It has been stated many times that the PS3 is meant to last a full 10 years before being replaced with a new iteration of the Playstation brand. With the rate at which technology advances, how realistic is this plan?
While the adoption of HDTVs is on the rise, the current market penetration is still a small fraction. Many aren't inclined or perhaps capable of acquiring an HDTV, which is required for the full PS3 experience. What reason is there to choose the PS3 for an SDTV when the visual difference from the competition is negligible?
The PS3 is expensive, and at the same time is purportedly sold for less than it costs to make. Beyond the frequent debates over price drops and the formidable barrier $500-$600 presents to many gamers is a concern that the PS3 is ultimately doing more harm to Sony, specifically their bank accounts, than good. Is Sony prepared for the possibility that at the end of the console's lifetime, the PS3 will constitute a net loss?
All three systems are currently in a drought when it comes to top-class titles. Whoever pulls out of it first might gain significant momentum. Does Sony plan to try to capitalize on the situation, or do they feel it is better to let the games come out "when they're done"?
Many are concerned that while an interesting idea, Home will ultimately obfuscate the streamlined processes seen in other online services. How is Home addressing this concern?
Killzone made another appearance at the GDC, after having been mysteriously absent from E3 2006. Why is news for this title so rare, especially after having been so crucial to the presentation at E3 2005?
I can't testify as to Europe as I don't live there, and I can't testify as to the rest of the United States as I am only one person, but my experience with the Virtual Console has been flawless including Super Mario Bros.
Those are what had my family enjoying themselves. The other three, they were okay. I think the Baseball, Golf and Boxing could have used some more polish.
I think Microsoft proved that good programmers dont necessarily make great programs.
Programmers program, that is what they do. The sum of their work is only as good as the design.
It doesn't matter that Bobby Jones has the maddest coding skills around, he's tasked with coding X, and he'll code X to the best of his ability. X will be perfect for what X is supposed to do. The problem is X. It is also Y, Z, A and F. The design of these elements wasn't done properly for any number of reasons. It's a bloody mess, but Bobby is just a programmer. He knows how to code like a master, but he's not the one in charge of design. He codes X, and X does exactly what it's supposed to do. Another person codes Y, perhaps a team codes A, and someone else gets both Z and F. Each of these groups may do a fantastic job with what they were given, but because the whole thing was a defective design to begin with it doesn't matter. The end result is crap.
Which is why everyone waits until the last minute to do so.
For whatever reason, humanity seems hardwired to wait until the last minute. I was in Japan when Katrina hit, and I watched the news as it showed masses of people who waited until the 11th hour to leave clogging up highways. Had you traveled just 50 miles inland a day or two before the headstart on all the procrastinators would have been incredible.
Somehow the danger doesn't register itself until it's immediate and tangible.
Unfortunately that is not the case, there is something implicit in the rules you are overlooking that perhaps I should make more clear in my next iteration. Namely, a correct assertion.
You assert that I don't want to give you a million dollars. I challenge this assertion, saying that I do. However, as you have asserted incorrectly I am honor-bound to withhold from you the million dollars.
The way you appear to be currently interpreting the statement is that all you have to do is state to me either option, but it is the statement itself that matters and not whichever option. Sadly, as the authority in this situation I must judge this interpretation as incorrect.
I will now perform another iteration in order to avoid this confusion.
Also, those 5 km is the same amount of energy found in the 100g chocolate bar she'll eat afterwards as a reward...
You mentioned changes in diet a lot, so I wanted to highlight this.
Exercise does burn calories, and its hard to argue that if you go from not exercising to exercising that you won't be burning more after than before. Logically, if do not change your diet and consume the same number of calories as you did before you should lose weight.
However, the quotation would constitute a change in diet if the chocolate bar is in addition to what the person would normally eat. In your example the person is counteracting the effect of exercise by eating more.
Both positive diet change and exercise can improve your health, fitness and form. However, there's more to positive diet change than reduced calories, there's nutrition. Your body is going to want certain vitamins, minerals, and other materials beyond just pure calories.
Sodas are just that, calories and little else. A term that got thrown around in the 90s was "empty calories". Moving from a soda to a light soda possibly reduces those calories, but there's still no nutrition. Your body will want that nutrition and thus will want you to consume something that will grant it. Something like milk or orange juice, which in additional to calories have nutrition. However, if you drink a soda to quench your thirst, but then drink milk to quench your other needs, you've downed calories you didn't need.
Lastly, exercise gives you better fitness even if you maintain the same amount of weight.
The problem with competition isn't that it's competition. Competition is good. The problem is an over-emphasis on the end goal rather than the journey to get there.
Winning is everything. The idea that one can have fun by losing is completely squashed in the way competition is presented to children, and they learn fast. Everything that happens in the game is secondary to the result. It affects academics to, with the grade being more important than learning.
