Would this happen to be the same types of cable companies who always seem to throw the excuse "Because our bandwidth is limited, we can only have a certain number of channels" when new channels are requested? Would this also happen to be the same types of cable companies who continually seem to drop their MPEG bit rates (thus causing massive pixelization) on some channels so that they can fit more channels and then still use the "Because our bandwidth is limited" response?
If you think that cable has some kind of infinite bandwidth thus allowing all channels in existence to be available at all times whenever they feel like it, then it's clear that you've never really dealt with the cable company or worked with its data infrastructure. Cable is just another network. It is no different than the Ethernet or wireless networks that we all have. It's just a different transmission medium. But it is still restricted to bandwidth limitations like any other network medium.
No, you are the one who is underestimating the consumer, particularly in the U.S. For whatever reason there are hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of people who jump on new technology for one (or more) of three reasons: (A) they believe in the technology and do have an immediate use for it; (B) they've bought the hype of the companies that are involved in the product; (C) they just can't stand not to be the first one on the block to have bragging rights. For those three reason alone HD will be big well before 2010.
Just about all large-screen TVs that have been sold for the past few years are HD-ready with the ability for 1080i resolution. How many hundreds of thousands if not millions of them have been sold in North America, let alone the rest of the world, with thousands more being sold every day? That right there sets a user base for millions of potential HD customers as soon as the products hit the shelf.
Now let's look at upgrades. Let's say that HD doesn't take off as much as would be expected. You know very well that ALL HD players will be backwards-compatible with existing DVDs and the sales of big screen TVs is not going to decline. They're getting cheaper and cheaper every day. You can expect to see a hell of a lot of HD TV and playe combinations in the retail stores, touting marketing phrases like "Watch HDTV in all of its glory in our new HDTV/[Blu-Ray|HD-DVD] package for only $..." or "Why use your TV for regular DVD when you can use it for high definiting by adding on an HD player!"
Additionally, people are always going to be looking for new DVD players either to replace old/defective players or "because it's time for an upgrade." Execpt for the extrememly frugal, most people will go with HD because "they might as well" as long as HD players are not prohibitively expensive.
Also, you know very well that the studios will be releasing big-budget epics in HD as well as new movies that have already been filmed in HD. And people will buy them. If there is one thing that the studios have proven, people will continually double-dip for DVDs as long as they feel that they're getting value from the "new version". Between the higher resolution and the extra storage space for lots of extra material, the studios won't have to do much to make BR/HD-DVD appear to be a better value.
So, as more and more movies come out on HD, as more and more TVs are sold that are HD-ready, as more and more players come out thus dropping the prices, you can expect BR/HD-DVD to surge.
Yes, a whole bunch of people have TVs that don't support s-video. They're not HD's target market; they're not being taken into account anyway, so your argument about that is relatively moot.
Then again, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. If you don't have the balls to use a non-AC account, then your argument doesn't have much credibility to begin with as far as I'm concerned.
While all these corporations squabble endlessly over proprietary formats, hardware specs, marketing schemes, and temporary alliances, the fact is that the true future of digital content distribution WILL be online.
Not likely. Perhaps when FIOS becomes commonplace and available to every person on the face of the planet, but there is no chance that the mainstream user will accept on-line access as the only way to gain video in the near future.
A two-hour movie in really good, MPEG-2 quality takes up approximately 7-8 GB, depending on audio options. Even with a 6 Gb cable connection, that takes roughly three hours to download. (For those who hadn't noticed, that means that it would take longer to download than to watch, so streaming at full quality is not an option.)
Now, bring in HD. About 75 minutes of HD-quality material takes roughly the same amount of space. Expand that to a 2-hour movie and you're looking at anywhere between 12-14 GB of data. That same 6 Gb cable connection would take about six hours to download that movie. In the same amount of time, I could have run to the nearest BR/HD-DVD rental store, watched the movie -- possibly twice -- and returned it. This of course assumes that your "unlimited use" ISP doesn't then knock your ass down for using up "too much" of your "unlimited use" bandwidth after downloading three or four HD movies. And don't even THINK about doing streaming HD unless you've got some enormous network pipe to your house!
Even discounting the fact that every house will NOT be connected via FIOS (or even broadband) in the coming years, thus requiring a physical medium in order to watch the video content, people want a physical medium without restrictive DRM. That has been proven time and time again. The recent Sony debacle should be proof enough of that. People are obviously buying physical discs even though the music is available on-line.
Video games are also sold on-line by a lot of different vendors for a discounted price, yet boxed media are still preferred. Why? Because there is a comfort factor in having the disc in your hands, not worrying about if your computer is connected to the Internet in order to install and play it. There's also no concern about downloading it again or having to authenticate it again (for the most part), and so on.
Ah, so then comes the argument about backing the movies or games off to another medium in the event of a recovery or for backup purposes. Oh, wait. We can't use that argument because there is no need for physical media if everything is distributed on-line! You said so yourself.
On-line definitely has its place. The success of iTunes and the recent announcements by major networks to have their shows distributed electronically is definitely a step toawrds on-line distribution. But unless you plan on every house in the world having a dedicated DS3 connection, the notion that all material - particiularly HD - will be distributed exclusively through digital means is preposterous at best and will likely not come in any of our lifetimes. I guess that you also expect people to have multi-terrabyte storage for each system as well. After all, all of that content has to be stored somewhere when it's downloaded. Or did you actually expect people to be on-line for every movie that they want to watch? Well, I guess that makes a market for automotive broadband on the newest Winnebago line, doesn't it?
Oh, and by the way -- ALL technology is "temporary" because new technology is always evolving from old technology. So, your statement about "temporary technology" alone is fallacious.
In the meantime, please let us know what it is that you have been smoking because it seems like it's some really good shit. The fact that you've been modded as "Insightful" is staggering - or else it's indicative that mod points shouldn't be handed out as much as they are.
After the exchange rates, it came out to 4 canoes, 3 flying squirrels, and a 2 Canadian mounties.
...and a partridge in a pear tree.:)
(Sorry. I had to, particularly with Christmas rapidly approaching. I now prepare myself for the humorless mods and their dreaded "Off-topic" mod points since they don't have the humor to use +1 Funny. Bah. It's only karma.)
Considering that I still want to scream like a grandmother when I think of the Ultima: Ascension rush-to-market debacle, I have absolutely no problems with Valve taking the time that they need to get the product done right the first time. There are far too many games out there that were delivered with a "just get it shipped and we'll fix it later" attitude. See Battlefield 2 for a recent example of that. I've give Valve some time if they feel that they need it as long as I get effective code that doesn't crash because I looked up at the wrong time.
