Project X was massively hard, but good fun. Not the hardest Amiga shoot'em-up though.
That accolade must go to the original Xenon, which the Bitmap Brothers freely admit they made stupidly hard inadvertently by playtesting it themselves throughout development and tweaking it to their 6-months-with-the-game ability!
(Not the sequel, Xenon II, which was great but perfectly possible to complete)
Oh for the days, when computer games rewarded ability rather than perseverance.
Computer games used to be about developing a skill, playing it until you got sufficiently good that you were able to complete something on a higher level. Nowadays, it's about who can put the most amount of time into a game. The difficulty level is a gentle gradient if not entirely flat.
Compare modern games to the simplest and most iconic of old games - Pac-man. It only had one level, one playing level. One! Yet the same level played again and again, with increasing difficulty. Faster ghosts, less time on power-pills, etc etc. The only way you would see level 20 was if you were good enough to beat level 19, and that was damn hard.
Compare to games these days, such as the GTA series, Half-life 1 and 2, Halo, World of Warcraft, whatever. The end of these games is not significantly different in difficulty from the beginning. The last levels involve generally the same baddies, but more of them, and you have bigger weapons to handle them. The experience is constant throughout the cycle of the game, so that a little perseverance will reward you with progress.
Why is this? Games are now a much bigger proposition, and the audience is wider. And the audience wants easy gratification and no frustration. Sure, it's meant to be entertainment, not a challenge. But for many of us, the entertainment is in the challenge and ultimately, surpassing it.
I remember spending ages playing Pac-man, Defender and the rest as a child trying to defeat the higher levels. When you achieve something you hadn't done before through your own skill and ability it's far more rewarding than just cruising through it.
Games are about perceived value now, and someone who fails to finish a game will not have gained that full "value" from it. So games are tailored so almost every user can finish it, that Bob the Button Masher will be able to work his way to the end and see all the pretty bits eventually as long as he doesn't run out of Cheetos in the meantime. But this is at the cost of a real sense of progression and challenge, and hence accomplishment, by those of us dedicated enough to put the effort in to get good at something.
Many games used to be open-ended, with just increasing skill levels and no defined end. I guess this got past that problem as every level was a measure of ability and a goal in itself. You can defeat it on level 15? Well I can get to level 20.
Games used to be closer to a martial art (simply in terms of dedication, application and training), now they feel more like a particularly wimpy yoga session, where as long as you can make it through the time, you can say you've completed it.
(No offence to any yogaers out there, you know what I mean)
I agree it seems a knee-jerk reaction deciding on a major so early in school, but it isn't as career-defining as it's made to sound. There are more than 9 careers available to them when they leave college (or high school for that matter), this isn't as pigeon-holing as it's made to sound. And it works in other countries, many have such specialisations, even more restrictive.
After all this is only asking students to choose their vague direction at this stage - performing arts, humanities, science, mathematics, languages, that sort of thing. The scope for variation within each of those is very wide, and most kids have an idea of where they see themselves going at that age already. I remember having to choose my GCSEs (14-16 year old UK courses) at 13-14, and while it was daunting, I already knew what I was good at and enjoyed, and what I wanted to drop.
The bonus to this sort of specialisation is it allows students to devote more time to their chosen subjects (and for lecturers to put more into their courses) and therefore for the system as a whole to turn out more qualified graduates - it's been the international consensus for a while that most US university degrees, particularly in technical subjects, are less thorough than other courses simply because the students do more varied work, concentrating less on their chosen field. For instance on a Physics BSc in the UK, a student would be spending 90-100% of their lectures on Physics specifically, and are finishing their courses more knowledgeable about their specialist subject as a result.
But why buy early? Because I was mostly a PC gamer with $600 but not $1500 to replace my mobo, processor, video card, and upgrade my RAM to get next-gen graphics on a 20" monitor.
Best argument I've heard yet, very true. I've been considering upgrading my PC and yeah, it would cost quite a lot (I think you'd be hard pressed to spend over $1000 without going SLi or something) compared to any of the consoles out there.
