In the Halo sense? Halo's aliens are bipeds with a social/religious system. I'm sure they're a lot different than the races in EVE Online, but Halo's hardly a good example to use as a comparison to Natural Selection.
Yeah, pretty sure it only works with Games for Windows Live (I think that's what it's called) games. Just saying that I find it odd that this closed system (Live, where MS mandates various aspects of online play for developers) supports cross-platform play when an open one doesn't.
Interestingly enough, I was just talking about this to a friend regarding Dust 514. It's supposed to be a console game that interacts with the EVE Online universe. Well there's one universe so I'd imagine that the 360 and PS3 versions will technically be part of it at the same time. Of course, each platform could have its own planets where conflicts occur, it just might be a kinda crappy case of cross-platform... interaction in a game.
I agree with this, but didn't notice until now that cross-platform gameplay (PC-to-console) has been done on the 360 with Live (Shadowrun, FFXI) but not with the PS3/PSN. Even the Dreamcast let console players play in games with/against PC players. Just find it odd.
As for the initial question, MS has a lot more to lose by letting PS3 players play online with players on the 360. It'd hugely tarnish the perceived value of Live if every game you joined was already full of people playing online for free.
Sony didn't make those games. They only came because of unwarranted hype and hardware that looks better on paper than anywhere else. This strategy is flawed and when it fails Sony, I can only help Nintendo will be there to pick up the pieces and lead console gaming where it should be going rather than fighting a losing battle against PC gaming.
The RvB team didn't start off with a private agreement. In fact, I believe it was at a (the?) Bungie Fanfest in 2003 or 2004 that the Rooster Teeth guys were invited and spoke with some MS reps that "congratulated" them with "it's ok, we're not going to completely sue the shit out of you."
They haven't been supported, they've just been allowed to work and a deal was worked out over time. Same thing here but since it's a competitor's game, it doesn't help MS as much (or at all).
Nintendo's just in no rush to take a bite of the shit sandwich MySpace has been eating recently thanks to pedophiles and the like. If they end up catching flak for their online system, it might as well be through their own actions rather than those of a third party. And hell, they're probably just taking some time to define what guidelines they'll give third parties when designing the online component of their games.
Yea, it sucks. There should at least be LAN play on all of these games, but if Nintendo feels comfortable giving this fight up for more security then more power to them. Too bad nobody can just get this console thing right.
Xbox Live Silver is only useless if you want to play online. That's it. And I've already heard of one free play weekend (might be mistaking it for claims of future free play weekends from pre-launch statements... but I'm pretty sure about this), but Xbox Live is more than that now. You don't have to play to have friends lists and message and things like that, just about everything you can do online without a game in the disc tray is available for free (on that note, I don't know how it applies to XBLA online games, I'm guessing online play is still a no-go for these).
Is it perfect? No, but it's still cool and lets people access the content without paying an extra fee (unless the content's not free... but we knew that).
if piracy hurts businesses so much, how did Microsoft survive when Windows and Office were pirated so much and their target market was much, much smaller in those days?
Maybe it has something to do with how much Windows and Office sell for compared to how much a new video game sells for. They make back a lot more for each legitimate copy sold, letting them survive through a higher piracy rate.
There is no "input" or "output" portal. At the end of the video it shows an item (a turret?) "bouncing" out of two turrets next to each other on the floor. Both as input, both as output. But a single portal acting as a brick wall makes sense.
Still doesn't answer what happens when you take your first shot and something goes through the created portal without a second one being created yet. I figured there'd just be a "create portal" function that links the last two rather than one-way portals (though that would be easier for herding-type scenarios), but still, does the first portal not even activate without a second one?
What I want to know is what happens to objects that go through a portal before there's an exit? In the trailer, didn't they create the exit portal before they created the portal underneath the turret and box? What if the portal was created underneath the objects before another was created on the wall? You they just sit there until they have an exit? Of course, I'm just assuming that an entrance can be used as an exit and vice versa.
Sega's 9-9-99 ad blitz was all over the TV during the 1999 MTV Video Music Awards. I was quite the Sony fanboy at the time and disregarded it all, but I remember seeing the "it's thinking" ads for several weeks/months prior to launch and actually raising an eyebrow to the in-game models imposed on real-life settings.
Hell, my local Hollywood Ave. rented imported DCs and games (with a ~$200 deposit for the console) the summer before launch.
Well I'm going to assume that consumers prefer not to get raped in the ass when they go to buy their console and (limited) launch games. I'll also assume that consumers prefer not to be told what they like, want, and need. Both of those (the rape part not so much on the price, but Sony sure does love a good consuper raping spree), however, conflict with the success of the PS2, so I'm dumbfounded. Again, all rape jokes aside, even with Sony shooting itself in the foot once more every month, the race has the potential to go any way. I mean, each analysis is valid, they're only as credible as you let them be... and it's not like they're predicting the generation will go to the Phantom.
Argh, got my posts mixed up. I referenced comments I made in reply to a previous reply to my earlier post. My mistake, though I still feel that my stance was clear.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't have the number one market share in units sold, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't number one in online gaming population.
In the Halo sense? Halo's aliens are bipeds with a social/religious system. I'm sure they're a lot different than the races in EVE Online, but Halo's hardly a good example to use as a comparison to Natural Selection.
Wouldn't... uhh, Aliens be a better fit?