It could be worse, you know. If it was called "Half-Life 2: In Search of Duke Nuke'Em", then we would be assured that we'd never see it. In this case, however, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
You took out a chopper with 2 AT rockets and a shotgun? Must've been some pretty darned noob opponents. Contrary to popular belief, just because you can hover and hose a spawn point with machine gun fire doesn't mean you should. Hovering means you're vulnerable. Don't get me wrong, I love playing anti-tank, but you'll never hit a moving helicopter unless you get the perfect shot lined up.
Actually, when you learn how to lead properly, it's not that difficult to hit a moving chopper with AT unless he's moving at full speed perpendicular to your position. The shotgun blasts were from the upgraded shotgun with magazine in rapid succession at very close range (probably only about 15 meters above) so they were able to ding it just enough to make it go away after the two AT hits. In fact, this just happened last night.
Secondly, there are anti-aircraft emplacements. I know people who claim they're awesome with them, but I've never seen them used effectively. Maybe I'm just too unskilled to use them and play with a bunch of rookies, but it seems to me there are two many flaws with them to justify using them. They make you defenseless against ground targets, they give the pilot a warning, and they're just stupidly inaccurate. I've had 12+ miss streaks against pilots too dumb to hit the countermeasures button. That brings me to the next flaw, you get two missiles and then about a half hour of reloading.
There are some fundamental design flaws with the AA as far as I'm concerned. I particularly dislike how the rockets seem to go every which way except to the target, even if the target is heading directly away from you in a straight line and there are no other heat sources to lock onto! The idea that even after you fire if you lose the lock then the missiles that you've already launched also lose their lock is also not very believable. Let's not forget the the enemy is clearly in visual sight but the missiles still won't lock. Uh huh. That certainly is not the fault of the pilot of the enemy vehicle, but it does help to bolster the statement about aircraft being tougher than they should be, not so much because of the strength of the chopper but because of the ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft weaponry.
The final, and in my opinion most likely method of taking down a helicopter is with a vehicle-mounted machine gun or anti-air platform. With a properly concealed Vodnik, it's not too hard to take down a helicopter using only the machine gun. Step into a linebacker or something similar, and suddenly you can down a helicopter almost as easily as they can snuff you out.
Agreed. I even had one guy complain about downing his chopper with my mounted MG -- as though this was somehow unbelievable for him. I guess he assumes that air combat is only for air vehicles.:)
As someone who has been playing (and more often than not enjoying) BF2 since the day that it came out, I want to mention some points. I want to make a disclaimer that I am not a very good chopper pilot, even though I am getting better.
"Persistent scoring (where your score is counted from one gaming session to another) is the norm in MMORPGs, but using it in arguably less mature genres such as FPSs makes for interesting gameplay. " From the article: "The most prized asset for the competitive, ranking-sensitive Battlefield 2 player are the helicopters. These fearsome death machines are almost ludicrously overpowered, in the right hands. They feature a gunnery position with a nasty cannon (best for troop takedown), and TV-guided missiles (best for vehicles).
Bull. They're not all that easy to fly and a lot of times you'll get two helicopter pilots in the same level who are skilled and therefore see each other as the threat. So, while they're busy trying to take each other out, I'm busy manning the anti-aircraft or the anti-tank. (Yes, I've actually taken down helicopters with a combination of two anti-tank rounds and the shotgun upgrade.) Having played just short of 100 hours, the times that I've had to deal with helicopter pilots that do nothing but massacre are very rare. And if you find a server with that kind of pilot and no one to counter-act, there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of other servers that you're more than welcome to connect to. And - believe it or not - vehicle-mounted machines gun can be devastating to helicopters!
Additionally, being a gunner means shit if the pilot (A) is more focused on his own points and (B) can't get it through his head that the pilot is supposed to line up the shot for the gunner.
Personally, I find the jets in the hands of a good pilot to be far more devastating than a helicopter.
The pilot, whose job is to grapple with the newbie unfriendly control system, and powerful engine also has access to a bank of effective-in-quantity missiles. Newbies inevitably do get hold of them sometimes, to disastrous effect - they are pretty difficult to fly until you get your head around the control system. I'm reminded of a driving school car around my way that says 'Everyone had to learn once!' on the back."
That's why you do one of two things:
PLAY THE SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN! There are a number of single player levels that have helicopters and aircraft available to them. In single player, you can do whatever the hell you want because there are no other players to piss off due to being a newbie. The area that you can cover will be small since the single-player campaign is only made of 16-player maps, but you can still get flying skills.
Start a multiplayer server that no one has access to. When the game starts, you should still be able to do whatever you want. There won't be another player, of course, so the level won't actually start, but you should still be able to fly. If you have a second (or third) system, you should be able to start a 64-player map on a stand-alone server, connect with one or two other systems, and have the 64-player map to yourself.
Find a server where the players really don't have a clue or servers that don't have a lot of players, like the 32-player maps that only have about 10 people on them. (There are quite a few of these.) They other players are usually too busy trying to figure out how to capture bases than figuring out how to fly, giving you ample opportunity to learn.
This article sounds more to me like sour grapes. "Oh, wah. That helicopter guy is just SO good! How can we ever compete against him!" Well, he was once a helicopter newbie, too. He was once clueless about how to fly it, too. Just because you're not very good now doesn't mean that you can't get to his skill level if you stop whining and do one of the things that I mention above. And once you get your first helicopter-based kill, you'll just be more eager to get even better. So, stop whining and just do it. The other guy did. That's why he's good!!
Please define "bad graphics". You apparently are of the mindset that you have to have jaw-dropping renders with full shaders, light sources, fogging, and so forth. That's exactly what Telltale has been getting away from because to what feels like a majority of game comapnies the story comes second to the graphics so that the gaming company can partner with ATI or NVidia. Bone and Telltale in general are trying to get people back to the thought that you don't have to have lens flares, rippling waters, and hundreds of particle algorithms in order to have a great game.
This was their first attempt to recapture what adventure gaming used to be and I'll confess that it's a bit weak. But they get a lot of constructive feedback on their forums, which I'm sure is taken seriously since many of the forum members have been around since the company was first created.
As for your Sam and Max concerns, you apparently are unaware that most of the team who was working on LucasArts' Sam and Max: Freelance Police went on to form Telltale after Lucas scrapped the project when it was about 90% completed. So, not only were they the people who were writing and developing it, they've gotten the blessing from Steve Purcell himself who said that he can't imagine a better group to make the game.