I wasn't trolling in my original post, perhaps just purposefully touching a few nerves;) I agree the PS3 has the potential to be a great system, whether it fulfils that or not depends on Sony and 3rd party support. Personally I'm waiting until it has fulfilled that potential (and the 360 for that matter, it certainly looks like it has a long way to go). If it takes another year, however, $600 could buy a *lot* more PC hardware than it could when the console launched.
A very interesting read. However, in a lot of the Western world it now seems the reverse is happening population-wise - that rich, or at least upper middle class upwards, people are having fewer children, if any, and poorer, or at least lower class people, are having more. Not that there is the abject poverty as widespread as during the revolution, but there is still a clear class divide.
Will this cause the reverse effect, as society struggles to cope with such a change in demographics, and we will end up with a society spending more to maintain itself, and less able to innovate?
Re:At least it won't piss off their existing owner
on
80 Gig PS3 Arrives in US
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I guess if you can afford the 46" 1080p TV, half a dozen games in as many months, multiple consoles, AND a large collection of Blu-ray movies to justify using the PS3 to play those too, then $600 isn't much more than pocket change.
Funny that it's a "next-gen gaming console" but you can't list a reason to play games on it *now* than minigames. I mean, you want to spend several thousand dollars to play fl0w in HD? Then you really do not know what value for money is.
The only way they can profit at the moment is to sell _fewer_ consoles.
At least it won't piss off their existing owners
on
80 Gig PS3 Arrives in US
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I mean, 20G extra harddrive and a free game (one of, like, 3 worth playing for the PS3 at the moment), and the set available in the UK at least of the original price but with an extra controller and *two* games bundled, just a few months after launch, would normally get people who bought it into a rage that they didn't get value for money.
Luckily nobody who bought a PS3 knows what "value for money" is.
Perhaps being given accomodation, three meals a day, playstations, TV, music, books, free instructional courses, sports facilities, isn't considered punishment enough by many people.
The situation in prison sure beats being homeless. Or, in some cases, unemployed.
I'm not saying prison is a cakewalk, but the system does seem to spend an awful lot of money accomodating felons, while there are a lot of people, not guilty of any crimes, in far worse situations.
Assuming 15 days/played, that's more than 60 weekdays worth (or 12 weeks) of devoting every hour of free time to WoW to go from 1-70. However, that doesn't cover running the instances to get the required gear/rep to begin raiding, nor does it cover that if the character in question being leveled is an alt it is entirely possible that one will be continually interrupted by guildies needing another person to tank/dps some instance.
Conversely, the typical console game completion time is 40 hours, or 80 hours if it's an unlockfest. In the time it takes to level (not gear) an alt, one could potentially complete 4-7 console games.
You know, some people would be thankful that they're actually getting value for money - that one game lasted them for longer than a month. Sure there is a subscription, but it's less than the price of a console game every month:)
I believe that playing the game is more fun than finishing the game, I'd rather have something that keeps me engrossed for a year than something I finish in a few weeks and never pick up again. I do play WoW, and I'm in a casual but skilled raiding group (Gruul, Kara, Maggy on farm, we're in TK now), and never did we actually run out of content.
There is more than just level 60, err, 70, err, 80. Some of the nicest content is at the lowest levels (Uldaman is still my favourite instance). If what you want is to do big raids and get epixx, then yes, you will need to be the top level, and that takes a while. But enjoy the ride, don't just power through it, it's fun.
I personally recommend increasing the exp received from quests by a substancial amount.
Oh yeah, I can see it now, terrorists running into a building, "DoTing" all the "mobs" inside, casting Frost Nova, then racing back out with the flag, using Rogues with crippling poison to cover their tracks.
Seriously, if the only people these guys can recruit are MMORPG heads, then the world has less to fear.
"Tonight we bring the war to the infidels and burn New York!" "Sorry, can't do that, I need to run BGs to get my new dagger"
I think it's fun to do this just for the sake of it, but I was referring to the whole backlash when it was announced there would be no iPhone SDK - "oh no, no third party apps! this thing is crippled and useless!".