In America this appears to be a cultural phenomena.
You forget that "Linux" is a term often swung around like "Religion". It's a vast, ambiguous word with any number of subsections that hold each other in contempt. If it isn't their Linux it doesn't matter.
The PS3 is getting more and more exclusives every day (LittleBigPlanet, God of War 3 just got announced), and that's all it really needs now that they announced Home (and rumble too, I guess).
It doesn't need exclusives announced, it needs exclusives released. It could also use a better PR staff, a lower price, and some concrete news about the sore topic of Killzone.
Eventually it will have most of those things, but it could really use them now.
Who are you and what have you done with the wise person who wrote this signiture?
Joking aside, I appreciate your candid appraisal. Most people who post in favor of Sony here do so as AC and without Common Sense (TM). While there can definitely be debate concerning the PS3, at least with your post it is such and not a flame war over reality bending points on all sides.
I'm not saying that Google is some paragon of virtue, but they have money and lawyers. Good lawyers, ones who can put up a fight. Chances are Viacom is hoping that Google will decide it's better to settle than to fight in court, because any such fight would likely be long and drawn out.
Back in the day I played Diablo 2. I played it a lot, pretty much to the exclusion of any other PC game. I didn't buy other PC games, I didn't care about other PC games. Having Diablo 2 severely reduced my investment into the PC games market.
The same can be said of WoW now. I don't buy other PC games, I don't play other PC games, I don't particularly care about other PC games (Supreme Commander was a big letdown for me) although Hellgate: London may be the next game to eat my time.
However, what WoW does do is funnel $15 of my money into the system per month. My contribution to PC games, even if it isn't pure profit, is far greater than it ever was. Before, the market was lucky if I bought a $20 game every year. Now I'm spending $180 every year without even thinking about it.
Judging from the previous comments, there is a lot of confusion over the selectino criteria. Some of these games appear to have been selected for their cultural impact as the first "mass hits" of their genre. Others simply for being technically advanced or "first". It seems rather contradictory.
1) Spacewar - While a pivotal moment in gaming history, I don't remember the MIT guys mass producing Spacewar machines. It seems odd to have Spacewar on the list but not Pong.
2) Star Raiders - I don't know much about this one. The online sources I've read leave little doubt it was an important game, but I'm not sure if it is as important as many games that were left out.
3) Zork - Text adventures are certainly important enough to have an entry here. I'll let those more knowledgable argue over which one it should have been.
4) Tetris - This can not be argued. It's cultural significance is crazy. TO my knowledge it spawned its genre, was a massive hit, came from Russia during the cold war, made the Gameboy popular, and gave my dad CTS.
5) SimCity - The stated reasons in the article make sense to me, but I would also consider Life. In it's own way that was a god game. You had direct control of your world's structure, although not the behaviour of the life that formed. You could at a whim destroy the entire ecosystem leaving only chaos. It seems to deserve a mention somewhere on the list.
6) Super Mario Bros 3 - The only confusion here is why this was singled out over any other. The stated reasons don't really mesh with the dynamics of the other games on the list (especially when Warcraft gets an entire series in). The original Super Mario Bros was the first mass hit, if not the first, of the side-scrolling platformers. It introduced secrets hidden in ways that were completely outside the box compared to any other game at the time. While Super Mario Bros 3 was tied into a movie, why couldn't we specify the series? Was Sunshine that bad?
7) Civilization - I won't argue this one, I lost too much of my youth to it.
8) Doom - The first of the truly controversial games, and the first to be tenuously tied to a school shooting. Whether by fame or infamy, it deserves a spot.
9) Warcraft - The original game, for all it owes to Dune II, made the genre popular. The second and third games had all sorts of spiffy stuff they did, but I wonder why we couldn't have left those out for the first. They may be excessively popular, but the first brought the genre out of the shadows. All in all, listing a series as one of the top ten games is confusing.
10) And here's where I get confused. This game is a serious shock moment on the list, because I have absolutely no idea what it is. It's supposedly a really popular sports game, but I never heard of it. It was released in 1992 according to wikipedia. There were plenty of popular sports games before it (tecmo super bowl or Nintendo World Cup) and one year later the first incredibly popular sports game, NBA Jam, was released. I never heard of this game before. For it's release date the graphics look incredibly dated. The only thing it seems to have going for it is an upfield view as opposed to a cross-field view. This game really doesn't seem to deserve its place.
The Japanese market for video games had been shrinking for some time up until the release of the DS. Before that hand held came onto the scene, it was a much discussed issue. There didn't seem to be anything that was slowing or stopping the crumbling of the market and a lot of people were at a loss for what to do. The effect was also beginning in the US.