Yeah, pretty sure it only works with Games for Windows Live (I think that's what it's called) games. Just saying that I find it odd that this closed system (Live, where MS mandates various aspects of online play for developers) supports cross-platform play when an open one doesn't. Interestingly enough, I was just talking about this to a friend regarding Dust 514. It's supposed to be a console game that interacts with the EVE Online universe. Well there's one universe so I'd imagine that the 360 and PS3 versions will technically be part of it at the same time. Of course, each platform could have its own planets where conflicts occur, it just might be a kinda crappy case of cross-platform... interaction in a game.
I agree with this, but didn't notice until now that cross-platform gameplay (PC-to-console) has been done on the 360 with Live (Shadowrun, FFXI) but not with the PS3/PSN. Even the Dreamcast let console players play in games with/against PC players. Just find it odd. As for the initial question, MS has a lot more to lose by letting PS3 players play online with players on the 360. It'd hugely tarnish the perceived value of Live if every game you joined was already full of people playing online for free.
Sony didn't make those games. They only came because of unwarranted hype and hardware that looks better on paper than anywhere else. This strategy is flawed and when it fails Sony, I can only help Nintendo will be there to pick up the pieces and lead console gaming where it should be going rather than fighting a losing battle against PC gaming.
Wait, that's obscure...?
Kutaragi wasn't kidding when he said it wasn't targeted towards households...
The RvB team didn't start off with a private agreement. In fact, I believe it was at a (the?) Bungie Fanfest in 2003 or 2004 that the Rooster Teeth guys were invited and spoke with some MS reps that "congratulated" them with "it's ok, we're not going to completely sue the shit out of you."
They haven't been supported, they've just been allowed to work and a deal was worked out over time. Same thing here but since it's a competitor's game, it doesn't help MS as much (or at all).
Nintendo's just in no rush to take a bite of the shit sandwich MySpace has been eating recently thanks to pedophiles and the like. If they end up catching flak for their online system, it might as well be through their own actions rather than those of a third party. And hell, they're probably just taking some time to define what guidelines they'll give third parties when designing the online component of their games.
Yea, it sucks. There should at least be LAN play on all of these games, but if Nintendo feels comfortable giving this fight up for more security then more power to them. Too bad nobody can just get this console thing right.
The [parody] tags are too subtle for the average /.er...
Xbox Live Silver is only useless if you want to play online. That's it. And I've already heard of one free play weekend (might be mistaking it for claims of future free play weekends from pre-launch statements... but I'm pretty sure about this), but Xbox Live is more than that now. You don't have to play to have friends lists and message and things like that, just about everything you can do online without a game in the disc tray is available for free (on that note, I don't know how it applies to XBLA online games, I'm guessing online play is still a no-go for these).
Is it perfect? No, but it's still cool and lets people access the content without paying an extra fee (unless the content's not free... but we knew that).
Yeah, but there's no big money licenses to pursue from corporate clients with video games.
So again, piracy definitely had a role in the DC's fall, especially considering that it required no modding.
if piracy hurts businesses so much, how did Microsoft survive when Windows and Office were pirated so much and their target market was much, much smaller in those days? Maybe it has something to do with how much Windows and Office sell for compared to how much a new video game sells for. They make back a lot more for each legitimate copy sold, letting them survive through a higher piracy rate.
There is no "input" or "output" portal. At the end of the video it shows an item (a turret?) "bouncing" out of two turrets next to each other on the floor. Both as input, both as output. But a single portal acting as a brick wall makes sense.
You're missing the point. The article's about the effect that those changes have had on all future versions, not just about the changes themselves.
Everybody's in such a rush to yell "DUPE!" they don't bother to read.
Sounds perfect for enemies...
Still doesn't answer what happens when you take your first shot and something goes through the created portal without a second one being created yet. I figured there'd just be a "create portal" function that links the last two rather than one-way portals (though that would be easier for herding-type scenarios), but still, does the first portal not even activate without a second one?
What I want to know is what happens to objects that go through a portal before there's an exit? In the trailer, didn't they create the exit portal before they created the portal underneath the turret and box? What if the portal was created underneath the objects before another was created on the wall? You they just sit there until they have an exit? Of course, I'm just assuming that an entrance can be used as an exit and vice versa.
Right, because a user-created portal and a portal that's on the side of a box are just SO different.
It'll have a more significant impact on gameplay, to be sure, but after playing Prey (ok, just the demo) this isn't as impressive.
Durr, I meant Video Ave.
It was later renamed to Hollywood Video and I just got confused...
Sega's 9-9-99 ad blitz was all over the TV during the 1999 MTV Video Music Awards. I was quite the Sony fanboy at the time and disregarded it all, but I remember seeing the "it's thinking" ads for several weeks/months prior to launch and actually raising an eyebrow to the in-game models imposed on real-life settings.
Hell, my local Hollywood Ave. rented imported DCs and games (with a ~$200 deposit for the console) the summer before launch.
Well I'm going to assume that consumers prefer not to get raped in the ass when they go to buy their console and (limited) launch games. I'll also assume that consumers prefer not to be told what they like, want, and need. Both of those (the rape part not so much on the price, but Sony sure does love a good consuper raping spree), however, conflict with the success of the PS2, so I'm dumbfounded. Again, all rape jokes aside, even with Sony shooting itself in the foot once more every month, the race has the potential to go any way. I mean, each analysis is valid, they're only as credible as you let them be... and it's not like they're predicting the generation will go to the Phantom.
Should we let it finish first?
Argh, got my posts mixed up. I referenced comments I made in reply to a previous reply to my earlier post. My mistake, though I still feel that my stance was clear.