From the actual post: This also means that third-party applications for iPhone will happen no matter what.
I don't understand this emphasis on running third party apps on something like the iPhone. Like I said, I've never come across a phone where a third-party application has been a deciding factor in buying it.
I think this is a neat trick, sure, and I'm a tinkerer as much as anyone, so I can appreciate this.
But.
What does this accomplish? I mean outside of it being "it's a neat thing I can do to it", it's not going to have serious practical implications for 99.9% of users. The writeup goes off onto this tangent of being able to run third-party applications on it, woohoo. I can't think of a single phone who has had a third-party application as a major selling point. And I have a Treo! The Palm stuff can be really nice, but there really isn't a deal-breaker compared to the internal software (the main features about it I love are the browser (I seem to get better performance with the built-in one than Opera) and the threaded messaging system)
It's neat, sure, but I don't see this sort of hack as being the Holy Grail for making the phone better that so many people think it is. A step backwards, even, if you have to get rid of some of the nice software already on it to use the hack (such as people removing the iTV's perfectly good software bundle to run their own homebrew stuff that just looks like ass in comparison)
The drugged air? I've heard of that conspiracy theory, but as far as I know, it's only that -- a conspiracy theory which has never been proven.
Based solely on my own trip to Las Vegas, my body clock was completely shot having flown across the Atlantic and partying lots, but staying in one of the big hotels, I found something very very weird that made me believe something in all that.
I woke up at 8am. Every. Single. Day.
Not that that is unusual enough for me, but it felt like I was waking up even when I didn't want to.
Went to bed at 10pm, jetlagged. Woke up at 8am. Fine, unexpected but normal. Partied til 3am. Woke up at 8am, feeling groggy. Unusual. Had an afternoon nap. Partied til 6am, got absolutely wrecked, and guess what? Woke up at 8am on the dot, feeling *so* tired (and still drunk, not hungover. Just really tired!) Couldn't get back to sleep, until about 9:30am, where I slept for another 6 hours.
I've never had a punctual body-clock, let alone when partying, so that really weirded me out. Especially the last morning, when I actually *wanted* to sleep, but somehow couldn't.
I'd be the first to believe they put something in the air to perk people up and get them to go out and spend their money.
couldn't this be re-interpreted as saying that if they were to run a tiered network, they would have no problem throttling its bandwidth to 50%, in order to ensure the content *they* prioritise gets through unhindered?
You're right on many counts. The PS3 is certainly:
Blu-ray player Upscaling DVD player HDMI out
I'm pretty sure when I want a Blu-ray player, I'll buy a PS3. Right now, I don't, so to me the PS3 is an exceptionally expensive game console, that plays about the same as the Xbox 360, but has fewer decent games. And it looks like the vast majority of people feel this way about it as well - there just isn't the demand for Blu-ray / HDDVD, which is crippling the PS3 sales.
Why do people keep saying the UMD is small? It's not, its physical size is way bigger than it should be, for its storage capacity. You can get 2 gig SD cards dirt cheap already, which are smaller, technically hold more, more energy-efficient, and probably load faster, too.
It's a proprietary, unwieldy format (can't display UMD movies on a tv, can't get writers or blank ones), but it's also bulky compared to alternatives (hell, i'd rather carry USB sticks), and small storage compared to alternatives.
The PS2 lives on, ie still gets new games, still has an active community, simply because there are millions upon millions of them out there, over 65 million according to vgchartz.com. Developers release new games when they feel they can see a large number of them. God of War 2 on the PS2 is a great example.
The PS3 is already flagging behind the Xbox 360 quite a way - not only has it sold only 1/3 of the Xbox 360's volume to date, it's also selling fewer week by week. Losing exclusives means there is less incentive to get the PS3, and will continue to have a smaller market share. GTA V coming to PS3 exclusive? Why would they do that, when IV is coming out for both? They're obviously moving away from PS-only.