As long as I'm preaching, look at how many other games out there rake in a lot of money with relatively simplistic graphics -- Zuma, Bejewelled, and a ton of others. Gameplay without graphics does matter to a lot of people. Apparently, you're not one of them -- and that's fine. But there are a lot of us who look to companies like Telltale to give us something different from the latest barrage of "graphics first, story second" games that have comprised the majority of releases in the past several years.
Disclaimer: No, I don't work for Telltale. I just like supporting the underdog and protecting them from undue criticism when I can. I guess that's why I also love *nix.:)
From TFA... and old-school tracks from the "Command and Conquer" games. licensed
Wha....? That's what they call "old school"? Try going back to the C64/Amiga days when there was some really fantastic music out there. Musicians/composers pushed the envelopes with what they could do because they had to get the most out of limited, music voices (three fore the C64 and six for the Amiga, I believe). I'd love to hear modern versions of the themes from Skate or Die and M.U.L.E., both coincidentally from Electronic Arts.
Companies like EA and Activistion really should look at remastering some of their REAL "old school" music. I'd love to hear so many soundtracks for my old C64 games in a modern accompanyment while staying 100% true to the old sound, like what a lot of C64 remixers have done.
My list (at least those that I can think of right off the bat)...
M.U.L.E. - EA
The Last Ninja - Activision
Skate or Die - EA
Ultima V and Ultima VI - Origin (now EA)
Various Mastertronic theme songs
Various Cosmi theme songs
Various Sierra On-Line theme songs*
Hell, there are a number of old game songs I'd like to hear remastered, licensing and approval by the original composers notwithstanding.
The idea that Command and Conquer is old school while ignoring classics like Skare or Die is almost insulting. It would also be a nice tribute for EA and other companies to the real "old school" gaming that set the foundation for where these game companies are today.
* Such a CD was released in the early 1990s, but good luck finding it any more. It contained from really great music by Mark Seibert, who composed the music for the King's Quest series, Police Quest series, and others.
Leave it up to the Slashdot crowd to not realize that the aluminum joke is in reference (at least partly) to Slashdot's beloved "foil" hats.
Clue for the clueless: So-called "tin foil" no longer contains tin as it used to. It's now almost entirely aluminum. Nowadays, "tin foil" hats would be more appropriately called "aluminum foil" hats, hence the joke.
That level freaked me out like crazy. It was bad enough to see the electrical "experiments" walking around, but to be in an empty building always expecting to have something around the next corner walking right at you then hear loud knocking near the spiral staircase, getting louder as you go up... the faint audience clapping in the reception room... reading about the various experiments that were carried out and the torments of the inmates/patients...
Add all of that to a 21" monitor and 4.1 audio with the lights out...
I'm just glad that my underwear was clean... at least before I started that level.:)
Thief...should definitely be topping the list of the scariest games ever made.
My only issue with that statement is that when you look at each of the Thief games, yes, they had very intense levels, but the majority of the levels were not scary. Most dealt with sneaking into buildings with live guards more than undead creatures. It's just that when you did get to the scary levels they did their job well!
Probably because upgrading a system is intimidating to a lot of people, so they try to take the wasy way out by buying a whole new system. I know that if given the choice between $2,500 or $500, I'll go for the $500. I think that a lot of other people would, too.
Okay, folks. Let's look through what we have so far in this thread - a number of people complaining about no monitor, keyboard, mouse, or case.
Did it ever occur to any of you that all of those items are what WE CURRENTLY HAVE? Look at the parts list that he's building up in the review. It's evident that he's talking about UPGRADING a current system on a shoestring budget!
Keyboards, mice, monitors, and cases can remain consistent through any upgrade. They neither improve nore degrade performance. HOWEVER...
A new processor is obvious.
Depending on how old your current system is, a new motherboard is probably required for the new CPU.
New memory is also often required in order to take advantage of faster buses. (No smart-ass comments about public transportation, please.) Although I personally would not recommend anything less than 1 GB for gaming or 2 GB if you plan on playing Battlefield 2.
A new video card is obviously needed for a lot of newer games, and the 6600 has a very good price/performance ratio right now.
A new hard drive is always a good idea for several reasons. (A) Price/GB is always dropping. (B) More storage is always good. (C) A new drive allows the ability to transfer data from the old hard drive more efficiently than making a backup to DVD. (D) New hard drives are just about guaranteed to be faster than older hard drives, especially if there is a multi-year difference between the two.
Everything that he mentioned in the article are what are needed to get yourself a "new" gaming system. A new case, keyboard, mouse, and monitor are not needed. The main internals that matter are clearly what he's talking about. So, it should have been evident that the article is about UPGRADING a current system, not buying a whole new gaming system from scratch!
But you didn't have a problem with "has just began"?
Dude, it's Friday night and he's still at home in front of his computer posting on Slashdot. He probably depressed about that, so he can't catch everything. I mean, really. Friday night.. at home.. posting on Slashdot.. and you expect him to...
Uh...
Wait a minute...
Well, I'm married with two kids, both less than 6 years old. At least that gives me an excuse for not having a life on a Friday night.:)
I don't understand what all of the fuss is about. With systems that generate this much heat, I want to buy one just because it will probably be cheaper to heat my house with a dual Xeon system than with heating oil, considering current fuel prices! I can simultaneously have the benefit of running one hell of a Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2, or SETI@Home system! Then when summer arrives I can switch back to my cooler AMD X2 system, thus saving money on cooling bills as well!
AND after playing BF2 for an hour or so the top of the case will be ready to cook up some chicken and steak tips! Introducting the new Intel, dual-Zeon, charcoal-less hibachi system!
Come on! You guys need to look at the positives of having such hot CPUs!
Okay, I realize that/. is a Linux user's haven; however, OO is a multi-platform application (or set of applications, depending on how you define it). It is available on Windows, Solaris, and Mac as well as Linux. I know that people are thrilled that an office suite of this nature is available for Linux, but let's keep it in perspective, shall we? I'd be much more excited to hear if OO is becoming more accepted on Windows and Linux for obvious, anti-Microsoft-Office reasons.
Why? Because they can't promise the same level of production as Intel does.
AMD just opened a new manufacturing facility in Germany that, if I recall correctly, will be able to product 100 million more chips per year. Whether that's CPUs or IC chips I don't know, but it's clear that AMD is growing. That's still not going to overtake Intel any time soon, but it's encouraging.