The DS revitalized the Japanese Market which, starting at a peak in 1997, had shrunk steadily to 60% of its former size by 2003. Here's a brief report on a study released in 2004 concerning this. It wasn't a straight decline, as evidenced by a few notes in this report, but a severe decline none the less.
The DS was explicitly Nintendo's answer to this problem, and it's undeniably worked.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been stated many times that the PS3 is meant to last a full 10 years before being replaced with a new iteration of the Playstation brand. With the rate at which technology advances, how realistic is this plan?
While the adoption of HDTVs is on the rise, the current market penetration is still a small fraction. Many aren't inclined or perhaps capable of acquiring an HDTV, which is required for the full PS3 experience. What reason is there to choose the PS3 for an SDTV when the visual difference from the competition is negligible?
The PS3 is expensive, and at the same time is purportedly sold for less than it costs to make. Beyond the frequent debates over price drops and the formidable barrier $500-$600 presents to many gamers is a concern that the PS3 is ultimately doing more harm to Sony, specifically their bank accounts, than good. Is Sony prepared for the possibility that at the end of the console's lifetime, the PS3 will constitute a net loss?
All three systems are currently in a drought when it comes to top-class titles. Whoever pulls out of it first might gain significant momentum. Does Sony plan to try to capitalize on the situation, or do they feel it is better to let the games come out "when they're done"?
Many are concerned that while an interesting idea, Home will ultimately obfuscate the streamlined processes seen in other online services. How is Home addressing this concern?
Killzone made another appearance at the GDC, after having been mysteriously absent from E3 2006. Why is news for this title so rare, especially after having been so crucial to the presentation at E3 2005?
Those are my questions.
I can't testify as to Europe as I don't live there, and I can't testify as to the rest of the United States as I am only one person, but my experience with the Virtual Console has been flawless including Super Mario Bros.
It's definitely Tennis and Bowling.
Those are what had my family enjoying themselves. The other three, they were okay. I think the Baseball, Golf and Boxing could have used some more polish.
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=7480
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=7499
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=7518
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=7553
Programmers program, that is what they do. The sum of their work is only as good as the design.
It doesn't matter that Bobby Jones has the maddest coding skills around, he's tasked with coding X, and he'll code X to the best of his ability. X will be perfect for what X is supposed to do. The problem is X. It is also Y, Z, A and F. The design of these elements wasn't done properly for any number of reasons. It's a bloody mess, but Bobby is just a programmer. He knows how to code like a master, but he's not the one in charge of design. He codes X, and X does exactly what it's supposed to do. Another person codes Y, perhaps a team codes A, and someone else gets both Z and F. Each of these groups may do a fantastic job with what they were given, but because the whole thing was a defective design to begin with it doesn't matter. The end result is crap.
Fixed.
I think we can expect the review for Halo 3 to give it a 10, followed by a 3, then a 8, and finally a -eleventy jillion.
These people are obviously not the masters of our russian past-time.
Which is why everyone waits until the last minute to do so.
For whatever reason, humanity seems hardwired to wait until the last minute. I was in Japan when Katrina hit, and I watched the news as it showed masses of people who waited until the 11th hour to leave clogging up highways. Had you traveled just 50 miles inland a day or two before the headstart on all the procrastinators would have been incredible.
Somehow the danger doesn't register itself until it's immediate and tangible.
And this, my friends, is why we have the preview button. >.
Unfortunately that is not the case, there is something implicit in the rules you are overlooking that perhaps I should make more clear in my next iteration. Namely, a correct assertion.
You assert that I don't want to give you a million dollars. I challenge this assertion, saying that I do. However, as you have asserted incorrectly I am honor-bound to withhold from you the million dollars.
The way you appear to be currently interpreting the statement is that all you have to do is state to me either option, but it is the statement itself that matters and not whichever option. Sadly, as the authority in this situation I must judge this interpretation as incorrect.
I will now perform another iteration in order to avoid this confusion.
The problem with competition isn't that it's competition. Competition is good. The problem is an over-emphasis on the end goal rather than the journey to get there.
Winning is everything. The idea that one can have fun by losing is completely squashed in the way competition is presented to children, and they learn fast. Everything that happens in the game is secondary to the result. It affects academics to, with the grade being more important than learning.
In America this appears to be a cultural phenomena.
You forget that "Linux" is a term often swung around like "Religion". It's a vast, ambiguous word with any number of subsections that hold each other in contempt. If it isn't their Linux it doesn't matter.
It doesn't need exclusives announced, it needs exclusives released. It could also use a better PR staff, a lower price, and some concrete news about the sore topic of Killzone.
Eventually it will have most of those things, but it could really use them now.
The sad thing is... that might work.
Who are you and what have you done with the wise person who wrote this signiture?