I'm sure the PS3's games will be more impressive given time. However, given the graphics on the 360 / PS3 seem about the same now on new releases, I'm sure the 360's games will improve equally, and there will continue to be little difference, if any. The only way Sony could differentiate their console is to have exclusive games, that are better than anything the competition has. It's what the PS2 had, and even the Xbox did (such as with Halo). The only way they'll get third-party exclusives is if they have a large userbase they can use to leverage that, otherwise they will have to be developed in-house (or brought in-house, as Microsoft did with Bungie)
(I'm no 360 fanboy. I only have a Wii, and think that's the only fun console out of the 3 at the moment;) )
Now, should people be allowed to make gruesome scat-porn if they want? Well, I guess so. Should people be allowed to make video games that are outrageously brutal? Sure, why not. But by the same turn, Rockstar has no right to expect that the marketplace will greet them with open arms.
The ESRB has effectively made it so the marketplace CANNOT embrace or reject it. It IS censorship, as much as the full ban on the game in the UK is.
I have no taste for these sorts of games, I'd be happier if they got released and failed. But Sony and Nintendo are shielding themselves from lawsuits from BAD PARENTS, who will try to sue them when they buy Little Johnny "Evisceration 4", and try to blame the companies for their own lax attitude and lack of involvement. These people expect the products to take care of their kids for them, figuring "video games = for children", which is why Nintendo and Sony have taken the policy of "No AO games". The parents+kids demographic is much larger than the AO one.
The policy that needs to change is Nintendo's and Sony's, to allow an AO market to happen, whether it's horror, vulgar, pornographic or whatever content. They won't shift until they have evidence that they will be protected from lawsuits from idiot parents, that is, until when the courts determine that parents are responsible for their own decisions in bringing up their children, and that they can't blame the government or product creators for not protecting their kids. Until then, we'll all be treated like 10 year olds, incapable of making our own decisions or deciding for ourselves what we want.
Of course it's disturbing. Which is part of the reason for banning it from minors, they have less capability to deal with it.
Your last paragraph is, imho, completely correct. Manhunt probably isn't for *all* adults, just because it has an "adults only" classification doesn't mean adults have to play or like it:) But adults are capable of making their own decisions, and should be allowed to do so.
From a freedom of expression point of view, the fact that the game is from a major publisher, is probably not going to get carried by major retailers because of its rating, AND has been getting all this free publicity because of it, brings a tricky issue out in the open. if the game is any good, i hope it does well and keeps freedom of choice available for the consumer.
I think there is a big danger here of trying to leverage open standards into this sort of situation, by force. As an IT department who has to manage this sort of thing, if you enforce "open standard" communication, you end up locking out all the devices that don't use it. Which may be fine for zealots, but you try explaining to the boss that he can't use his Blackberry / iPhone / whatever, that he has to use some pissy featureless block of crap, simply because it interoperates in a way you like. I'm sure he wouldn't be too keen to have to tell another company they have to send stuff in ODF as well, because they can't read.doc.
After all, "open standard" is just the standard one body has picked, as opposed to any other standard. The purpose of an IT support team is to provide support to the whole organisation - to help them get the best out of their equipment and resources. So go with the industry leader, the product that gives the users the features they want. Interoperability is nice, but *not* as important.
The PS3 cost more to make than the $600 is was sold for. From Wikipedia, "The initial production cost has been estimated to be USD 805.85 for the 20 GB model and USD 840.35 for the 60 GB model." It may have dropped a little now, but they're certainly not raking it in - I expect they're still losing money. If they wanted to make any profit, the PS3 would have to sell for $1000 at least.
Every modern console, except the Wii, has been sold at a loss during its launch. Microsoft lost over $4 BILLION over the first few years of the original XBox. The idea is that profit is made over game and accessory sales, and eventually on the console as large-scale manufacturing and aging technology causes the unit production costs to drop below sale price. The important thing in these last two generations of console wars is market share, that's where they've been pouring the money in to.
I'm afraid you have a lot of details to catch up on.