And so what if AMD doesn't produce their own motherboards? Okay, Intel has the facilities to do both. So what? Why does that matter? Dell doesn't manufacture their own hard drives or memory chips or... just about anything that goes into a Dell PC. Why do you hold AMD to standards that are not required for other electronics manufacturers? As long as AMD has an open relationship with other motherboard manufacturers where technical specs are available to make appropriate motherboards, then so what if AMD doesn't make their own? If certain mobo manufacturers don't make quality products, then don't buy from them. Buy from competitors. Don't blame AMD for bad products from other companies.
My concern is what kind of DVD it would be. I don't mean factory-pressed versus DVD-R. I mean, it is the same kind of DVD that I would see in the retail store or is it some kind of Comcast-branded version?
More than that, the majority of pay-per-view that I see is in pan-and-scan/open-matte format. For example, if a movie was intended to be seen in 2.35:1 widescreen, that's how I want the DVD. Since most pay-per-view that I've seen is 1.33:1 (and a few 1.77:1 here and there), would the DVD be in its intended 2.35:1 aspect ratio or would it be in the pay-per-view 1.33:1/1.77:1 AR?
Same with audio. If a movie is Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS but the PPV version is two-channel, is the DVD going to be in the intended audio format or the PPV format?
The article didn't mention how these particular issues would be handled and it needs to be a concern, not only for those of us who want to see movies in the way that the film makers intended but also for the opposite. What if someone who doesn't like widescreen watches a pan-and-scan/open-matte PPV movie then receives a widescreen DVD? What if someone who tolerated the non-widescreen version on PPV expects to get the widescreen DVD and instead gets the pan-and-scan/open-matte (euphemistically called "full frame") version? Will customers be given the option of the widescreen or P&S/OM version?
Unfortunately, TFA doesn't address these issues. I think that a lot of people will want to know this before they decide whether it's a good thing or not. This is an idea that we in the home theatre community have discussed for several years; but Comcast needs to make its customers very aware of what kind of DVD they will be getting or else Comcast risks getting a lot of complaints and returns.
Although I'm sure that the Microsoft bit was a hoax, as far back as 2000 a company called Spectradisc, which has since been acquired by Flexplay, was actively working on a clear, chemical layer that would discolor when struck by the laser from the DVD player thus making the disc a single-play. They claim that their target market was for groups like the Academy Awards or those who want to offer promo material while preventing distribution or something like "pizza and a DVD", allowing the DVD to be viewed once.
Since then, Flexplay has used similar technology to discolor DVDs 48 hours after the case is open. In this case, the disc is sealed in an airtight container. When it comes in contact with oxygen, is begins the discoloration process to where it's unreadable in about 48 hours. Disney released several movies under the "EZ-D" label using this technology. It's the Circuit City DIVX scam in a new package.
I don't know if Flexplay is still pursuing the single-play DVD concept, but since they bought SpectraDisc they obviously have all of the research that SpectraDisc might have already done.
Who the hell is the nut sack who thinks that this is some Microsoft invention?! This was first talked about FIVE YEARS AGO! In fact, Disney has already released discs that are of basically the same technology, called EZ-D, except that the disc dies after 48 hours. Sure, it wasn't one-play, but it was the same type of process.
Now, if fairness I could not RTFA because it got slashdotted, but I'm assuming that a chemical reaction from the laser striking an added film layer is what's making the disc "read once". But, again, this technology was discussed by SpectraDisc back in 2000! No one "invented" it in 2005, particularly not Microsoft!
I disagree with your last statement completely. I went over 4 years before I upgraded my PC. Yes, the only reason why I upgraded was to play the newest games. But as long as the upgrade price is where the price/benefit curve starts to bend upwards, you can still get a good four years or so out of that system. Even then, the cost of upgrading to support new games can still be substantially less than a console + accessories as long as you upgrade the right components.
Of course, there's the whole side-topic of all of the other bazillion things that can be done with a PC that you can't do with a console, but I don't want this thread to go off on that tangent. It tends to bring the extremist fan-boys out. Realistically though, that has to be added into the value of using a PC as a console replacement.
I'll meet you half-way. There are still somewhat brisk sales of PC steering wheels. I just recently saw a PC steering wheel set that ran for over $1,000!! And people buy the damned thing! So, there is a market for racing games, but it's one of the smaller segments. You're correct on that.
The main mistake that I see most ported games run into is that they're often full-price. Most PC gamers will scoff at that, myself included. I'm not going to pay $40-50 for what is nothing more than a console port. I could just as easily rent a console and the game for a few days and pay 1/2 of that or less.
In cases where the game is a direct port, the price should be 1/2 of the normal game cost or less because most of the development is already done. This is particularly true when the PC port comes out some time after the console game is released. Case in point: Bloodrayne 2. Not a great game by any standards and the PC version came out six months or so after the console version. But it was brand new in Best Buy for $19. That as far as I'm concerned is a fair price. There was nothing special for the PC; the game was already out for months on consoles; so a less-than-$20 price tag was fair. Unfortunately, many game companies, like EA, think that they still should sell the game for $40 or $50 even if it's nothing more than a port. Then they wonder why it doesn't sell well?
Yes, yes, I know. Well, why shouldn't they charge full price? Most PC gamers also have consoles. I know a lot of PC/console gamers who say flat out (understandably) that if the PC version doesn't take advantage of the extras that the PC can offer, they might as well just get the console version.
Makes sense to me, and I'd probably do the same thing myself.
That excuse doesn't have a lot of validity any more. You design your game to DirectX or OpenGL, and the hardware manufacturers are expected to by compliant with those. It's the customer's responsibility to make sure their their system meets the requirements that you specify. If they don't that's their responsibility, not yours. Look at the box for most games any more. Most games state that the hardware must be DirectX 9.0 compliant and that is at least be a minimum type so that a common set of features are available. If you want to take advantage of specific attributes of specified hardware, that's your business, but you are under no obligations to do so, particularly if the game is a console port more than anything else.
The DOS and Windows 3.1 days of having to code games and apps for specific pieces of video and audio are for the most part long gone. Your statement about needing to code for hundreds of different combinations is very weak if not irrelevant nowadays.
Jeez. I just put DirectX in the "beneficial" category. I need a shower now.
I bought my Xbox around the same time I bought my PC. The PC cost 3 times as much.
There's the main catch. You bought your PC. For people who have plenty of spare PC hardware around, upgrading a PC to act as a console can easily cost less than a new console + accessories. A new GeForce 6x00 with S-Video/TV-out can be bought for less than $150 (5x00 series for less than $100) and a new wireless keyboard/mouse combo can be bought for $50-60. That's still less than the cost of a new console + controllers.
So, just because you bought your PC new does not mean that comparing a new console with a new PC is the only viable comparison.
I prefer to play games like Burnout from the sofa.