Joking aside, I appreciate your candid appraisal. Most people who post in favor of Sony here do so as AC and without Common Sense (TM). While there can definitely be debate concerning the PS3, at least with your post it is such and not a flame war over reality bending points on all sides.
Can someone fill us in on the nature of this Myspace spamming? I don't remember hearing about this.
Yup, I just can't wait to be known as "SSJ5Goku3245".
Interesting arguement. My wording still needs some improvement methinks. Possibly an "If and only if".
However, nothing says when I will give you a million dollars. You'll just have to be patient.
Except that Napstar wasn't run by Google.
I'm not saying that Google is some paragon of virtue, but they have money and lawyers. Good lawyers, ones who can put up a fight. Chances are Viacom is hoping that Google will decide it's better to settle than to fight in court, because any such fight would likely be long and drawn out.
Back in the day I played Diablo 2. I played it a lot, pretty much to the exclusion of any other PC game. I didn't buy other PC games, I didn't care about other PC games. Having Diablo 2 severely reduced my investment into the PC games market.
The same can be said of WoW now. I don't buy other PC games, I don't play other PC games, I don't particularly care about other PC games (Supreme Commander was a big letdown for me) although Hellgate: London may be the next game to eat my time.
However, what WoW does do is funnel $15 of my money into the system per month. My contribution to PC games, even if it isn't pure profit, is far greater than it ever was. Before, the market was lucky if I bought a $20 game every year. Now I'm spending $180 every year without even thinking about it.
... in binary.
Judging from the previous comments, there is a lot of confusion over the selectino criteria. Some of these games appear to have been selected for their cultural impact as the first "mass hits" of their genre. Others simply for being technically advanced or "first". It seems rather contradictory.
1) Spacewar - While a pivotal moment in gaming history, I don't remember the MIT guys mass producing Spacewar machines. It seems odd to have Spacewar on the list but not Pong.
2) Star Raiders - I don't know much about this one. The online sources I've read leave little doubt it was an important game, but I'm not sure if it is as important as many games that were left out.
3) Zork - Text adventures are certainly important enough to have an entry here. I'll let those more knowledgable argue over which one it should have been.
4) Tetris - This can not be argued. It's cultural significance is crazy. TO my knowledge it spawned its genre, was a massive hit, came from Russia during the cold war, made the Gameboy popular, and gave my dad CTS.
5) SimCity - The stated reasons in the article make sense to me, but I would also consider Life. In it's own way that was a god game. You had direct control of your world's structure, although not the behaviour of the life that formed. You could at a whim destroy the entire ecosystem leaving only chaos. It seems to deserve a mention somewhere on the list.
6) Super Mario Bros 3 - The only confusion here is why this was singled out over any other. The stated reasons don't really mesh with the dynamics of the other games on the list (especially when Warcraft gets an entire series in). The original Super Mario Bros was the first mass hit, if not the first, of the side-scrolling platformers. It introduced secrets hidden in ways that were completely outside the box compared to any other game at the time. While Super Mario Bros 3 was tied into a movie, why couldn't we specify the series? Was Sunshine that bad?
7) Civilization - I won't argue this one, I lost too much of my youth to it.
8) Doom - The first of the truly controversial games, and the first to be tenuously tied to a school shooting. Whether by fame or infamy, it deserves a spot.
9) Warcraft - The original game, for all it owes to Dune II, made the genre popular. The second and third games had all sorts of spiffy stuff they did, but I wonder why we couldn't have left those out for the first. They may be excessively popular, but the first brought the genre out of the shadows. All in all, listing a series as one of the top ten games is confusing.
10) And here's where I get confused. This game is a serious shock moment on the list, because I have absolutely no idea what it is. It's supposedly a really popular sports game, but I never heard of it. It was released in 1992 according to wikipedia. There were plenty of popular sports games before it (tecmo super bowl or Nintendo World Cup) and one year later the first incredibly popular sports game, NBA Jam, was released. I never heard of this game before. For it's release date the graphics look incredibly dated. The only thing it seems to have going for it is an upfield view as opposed to a cross-field view. This game really doesn't seem to deserve its place.
The Japanese market for video games had been shrinking for some time up until the release of the DS. Before that hand held came onto the scene, it was a much discussed issue. There didn't seem to be anything that was slowing or stopping the crumbling of the market and a lot of people were at a loss for what to do. The effect was also beginning in the US.
The DS revitalized the Japanese Market which, starting at a peak in 1997, had shrunk steadily to 60% of its former size by 2003. Here's a brief report on a study released in 2004 concerning this. It wasn't a straight decline, as evidenced by a few notes in this report, but a severe decline none the less.
The DS was explicitly Nintendo's answer to this problem, and it's undeniably worked.
I just read that, and wept for education.