Slashdot Mirror
Project X was massively hard, but good fun. Not the hardest Amiga shoot'em-up though.
That accolade must go to the original Xenon, which the Bitmap Brothers freely admit they made stupidly hard inadvertently by playtesting it themselves throughout development and tweaking it to their 6-months-with-the-game ability!
(Not the sequel, Xenon II, which was great but perfectly possible to complete)
Oh for the days, when computer games rewarded ability rather than perseverance.
Computer games used to be about developing a skill, playing it until you got sufficiently good that you were able to complete something on a higher level. Nowadays, it's about who can put the most amount of time into a game. The difficulty level is a gentle gradient if not entirely flat.
Compare modern games to the simplest and most iconic of old games - Pac-man. It only had one level, one playing level. One! Yet the same level played again and again, with increasing difficulty. Faster ghosts, less time on power-pills, etc etc. The only way you would see level 20 was if you were good enough to beat level 19, and that was damn hard.
Compare to games these days, such as the GTA series, Half-life 1 and 2, Halo, World of Warcraft, whatever. The end of these games is not significantly different in difficulty from the beginning. The last levels involve generally the same baddies, but more of them, and you have bigger weapons to handle them. The experience is constant throughout the cycle of the game, so that a little perseverance will reward you with progress.
Why is this? Games are now a much bigger proposition, and the audience is wider. And the audience wants easy gratification and no frustration. Sure, it's meant to be entertainment, not a challenge. But for many of us, the entertainment is in the challenge and ultimately, surpassing it.
I remember spending ages playing Pac-man, Defender and the rest as a child trying to defeat the higher levels. When you achieve something you hadn't done before through your own skill and ability it's far more rewarding than just cruising through it.
Games are about perceived value now, and someone who fails to finish a game will not have gained that full "value" from it. So games are tailored so almost every user can finish it, that Bob the Button Masher will be able to work his way to the end and see all the pretty bits eventually as long as he doesn't run out of Cheetos in the meantime. But this is at the cost of a real sense of progression and challenge, and hence accomplishment, by those of us dedicated enough to put the effort in to get good at something.
Many games used to be open-ended, with just increasing skill levels and no defined end. I guess this got past that problem as every level was a measure of ability and a goal in itself. You can defeat it on level 15? Well I can get to level 20.
Games used to be closer to a martial art (simply in terms of dedication, application and training), now they feel more like a particularly wimpy yoga session, where as long as you can make it through the time, you can say you've completed it.
(No offence to any yogaers out there, you know what I mean)
Because given half an opportunity a bunch of idiots will cripple themselves on anything they can get a hold of.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331
I agree it seems a knee-jerk reaction deciding on a major so early in school, but it isn't as career-defining as it's made to sound. There are more than 9 careers available to them when they leave college (or high school for that matter), this isn't as pigeon-holing as it's made to sound. And it works in other countries, many have such specialisations, even more restrictive.
After all this is only asking students to choose their vague direction at this stage - performing arts, humanities, science, mathematics, languages, that sort of thing. The scope for variation within each of those is very wide, and most kids have an idea of where they see themselves going at that age already. I remember having to choose my GCSEs (14-16 year old UK courses) at 13-14, and while it was daunting, I already knew what I was good at and enjoyed, and what I wanted to drop.
The bonus to this sort of specialisation is it allows students to devote more time to their chosen subjects (and for lecturers to put more into their courses) and therefore for the system as a whole to turn out more qualified graduates - it's been the international consensus for a while that most US university degrees, particularly in technical subjects, are less thorough than other courses simply because the students do more varied work, concentrating less on their chosen field. For instance on a Physics BSc in the UK, a student would be spending 90-100% of their lectures on Physics specifically, and are finishing their courses more knowledgeable about their specialist subject as a result.
But why buy early? Because I was mostly a PC gamer with $600 but not $1500 to replace my mobo, processor, video card, and upgrade my RAM to get next-gen graphics on a 20" monitor.