...which is why most graphics cards nowadays have an RCA or S-Video connection on the back - to allow you to connect your PC to a TV. A wireless keyboard/mouse combo (preferably a wireless keyboard/trackball combo) would then allow you play any PC game from your sofa on a much larger screen than just about any PC would otherwise have, unless you have a 21" monitor but a 13" TV.:)
This is exactly why gaming companies have no excuse for putting these games out only for consoles. Any PC can become an über-console for less than the cost of a new console.
Slashdot Mirror
Would this happen to be the same types of cable companies who always seem to throw the excuse "Because our bandwidth is limited, we can only have a certain number of channels" when new channels are requested? Would this also happen to be the same types of cable companies who continually seem to drop their MPEG bit rates (thus causing massive pixelization) on some channels so that they can fit more channels and then still use the "Because our bandwidth is limited" response?
If you think that cable has some kind of infinite bandwidth thus allowing all channels in existence to be available at all times whenever they feel like it, then it's clear that you've never really dealt with the cable company or worked with its data infrastructure. Cable is just another network. It is no different than the Ethernet or wireless networks that we all have. It's just a different transmission medium. But it is still restricted to bandwidth limitations like any other network medium.
...or a psychology major, for that matter.
No, you are the one who is underestimating the consumer, particularly in the U.S. For whatever reason there are hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of people who jump on new technology for one (or more) of three reasons: (A) they believe in the technology and do have an immediate use for it; (B) they've bought the hype of the companies that are involved in the product; (C) they just can't stand not to be the first one on the block to have bragging rights. For those three reason alone HD will be big well before 2010.
Just about all large-screen TVs that have been sold for the past few years are HD-ready with the ability for 1080i resolution. How many hundreds of thousands if not millions of them have been sold in North America, let alone the rest of the world, with thousands more being sold every day? That right there sets a user base for millions of potential HD customers as soon as the products hit the shelf.
Now let's look at upgrades. Let's say that HD doesn't take off as much as would be expected. You know very well that ALL HD players will be backwards-compatible with existing DVDs and the sales of big screen TVs is not going to decline. They're getting cheaper and cheaper every day. You can expect to see a hell of a lot of HD TV and playe combinations in the retail stores, touting marketing phrases like "Watch HDTV in all of its glory in our new HDTV/[Blu-Ray|HD-DVD] package for only $..." or "Why use your TV for regular DVD when you can use it for high definiting by adding on an HD player!"
Additionally, people are always going to be looking for new DVD players either to replace old/defective players or "because it's time for an upgrade." Execpt for the extrememly frugal, most people will go with HD because "they might as well" as long as HD players are not prohibitively expensive.
Also, you know very well that the studios will be releasing big-budget epics in HD as well as new movies that have already been filmed in HD. And people will buy them. If there is one thing that the studios have proven, people will continually double-dip for DVDs as long as they feel that they're getting value from the "new version". Between the higher resolution and the extra storage space for lots of extra material, the studios won't have to do much to make BR/HD-DVD appear to be a better value.
So, as more and more movies come out on HD, as more and more TVs are sold that are HD-ready, as more and more players come out thus dropping the prices, you can expect BR/HD-DVD to surge.
Yes, a whole bunch of people have TVs that don't support s-video. They're not HD's target market; they're not being taken into account anyway, so your argument about that is relatively moot.
Then again, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. If you don't have the balls to use a non-AC account, then your argument doesn't have much credibility to begin with as far as I'm concerned.
While all these corporations squabble endlessly over proprietary formats, hardware specs, marketing schemes, and temporary alliances, the fact is that the true future of digital content distribution WILL be online.
Not likely. Perhaps when FIOS becomes commonplace and available to every person on the face of the planet, but there is no chance that the mainstream user will accept on-line access as the only way to gain video in the near future.
A two-hour movie in really good, MPEG-2 quality takes up approximately 7-8 GB, depending on audio options. Even with a 6 Gb cable connection, that takes roughly three hours to download. (For those who hadn't noticed, that means that it would take longer to download than to watch, so streaming at full quality is not an option.)
Now, bring in HD. About 75 minutes of HD-quality material takes roughly the same amount of space. Expand that to a 2-hour movie and you're looking at anywhere between 12-14 GB of data. That same 6 Gb cable connection would take about six hours to download that movie. In the same amount of time, I could have run to the nearest BR/HD-DVD rental store, watched the movie -- possibly twice -- and returned it. This of course assumes that your "unlimited use" ISP doesn't then knock your ass down for using up "too much" of your "unlimited use" bandwidth after downloading three or four HD movies. And don't even THINK about doing streaming HD unless you've got some enormous network pipe to your house!
Even discounting the fact that every house will NOT be connected via FIOS (or even broadband) in the coming years, thus requiring a physical medium in order to watch the video content, people want a physical medium without restrictive DRM. That has been proven time and time again. The recent Sony debacle should be proof enough of that. People are obviously buying physical discs even though the music is available on-line.
Video games are also sold on-line by a lot of different vendors for a discounted price, yet boxed media are still preferred. Why? Because there is a comfort factor in having the disc in your hands, not worrying about if your computer is connected to the Internet in order to install and play it. There's also no concern about downloading it again or having to authenticate it again (for the most part), and so on.
Ah, so then comes the argument about backing the movies or games off to another medium in the event of a recovery or for backup purposes. Oh, wait. We can't use that argument because there is no need for physical media if everything is distributed on-line! You said so yourself.
On-line definitely has its place. The success of iTunes and the recent announcements by major networks to have their shows distributed electronically is definitely a step toawrds on-line distribution. But unless you plan on every house in the world having a dedicated DS3 connection, the notion that all material - particiularly HD - will be distributed exclusively through digital means is preposterous at best and will likely not come in any of our lifetimes. I guess that you also expect people to have multi-terrabyte storage for each system as well. After all, all of that content has to be stored somewhere when it's downloaded. Or did you actually expect people to be on-line for every movie that they want to watch? Well, I guess that makes a market for automotive broadband on the newest Winnebago line, doesn't it?
Oh, and by the way -- ALL technology is "temporary" because new technology is always evolving from old technology. So, your statement about "temporary technology" alone is fallacious.
In the meantime, please let us know what it is that you have been smoking because it seems like it's some really good shit. The fact that you've been modded as "Insightful" is staggering - or else it's indicative that mod points shouldn't be handed out as much as they are.
After the exchange rates, it came out to 4 canoes, 3 flying squirrels, and a 2 Canadian mounties.
