorically.
If I buy one with integrated graphics but later put a HD5870 in it was it a gaming pc, or was it a non-gaming pc? This is why your logic is not correct.
I'm confused, here. What are you talking about that most games up till now were consoles? People were playing games on computers before atari existed. Secondly, there are not many console exclusive titles. The only stuff that does that really is sports games. Of course people who bought consoles are supposedly only doing it for gaming, although that would be a lie, not a fact. Especially in comparison to that many people bought PS3 for bluray playback capability as well.
Intel GMA has the markethold because it is the cheapest bottom rung product (and the first) which is also tied into many laptops by default. Want the cheapest laptop? Intel GMA. Want one that even play video? Not Intel GMA. A typical PC user can play whatever they want, but to state that all they play is facebook or casual games is disingenuous to the entire gaming industry. Integrated graphics doesn't account for even remotely what you assume, either. From my first google result for "marketshare of intel graphics" I see: http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/43383-amd-eats-into-nvidia-intel-graphics-market-share . Suffice to say, if 90% was integrated graphics, not only PC but Console gaming would suffer too - as it's the same companies that make the graphics capability for both.
What does it say? Intel at best has 50%. Where does Nvidia's 30% come from, huh? So integrated graphics doesn't account for 90% of the machines. Hell, even netbooks come with discrete graphics cards.
you're making a statement with 0 fact. People usually don't play games on a PC?
What the hell else do you think people do with a PC other than gaming and porn? Porn takes up 20 minutes, so what is the other 1-4 hours a night of average usage?
Why do we mention big franchises? Well, what are you going to cite for PS3 or other consoles successes? Flower? Little big planet? Other games which are not console exclusive?
I hear this "PC gaming is insignificant" yet I can state multiple pc games that easily dwarf console purchases. Lets see. Most recent? Mass effect 2? Modern Warfare 2? Further back, Bioshock/Bioshock 2?
Are you going to tell me these games run on an ARM? Short and long answer: no.
Steam is always cited because they can gather a lot of data on their customers. Games like MW2 and Mass effect 2 are just harder to quantify, but in no ways any less significant than console gaming.
Really, what do you think it takes to run MW2/Mass Effect 2? An Arm PC that's running facebook? An Atom running facebook? An Intel graphics running computer with a C2D Mobile?
Think again.
for example purposes: just because a judge disagrees on this ruling doesn't mean they might not have another reason to strike down the lawsuit or whatever.
It's not like the opposite of ISP safe harbor is a lack of safe harbor. Maybe the judge feels the law is ambiguous, or that the case should just be dismissed. etc.
So as much as what we feel about the job of an ISP is, the precedent here has been set. It was already well known, this judge basically consolidated his cites. So "next time" means nothing, unless it's in Australia. Why be so doom and gloom and make a statement that nobody can rationally affirm or deny? "the next time it might not be?"
really? You know, most judges worldwide do tend to read into the decisions made by other countries and cite them, as there are many smart law folks. Whether they disagree or not sure, but simple jurisprudence does exist.
Again, only if the laptop is set to recharge to 100% every time you hit 90% battery or something. Oherwise, most laptops in the last 10+ years usually recharge to full from an increasingly lower charge amount. It's built into both windows and linux (I have no idea if Mac does). Plus you can change that setting yourself too. I have my laptop down to 65% (checked, yaeh)? It's plugged in 100% of the time and does not spend the time at 100%.
Abridged version: even plugged in laptops will not stay at 100% battery under any circumstance, even will continually plugged in.
I was quite intentionally implying that we should be using Theora and not H264.
By 2010 would be better.
well when I say newer, I don't remember when that became a guarantee that most laptops do that, but I imagine it was quite a while ago.
Also batteries and laptops both have their own protection against overcharging, and that stuff has been around for longer than your laptop.
well, netbooks do have DVD drives. However, they are not gaming suited at all. So no, there's no reasonable way that 90% of the pc market is going to be netbooks ever. A significant portion? Sure. Gaming? Never.
Also yes, wish you had a +10. People don't realize the atom is so crappy that it's pitiful. Small step forward in size/power usage, major step backwards in performance.
what you're saying has minimal significance on new laptops. Most new ones are a-okay with having the battery in and plugged in. They don't just blow an extra recharge cycle when it's plugged unless the battery is below the automated (or user set) threshold to recharge the battery. Example: Thinkpads do that. I've had mine cycle maybe 15 times over the course of a year, since it's plugged in most of the time anyway.
Batteries do discharge over time, so if you always keep it out when plugged in and forget, it's equally likely you won't remember to charge it for when it's needed.
sure makes it easier for the smart folks to avoid a jury trial if they wish to do so.
end result: annoying to do on small cases.
It's underwhelming to everyone, including apple fanatics. So no, not just geeks. You are backwards. Geeks are the group who want this the most in comparison, actually. Meanwhile, geeks are still underwhelmed in many cases.
sanity on the riaa side? Marginally. Meanwhile attorney fees and the RIAA avoiding precedent are things which are still to be dealt with. Essentially they want to sweep this under the rug, and it's not going to happen.
Actually, it's like geocities all over again!
Well, you're right, via the way I was wording it was a faulty circular logic. It's a hard thing to put what I'm implying into specifics, and my explanations have been horrible if not misguided.
I'm just trying to make the concept of actions and turns in a video game less abstract, and achieving the opposite, apparently due to shitty wording.
lots of people have interest in the ipad, but that doesn't mean purchasing or even positive interest. Just "hmm, something interesting from apple - lets look up more info".
This is a result of the hype and the ipad underwhelming in general.
yeah. I have a 300gig raptor along with 6 gigs of ram, an I7 920, a 4890, and a basically serious machine, and I will definitely say that the load times are noticeable even for me at times. I pity anyone on PS3 or Xbox360. I do like the elevator concept but as you notice, all it's doing is hiding a loading screen.