;) I agree the PS3 has the potential to be a great system, whether it fulfils that or not depends on Sony and 3rd party support. Personally I'm waiting until it has fulfilled that potential (and the 360 for that matter, it certainly looks like it has a long way to go). If it takes another year, however, $600 could buy a *lot* more PC hardware than it could when the console launched.
Best argument I've heard yet, very true. I've been considering upgrading my PC and yeah, it would cost quite a lot (I think you'd be hard pressed to spend over $1000 without going SLi or something) compared to any of the consoles out there.
I wasn't trolling in my original post, perhaps just purposefully touching a few nerves
A very interesting read. However, in a lot of the Western world it now seems the reverse is happening population-wise - that rich, or at least upper middle class upwards, people are having fewer children, if any, and poorer, or at least lower class people, are having more. Not that there is the abject poverty as widespread as during the revolution, but there is still a clear class divide.
Will this cause the reverse effect, as society struggles to cope with such a change in demographics, and we will end up with a society spending more to maintain itself, and less able to innovate?
I guess if you can afford the 46" 1080p TV, half a dozen games in as many months, multiple consoles, AND a large collection of Blu-ray movies to justify using the PS3 to play those too, then $600 isn't much more than pocket change.
Funny that it's a "next-gen gaming console" but you can't list a reason to play games on it *now* than minigames. I mean, you want to spend several thousand dollars to play fl0w in HD? Then you really do not know what value for money is.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135142-pg,1/arti cle.html
The only way they can profit at the moment is to sell _fewer_ consoles.
I mean, 20G extra harddrive and a free game (one of, like, 3 worth playing for the PS3 at the moment), and the set available in the UK at least of the original price but with an extra controller and *two* games bundled, just a few months after launch, would normally get people who bought it into a rage that they didn't get value for money.
Luckily nobody who bought a PS3 knows what "value for money" is.
Perhaps being given accomodation, three meals a day, playstations, TV, music, books, free instructional courses, sports facilities, isn't considered punishment enough by many people.
The situation in prison sure beats being homeless. Or, in some cases, unemployed.
I'm not saying prison is a cakewalk, but the system does seem to spend an awful lot of money accomodating felons, while there are a lot of people, not guilty of any crimes, in far worse situations.
Assuming 15 days
Conversely, the typical console game completion time is 40 hours, or 80 hours if it's an unlockfest. In the time it takes to level (not gear) an alt, one could potentially complete 4-7 console games.
You know, some people would be thankful that they're actually getting value for money - that one game lasted them for longer than a month. Sure there is a subscription, but it's less than the price of a console game every month
I believe that playing the game is more fun than finishing the game, I'd rather have something that keeps me engrossed for a year than something I finish in a few weeks and never pick up again. I do play WoW, and I'm in a casual but skilled raiding group (Gruul, Kara, Maggy on farm, we're in TK now), and never did we actually run out of content.
There is more than just level 60, err, 70, err, 80. Some of the nicest content is at the lowest levels (Uldaman is still my favourite instance). If what you want is to do big raids and get epixx, then yes, you will need to be the top level, and that takes a while. But enjoy the ride, don't just power through it, it's fun.
I personally recommend increasing the exp received from quests by a substancial amount.
Have you even played TBC?
Oh yeah, I can see it now, terrorists running into a building, "DoTing" all the "mobs" inside, casting Frost Nova, then racing back out with the flag, using Rogues with crippling poison to cover their tracks.
Seriously, if the only people these guys can recruit are MMORPG heads, then the world has less to fear.
"Tonight we bring the war to the infidels and burn New York!"
"Sorry, can't do that, I need to run BGs to get my new dagger"
Slashdot is called "News for nerds" not "News for 99.9% of users".
;)
Ah, well, that's a good point well made. I guess I try to not let my nerdiness get in the way of other pursuits
I think it's fun to do this just for the sake of it, but I was referring to the whole backlash when it was announced there would be no iPhone SDK - "oh no, no third party apps! this thing is crippled and useless!".
From the actual post: This also means that third-party applications for iPhone will happen no matter what.