...and a partridge in a pear tree. :)
(Sorry. I had to, particularly with Christmas rapidly approaching. I now prepare myself for the humorless mods and their dreaded "Off-topic" mod points since they don't have the humor to use +1 Funny. Bah. It's only karma.)
Considering that I still want to scream like a grandmother when I think of the Ultima: Ascension rush-to-market debacle, I have absolutely no problems with Valve taking the time that they need to get the product done right the first time. There are far too many games out there that were delivered with a "just get it shipped and we'll fix it later" attitude. See Battlefield 2 for a recent example of that. I've give Valve some time if they feel that they need it as long as I get effective code that doesn't crash because I looked up at the wrong time.
It could be worse, you know. If it was called "Half-Life 2: In Search of Duke Nuke'Em", then we would be assured that we'd never see it. In this case, however, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
You took out a chopper with 2 AT rockets and a shotgun? Must've been some pretty darned noob opponents. Contrary to popular belief, just because you can hover and hose a spawn point with machine gun fire doesn't mean you should. Hovering means you're vulnerable. Don't get me wrong, I love playing anti-tank, but you'll never hit a moving helicopter unless you get the perfect shot lined up.
:)
Actually, when you learn how to lead properly, it's not that difficult to hit a moving chopper with AT unless he's moving at full speed perpendicular to your position. The shotgun blasts were from the upgraded shotgun with magazine in rapid succession at very close range (probably only about 15 meters above) so they were able to ding it just enough to make it go away after the two AT hits. In fact, this just happened last night.
Secondly, there are anti-aircraft emplacements. I know people who claim they're awesome with them, but I've never seen them used effectively. Maybe I'm just too unskilled to use them and play with a bunch of rookies, but it seems to me there are two many flaws with them to justify using them. They make you defenseless against ground targets, they give the pilot a warning, and they're just stupidly inaccurate. I've had 12+ miss streaks against pilots too dumb to hit the countermeasures button. That brings me to the next flaw, you get two missiles and then about a half hour of reloading.
There are some fundamental design flaws with the AA as far as I'm concerned. I particularly dislike how the rockets seem to go every which way except to the target, even if the target is heading directly away from you in a straight line and there are no other heat sources to lock onto! The idea that even after you fire if you lose the lock then the missiles that you've already launched also lose their lock is also not very believable. Let's not forget the the enemy is clearly in visual sight but the missiles still won't lock. Uh huh. That certainly is not the fault of the pilot of the enemy vehicle, but it does help to bolster the statement about aircraft being tougher than they should be, not so much because of the strength of the chopper but because of the ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft weaponry.
The final, and in my opinion most likely method of taking down a helicopter is with a vehicle-mounted machine gun or anti-air platform. With a properly concealed Vodnik, it's not too hard to take down a helicopter using only the machine gun. Step into a linebacker or something similar, and suddenly you can down a helicopter almost as easily as they can snuff you out.
Agreed. I even had one guy complain about downing his chopper with my mounted MG -- as though this was somehow unbelievable for him. I guess he assumes that air combat is only for air vehicles.
Yes, I do play a lot of Strike at Karkand.
Same here.
"Persistent scoring (where your score is counted from one gaming session to another) is the norm in MMORPGs, but using it in arguably less mature genres such as FPSs makes for interesting gameplay. " From the article: "The most prized asset for the competitive, ranking-sensitive Battlefield 2 player are the helicopters. These fearsome death machines are almost ludicrously overpowered, in the right hands. They feature a gunnery position with a nasty cannon (best for troop takedown), and TV-guided missiles (best for vehicles).
Bull. They're not all that easy to fly and a lot of times you'll get two helicopter pilots in the same level who are skilled and therefore see each other as the threat. So, while they're busy trying to take each other out, I'm busy manning the anti-aircraft or the anti-tank. (Yes, I've actually taken down helicopters with a combination of two anti-tank rounds and the shotgun upgrade.) Having played just short of 100 hours, the times that I've had to deal with helicopter pilots that do nothing but massacre are very rare. And if you find a server with that kind of pilot and no one to counter-act, there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of other servers that you're more than welcome to connect to. And - believe it or not - vehicle-mounted machines gun can be devastating to helicopters!
Additionally, being a gunner means shit if the pilot (A) is more focused on his own points and (B) can't get it through his head that the pilot is supposed to line up the shot for the gunner.
Personally, I find the jets in the hands of a good pilot to be far more devastating than a helicopter.
The pilot, whose job is to grapple with the newbie unfriendly control system, and powerful engine also has access to a bank of effective-in-quantity missiles. Newbies inevitably do get hold of them sometimes, to disastrous effect - they are pretty difficult to fly until you get your head around the control system. I'm reminded of a driving school car around my way that says 'Everyone had to learn once!' on the back."
That's why you do one of two things:
This article sounds more to me like sour grapes. "Oh, wah. That helicopter guy is just SO good! How can we ever compete against him!" Well, he was once a helicopter newbie, too. He was once clueless about how to fly it, too. Just because you're not very good now doesn't mean that you can't get to his skill level if you stop whining and do one of the things that I mention above. And once you get your first helicopter-based kill, you'll just be more eager to get even better. So, stop whining and just do it. The other guy did. That's why he's good!!
I'm sorry, but I have to chime in on this.
:)
Please define "bad graphics". You apparently are of the mindset that you have to have jaw-dropping renders with full shaders, light sources, fogging, and so forth. That's exactly what Telltale has been getting away from because to what feels like a majority of game comapnies the story comes second to the graphics so that the gaming company can partner with ATI or NVidia. Bone and Telltale in general are trying to get people back to the thought that you don't have to have lens flares, rippling waters, and hundreds of particle algorithms in order to have a great game.
This was their first attempt to recapture what adventure gaming used to be and I'll confess that it's a bit weak. But they get a lot of constructive feedback on their forums, which I'm sure is taken seriously since many of the forum members have been around since the company was first created.
As for your Sam and Max concerns, you apparently are unaware that most of the team who was working on LucasArts' Sam and Max: Freelance Police went on to form Telltale after Lucas scrapped the project when it was about 90% completed. So, not only were they the people who were writing and developing it, they've gotten the blessing from Steve Purcell himself who said that he can't imagine a better group to make the game.
As long as I'm preaching, look at how many other games out there rake in a lot of money with relatively simplistic graphics -- Zuma, Bejewelled, and a ton of others. Gameplay without graphics does matter to a lot of people. Apparently, you're not one of them -- and that's fine. But there are a lot of us who look to companies like Telltale to give us something different from the latest barrage of "graphics first, story second" games that have comprised the majority of releases in the past several years.
Disclaimer: No, I don't work for Telltale. I just like supporting the underdog and protecting them from undue criticism when I can. I guess that's why I also love *nix.
Wha....? That's what they call "old school"? Try going back to the C64/Amiga days when there was some really fantastic music out there. Musicians/composers pushed the envelopes with what they could do because they had to get the most out of limited, music voices (three fore the C64 and six for the Amiga, I believe). I'd love to hear modern versions of the themes from Skate or Die and M.U.L.E., both coincidentally from Electronic Arts.
Companies like EA and Activistion really should look at remastering some of their REAL "old school" music. I'd love to hear so many soundtracks for my old C64 games in a modern accompanyment while staying 100% true to the old sound, like what a lot of C64 remixers have done.
My list (at least those that I can think of right off the bat)...
Hell, there are a number of old game songs I'd like to hear remastered, licensing and approval by the original composers notwithstanding.
The idea that Command and Conquer is old school while ignoring classics like Skare or Die is almost insulting. It would also be a nice tribute for EA and other companies to the real "old school" gaming that set the foundation for where these game companies are today.
* Such a CD was released in the early 1990s, but good luck finding it any more. It contained from really great music by Mark Seibert, who composed the music for the King's Quest series, Police Quest series, and others.
Leave it up to the Slashdot crowd to not realize that the aluminum joke is in reference (at least partly) to Slashdot's beloved "foil" hats.
Clue for the clueless: So-called "tin foil" no longer contains tin as it used to. It's now almost entirely aluminum. Nowadays, "tin foil" hats would be more appropriately called "aluminum foil" hats, hence the joke.
Offtopic indeed. Slashdot's clueless moderators strike yet again.
The craddle level in Thief 3 was "good" too...
... the faint audience clapping in the reception room ... reading about the various experiments that were carried out and the torments of the inmates/patients ...
... at least before I started that level. :)
That level freaked me out like crazy. It was bad enough to see the electrical "experiments" walking around, but to be in an empty building always expecting to have something around the next corner walking right at you then hear loud knocking near the spiral staircase, getting louder as you go up
Add all of that to a 21" monitor and 4.1 audio with the lights out...
I'm just glad that my underwear was clean
Thief...should definitely be topping the list of the scariest games ever made.
My only issue with that statement is that when you look at each of the Thief games, yes, they had very intense levels, but the majority of the levels were not scary. Most dealt with sneaking into buildings with live guards more than undead creatures. It's just that when you did get to the scary levels they did their job well!
Probably because upgrading a system is intimidating to a lot of people, so they try to take the wasy way out by buying a whole new system. I know that if given the choice between $2,500 or $500, I'll go for the $500. I think that a lot of other people would, too.
Okay, folks. Let's look through what we have so far in this thread - a number of people complaining about no monitor, keyboard, mouse, or case.
Did it ever occur to any of you that all of those items are what WE CURRENTLY HAVE? Look at the parts list that he's building up in the review. It's evident that he's talking about UPGRADING a current system on a shoestring budget!
Keyboards, mice, monitors, and cases can remain consistent through any upgrade. They neither improve nore degrade performance. HOWEVER...
A new processor is obvious.
Depending on how old your current system is, a new motherboard is probably required for the new CPU.
New memory is also often required in order to take advantage of faster buses. (No smart-ass comments about public transportation, please.) Although I personally would not recommend anything less than 1 GB for gaming or 2 GB if you plan on playing Battlefield 2.
A new video card is obviously needed for a lot of newer games, and the 6600 has a very good price/performance ratio right now.
A new hard drive is always a good idea for several reasons. (A) Price/GB is always dropping. (B) More storage is always good. (C) A new drive allows the ability to transfer data from the old hard drive more efficiently than making a backup to DVD. (D) New hard drives are just about guaranteed to be faster than older hard drives, especially if there is a multi-year difference between the two.
Everything that he mentioned in the article are what are needed to get yourself a "new" gaming system. A new case, keyboard, mouse, and monitor are not needed. The main internals that matter are clearly what he's talking about. So, it should have been evident that the article is about UPGRADING a current system, not buying a whole new gaming system from scratch!
But you didn't have a problem with "has just began"?
.. at home .. posting on Slashdot .. and you expect him to ...
...
...
:)
Dude, it's Friday night and he's still at home in front of his computer posting on Slashdot. He probably depressed about that, so he can't catch everything. I mean, really. Friday night
Uh
Wait a minute
Well, I'm married with two kids, both less than 6 years old. At least that gives me an excuse for not having a life on a Friday night.
I don't understand what all of the fuss is about. With systems that generate this much heat, I want to buy one just because it will probably be cheaper to heat my house with a dual Xeon system than with heating oil, considering current fuel prices! I can simultaneously have the benefit of running one hell of a Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2, or SETI@Home system! Then when summer arrives I can switch back to my cooler AMD X2 system, thus saving money on cooling bills as well!
AND after playing BF2 for an hour or so the top of the case will be ready to cook up some chicken and steak tips! Introducting the new Intel, dual-Zeon, charcoal-less hibachi system!
Come on! You guys need to look at the positives of having such hot CPUs!
Okay, I realize that /. is a Linux user's haven; however, OO is a multi-platform application (or set of applications, depending on how you define it). It is available on Windows, Solaris, and Mac as well as Linux. I know that people are thrilled that an office suite of this nature is available for Linux, but let's keep it in perspective, shall we? I'd be much more excited to hear if OO is becoming more accepted on Windows and Linux for obvious, anti-Microsoft-Office reasons.
Why? Because they can't promise the same level of production as Intel does.
... just about anything that goes into a Dell PC. Why do you hold AMD to standards that are not required for other electronics manufacturers? As long as AMD has an open relationship with other motherboard manufacturers where technical specs are available to make appropriate motherboards, then so what if AMD doesn't make their own? If certain mobo manufacturers don't make quality products, then don't buy from them. Buy from competitors. Don't blame AMD for bad products from other companies.
AMD just opened a new manufacturing facility in Germany that, if I recall correctly, will be able to product 100 million more chips per year. Whether that's CPUs or IC chips I don't know, but it's clear that AMD is growing. That's still not going to overtake Intel any time soon, but it's encouraging.
And so what if AMD doesn't produce their own motherboards? Okay, Intel has the facilities to do both. So what? Why does that matter? Dell doesn't manufacture their own hard drives or memory chips or
My concern is what kind of DVD it would be. I don't mean factory-pressed versus DVD-R. I mean, it is the same kind of DVD that I would see in the retail store or is it some kind of Comcast-branded version?