I don't understand this emphasis on running third party apps on something like the iPhone. Like I said, I've never come across a phone where a third-party application has been a deciding factor in buying it.
I think this is a neat trick, sure, and I'm a tinkerer as much as anyone, so I can appreciate this.
But.
What does this accomplish? I mean outside of it being "it's a neat thing I can do to it", it's not going to have serious practical implications for 99.9% of users. The writeup goes off onto this tangent of being able to run third-party applications on it, woohoo. I can't think of a single phone who has had a third-party application as a major selling point. And I have a Treo! The Palm stuff can be really nice, but there really isn't a deal-breaker compared to the internal software (the main features about it I love are the browser (I seem to get better performance with the built-in one than Opera) and the threaded messaging system)
It's neat, sure, but I don't see this sort of hack as being the Holy Grail for making the phone better that so many people think it is. A step backwards, even, if you have to get rid of some of the nice software already on it to use the hack (such as people removing the iTV's perfectly good software bundle to run their own homebrew stuff that just looks like ass in comparison)
The drugged air? I've heard of that conspiracy theory, but as far as I know, it's only that -- a conspiracy theory which has never been proven.
Based solely on my own trip to Las Vegas, my body clock was completely shot having flown across the Atlantic and partying lots, but staying in one of the big hotels, I found something very very weird that made me believe something in all that.
I woke up at 8am. Every. Single. Day.
Not that that is unusual enough for me, but it felt like I was waking up even when I didn't want to.
Went to bed at 10pm, jetlagged. Woke up at 8am. Fine, unexpected but normal.
Partied til 3am. Woke up at 8am, feeling groggy. Unusual. Had an afternoon nap.
Partied til 6am, got absolutely wrecked, and guess what? Woke up at 8am on the dot, feeling *so* tired (and still drunk, not hungover. Just really tired!) Couldn't get back to sleep, until about 9:30am, where I slept for another 6 hours.
I've never had a punctual body-clock, let alone when partying, so that really weirded me out. Especially the last morning, when I actually *wanted* to sleep, but somehow couldn't.
I'd be the first to believe they put something in the air to perk people up and get them to go out and spend their money.
how do you find the lack of keyboard?
couldn't this be re-interpreted as saying that if they were to run a tiered network, they would have no problem throttling its bandwidth to 50%, in order to ensure the content *they* prioritise gets through unhindered?
You're right on many counts. The PS3 is certainly:
1 =All&cons2=PS3®2=All&cons3=X360®3=All&weekly =1 the only thing "really rolling" is the steep decline the PS3's sales are taking.
Blu-ray player
Upscaling DVD player
HDMI out
I'm pretty sure when I want a Blu-ray player, I'll buy a PS3. Right now, I don't, so to me the PS3 is an exceptionally expensive game console, that plays about the same as the Xbox 360, but has fewer decent games. And it looks like the vast majority of people feel this way about it as well - there just isn't the demand for Blu-ray / HDDVD, which is crippling the PS3 sales.
I mean look at this: http://www.vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii®
Why do people keep saying the UMD is small? It's not, its physical size is way bigger than it should be, for its storage capacity. You can get 2 gig SD cards dirt cheap already, which are smaller, technically hold more, more energy-efficient, and probably load faster, too.
It's a proprietary, unwieldy format (can't display UMD movies on a tv, can't get writers or blank ones), but it's also bulky compared to alternatives (hell, i'd rather carry USB sticks), and small storage compared to alternatives.
The PS2 lives on, ie still gets new games, still has an active community, simply because there are millions upon millions of them out there, over 65 million according to vgchartz.com. Developers release new games when they feel they can see a large number of them. God of War 2 on the PS2 is a great example.
;) )
The PS3 is already flagging behind the Xbox 360 quite a way - not only has it sold only 1/3 of the Xbox 360's volume to date, it's also selling fewer week by week. Losing exclusives means there is less incentive to get the PS3, and will continue to have a smaller market share. GTA V coming to PS3 exclusive? Why would they do that, when IV is coming out for both? They're obviously moving away from PS-only.