More than that, the majority of pay-per-view that I see is in pan-and-scan/open-matte format. For example, if a movie was intended to be seen in 2.35:1 widescreen, that's how I want the DVD. Since most pay-per-view that I've seen is 1.33:1 (and a few 1.77:1 here and there), would the DVD be in its intended 2.35:1 aspect ratio or would it be in the pay-per-view 1.33:1/1.77:1 AR?
Same with audio. If a movie is Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS but the PPV version is two-channel, is the DVD going to be in the intended audio format or the PPV format?
The article didn't mention how these particular issues would be handled and it needs to be a concern, not only for those of us who want to see movies in the way that the film makers intended but also for the opposite. What if someone who doesn't like widescreen watches a pan-and-scan/open-matte PPV movie then receives a widescreen DVD? What if someone who tolerated the non-widescreen version on PPV expects to get the widescreen DVD and instead gets the pan-and-scan/open-matte (euphemistically called "full frame") version? Will customers be given the option of the widescreen or P&S/OM version?
Unfortunately, TFA doesn't address these issues. I think that a lot of people will want to know this before they decide whether it's a good thing or not. This is an idea that we in the home theatre community have discussed for several years; but Comcast needs to make its customers very aware of what kind of DVD they will be getting or else Comcast risks getting a lot of complaints and returns.
Although I'm sure that the Microsoft bit was a hoax, as far back as 2000 a company called Spectradisc, which has since been acquired by Flexplay, was actively working on a clear, chemical layer that would discolor when struck by the laser from the DVD player thus making the disc a single-play. They claim that their target market was for groups like the Academy Awards or those who want to offer promo material while preventing distribution or something like "pizza and a DVD", allowing the DVD to be viewed once.
Since then, Flexplay has used similar technology to discolor DVDs 48 hours after the case is open. In this case, the disc is sealed in an airtight container. When it comes in contact with oxygen, is begins the discoloration process to where it's unreadable in about 48 hours. Disney released several movies under the "EZ-D" label using this technology. It's the Circuit City DIVX scam in a new package.
I don't know if Flexplay is still pursuing the single-play DVD concept, but since they bought SpectraDisc they obviously have all of the research that SpectraDisc might have already done.
Who the hell is the nut sack who thinks that this is some Microsoft invention?! This was first talked about FIVE YEARS AGO! In fact, Disney has already released discs that are of basically the same technology, called EZ-D, except that the disc dies after 48 hours. Sure, it wasn't one-play, but it was the same type of process.
r adisc.shtml
n e.shtml
http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2000_spect
http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2003_06_ju
Now, if fairness I could not RTFA because it got slashdotted, but I'm assuming that a chemical reaction from the laser striking an added film layer is what's making the disc "read once". But, again, this technology was discussed by SpectraDisc back in 2000! No one "invented" it in 2005, particularly not Microsoft!
I disagree with your last statement completely. I went over 4 years before I upgraded my PC. Yes, the only reason why I upgraded was to play the newest games. But as long as the upgrade price is where the price/benefit curve starts to bend upwards, you can still get a good four years or so out of that system. Even then, the cost of upgrading to support new games can still be substantially less than a console + accessories as long as you upgrade the right components.
Of course, there's the whole side-topic of all of the other bazillion things that can be done with a PC that you can't do with a console, but I don't want this thread to go off on that tangent. It tends to bring the extremist fan-boys out. Realistically though, that has to be added into the value of using a PC as a console replacement.
I'll meet you half-way. There are still somewhat brisk sales of PC steering wheels. I just recently saw a PC steering wheel set that ran for over $1,000!! And people buy the damned thing! So, there is a market for racing games, but it's one of the smaller segments. You're correct on that.
The main mistake that I see most ported games run into is that they're often full-price. Most PC gamers will scoff at that, myself included. I'm not going to pay $40-50 for what is nothing more than a console port. I could just as easily rent a console and the game for a few days and pay 1/2 of that or less.
In cases where the game is a direct port, the price should be 1/2 of the normal game cost or less because most of the development is already done. This is particularly true when the PC port comes out some time after the console game is released. Case in point: Bloodrayne 2. Not a great game by any standards and the PC version came out six months or so after the console version. But it was brand new in Best Buy for $19. That as far as I'm concerned is a fair price. There was nothing special for the PC; the game was already out for months on consoles; so a less-than-$20 price tag was fair. Unfortunately, many game companies, like EA, think that they still should sell the game for $40 or $50 even if it's nothing more than a port. Then they wonder why it doesn't sell well?
Yes, yes, I know. Well, why shouldn't they charge full price? Most PC gamers also have consoles. I know a lot of PC/console gamers who say flat out (understandably) that if the PC version doesn't take advantage of the extras that the PC can offer, they might as well just get the console version.
Makes sense to me, and I'd probably do the same thing myself.
That excuse doesn't have a lot of validity any more. You design your game to DirectX or OpenGL, and the hardware manufacturers are expected to by compliant with those. It's the customer's responsibility to make sure their their system meets the requirements that you specify. If they don't that's their responsibility, not yours. Look at the box for most games any more. Most games state that the hardware must be DirectX 9.0 compliant and that is at least be a minimum type so that a common set of features are available. If you want to take advantage of specific attributes of specified hardware, that's your business, but you are under no obligations to do so, particularly if the game is a console port more than anything else.
The DOS and Windows 3.1 days of having to code games and apps for specific pieces of video and audio are for the most part long gone. Your statement about needing to code for hundreds of different combinations is very weak if not irrelevant nowadays.
Jeez. I just put DirectX in the "beneficial" category. I need a shower now.
I bought my Xbox around the same time I bought my PC. The PC cost 3 times as much.
There's the main catch. You bought your PC. For people who have plenty of spare PC hardware around, upgrading a PC to act as a console can easily cost less than a new console + accessories. A new GeForce 6x00 with S-Video/TV-out can be bought for less than $150 (5x00 series for less than $100) and a new wireless keyboard/mouse combo can be bought for $50-60. That's still less than the cost of a new console + controllers.
So, just because you bought your PC new does not mean that comparing a new console with a new PC is the only viable comparison.
I prefer to play games like Burnout from the sofa.
...which is why most graphics cards nowadays have an RCA or S-Video connection on the back - to allow you to connect your PC to a TV. A wireless keyboard/mouse combo (preferably a wireless keyboard/trackball combo) would then allow you play any PC game from your sofa on a much larger screen than just about any PC would otherwise have, unless you have a 21" monitor but a 13" TV. :)
This is exactly why gaming companies have no excuse for putting these games out only for consoles. Any PC can become an über-console for less than the cost of a new console.