I'm sure the PS3's games will be more impressive given time. However, given the graphics on the 360 / PS3 seem about the same now on new releases, I'm sure the 360's games will improve equally, and there will continue to be little difference, if any. The only way Sony could differentiate their console is to have exclusive games, that are better than anything the competition has. It's what the PS2 had, and even the Xbox did (such as with Halo). The only way they'll get third-party exclusives is if they have a large userbase they can use to leverage that, otherwise they will have to be developed in-house (or brought in-house, as Microsoft did with Bungie)
(I'm no 360 fanboy. I only have a Wii, and think that's the only fun console out of the 3 at the moment
Now, should people be allowed to make gruesome scat-porn if they want? Well, I guess so. Should people be allowed to make video games that are outrageously brutal? Sure, why not. But by the same turn, Rockstar has no right to expect that the marketplace will greet them with open arms.
The ESRB has effectively made it so the marketplace CANNOT embrace or reject it. It IS censorship, as much as the full ban on the game in the UK is.
I have no taste for these sorts of games, I'd be happier if they got released and failed. But Sony and Nintendo are shielding themselves from lawsuits from BAD PARENTS, who will try to sue them when they buy Little Johnny "Evisceration 4", and try to blame the companies for their own lax attitude and lack of involvement. These people expect the products to take care of their kids for them, figuring "video games = for children", which is why Nintendo and Sony have taken the policy of "No AO games". The parents+kids demographic is much larger than the AO one.
The policy that needs to change is Nintendo's and Sony's, to allow an AO market to happen, whether it's horror, vulgar, pornographic or whatever content. They won't shift until they have evidence that they will be protected from lawsuits from idiot parents, that is, until when the courts determine that parents are responsible for their own decisions in bringing up their children, and that they can't blame the government or product creators for not protecting their kids. Until then, we'll all be treated like 10 year olds, incapable of making our own decisions or deciding for ourselves what we want.
Of course it's disturbing. Which is part of the reason for banning it from minors, they have less capability to deal with it.
:) But adults are capable of making their own decisions, and should be allowed to do so.
Your last paragraph is, imho, completely correct. Manhunt probably isn't for *all* adults, just because it has an "adults only" classification doesn't mean adults have to play or like it
From a freedom of expression point of view, the fact that the game is from a major publisher, is probably not going to get carried by major retailers because of its rating, AND has been getting all this free publicity because of it, brings a tricky issue out in the open. if the game is any good, i hope it does well and keeps freedom of choice available for the consumer.
I think there is a big danger here of trying to leverage open standards into this sort of situation, by force. As an IT department who has to manage this sort of thing, if you enforce "open standard" communication, you end up locking out all the devices that don't use it. Which may be fine for zealots, but you try explaining to the boss that he can't use his Blackberry / iPhone / whatever, that he has to use some pissy featureless block of crap, simply because it interoperates in a way you like. I'm sure he wouldn't be too keen to have to tell another company they have to send stuff in ODF as well, because they can't read .doc.
After all, "open standard" is just the standard one body has picked, as opposed to any other standard. The purpose of an IT support team is to provide support to the whole organisation - to help them get the best out of their equipment and resources. So go with the industry leader, the product that gives the users the features they want. Interoperability is nice, but *not* as important.
The PS3 cost more to make than the $600 is was sold for. From Wikipedia, "The initial production cost has been estimated to be USD 805.85 for the 20 GB model and USD 840.35 for the 60 GB model." It may have dropped a little now, but they're certainly not raking it in - I expect they're still losing money. If they wanted to make any profit, the PS3 would have to sell for $1000 at least.
Every modern console, except the Wii, has been sold at a loss during its launch. Microsoft lost over $4 BILLION over the first few years of the original XBox. The idea is that profit is made over game and accessory sales, and eventually on the console as large-scale manufacturing and aging technology causes the unit production costs to drop below sale price. The important thing in these last two generations of console wars is market share, that's where they've been pouring the money in to.
I'm afraid you have a lot of details to catch up on.