While it's not really an invention, it does kinda make you feel like they're just a cheap copy of Nintendos strategy. A few years ago, everybody thought that tilt-pads were all but dead.
That's not the point. First off, the importance to the economy isn't represented by the amount of shelfspace used to attract teenagers to upgrade their phones once a year.
Second, it's about potential and value to free competition. Which industry has had a surge of innovative products, brought prices drastically down, advanced technolology to levels that we could only dream of not so long ago, and which has been raking billions by ripping off customers?
It's not that surprising that more importance is given to mid-range cellphones in everyday life. But anybody else has been prevented from offering something similar.
The way the WiFi industry has grown and innovated shows how much potential free markets have, if the medium isn't owned by someone else. (which is admittedly pretty obvious. Imagine if Ford owned roads)
As you have stated in your comment, console manufacturers are looking at profit elsewhere, or maybe even just market share, investing in the future.
Looking at Microsofts losses in their gaming devision, it's hard to imagine how they didn't make losses on the consoles. From 2001 to 2005, they lost 4 Billion, and at 22 million units sold, that's 180 Dollars loss per unit, after profits from games have been included.
The reason the PS2 is so profitable, is because there's so many of the damn things out there, each selling many games.
GameCube was specifically designed to be cheap, and simple to produce, and that way it didn't drive Nintendo into financial ruin.
What you're saying doesn't disprove the price breakdowns.
Sure, there were quite a few hardcore gamers lining outside Bestbuy, but how representative was that for the overall success of the 360? There might be a number of loyal fans out there, but the vast majority of the market is made up of more "sane" people, who probably won't be prepared to spend $600 on a console.
I don't think brand recognition is really as important as some people seem to think. Sure, it will help alot, but how much did it help Nintendo with the N64?
So, you do actually realise that you're doing something that's not the manufacturers intended use, and by opening your PS2, you have no chance of getting it replaced if it gets broke for good?
As to your opinion on blu-ray, I would avoid it completely for now. If you aren't interested in HD (for now at least), then there's no point on buying something for forward-compatability, as you would be gambling on a format for no reason. Plus, by the time that you do become intersted in Blu-Ray, they'll be much cheaper as standalone players.
The only reason to buy a PS3 is, for now, the games.
Woah, cal down. I'm not saying lighting shouldn't be considered in graphics technology, but some games today push it too far, and it looks like that's the way it will be in the next generation even more.
No they're not, they're basically the same. It's to do with quantum mechanics, and it's not worth going into that now. But the basic principle here is a wave-particle duality of matter, so both light, and say beta radiation, can be considered as particles and as waves.
With EM radiation, the particles are photons, and with beta-radiation they are electrons. At low frequencies, EM-radiation shows wave-like characteristics, whilst at higher frequencies (and higher energy), it behaves much like particles.
X-rays or gamma rays are basically light at very high frequencies. And we know very well how harmfulthey can be. The same goes for ultra-violet light, which is only just above the visual spectrum.
The question is, is the same kind of radiation harmful at lower frequencies, and relatively low power output?
But it would be wrong to assume that intensity or power would be the only deciding factor as to the harmful effects.
Then check how many of those are actually sold. After the initial rush, check what the prices are now like on ebay. Those early gamblers just want to get their money back.
Happened with the XBOX, maybe they'll have learnt their lesson with the PS3
Placing an antenna directly over you would cause less exposion than if you were twohundred feet away. Most antennae are designed to emit their radiation parallel to the ground, and don't give off anything either above or below.
But unless you're obsessed on setting every graphics option on highest, and using every damn shader anyone ever conceived, you can get away very decently for considerably less. You can build a gaming-class PC for 500 Dollars that can play the newest games in decent quality. People who don't want to give out too much money can do exactly that, knowing they won't be playing the greatest of the latest. But anybody intersted in the PS3 won't have a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
X is on the left side, Y is on the right side Hah! Wrong! X is right, Y is top. That's the only one that got me confused at first.
Thank god Link is left handed.
While it's not really an invention, it does kinda make you feel like they're just a cheap copy of Nintendos strategy. A few years ago, everybody thought that tilt-pads were all but dead.
That's not the point.
First off, the importance to the economy isn't represented by the amount of shelfspace used to attract teenagers to upgrade their phones once a year.
Second, it's about potential and value to free competition. Which industry has had a surge of innovative products, brought prices drastically down, advanced technolology to levels that we could only dream of not so long ago, and which has been raking billions by ripping off customers?
It's not that surprising that more importance is given to mid-range cellphones in everyday life. But anybody else has been prevented from offering something similar.
The way the WiFi industry has grown and innovated shows how much potential free markets have, if the medium isn't owned by someone else. (which is admittedly pretty obvious. Imagine if Ford owned roads)
He said an ipod that could play lossless formats would be innovative. And ipods can do that.
Don't forget that that's in China, where they get new DVD releases for 2 bucks (and still prefer the 1.75 pirates)
Did you get to play Zelda, Metroid or Red Steel? The certainly looked fun, and certainly not what I'd class as "gimicky".
If all I can expect from this are shoddy Quake ripoffs, I'd rather stick to PC for hobbyist development, thank you very much.
But at higher ages, I'd bet that people are less inclined to invest alot of money in something just because its "the" thing to have.
As you have stated in your comment, console manufacturers are looking at profit elsewhere, or maybe even just market share, investing in the future.
Looking at Microsofts losses in their gaming devision, it's hard to imagine how they didn't make losses on the consoles. From 2001 to 2005, they lost 4 Billion, and at 22 million units sold, that's 180 Dollars loss per unit, after profits from games have been included.
The reason the PS2 is so profitable, is because there's so many of the damn things out there, each selling many games.
GameCube was specifically designed to be cheap, and simple to produce, and that way it didn't drive Nintendo into financial ruin.
What you're saying doesn't disprove the price breakdowns.
Sure, there were quite a few hardcore gamers lining outside Bestbuy, but how representative was that for the overall success of the 360? There might be a number of loyal fans out there, but the vast majority of the market is made up of more "sane" people, who probably won't be prepared to spend $600 on a console.
I don't think brand recognition is really as important as some people seem to think. Sure, it will help alot, but how much did it help Nintendo with the N64?
I suppose only time will tell though.
So, you do actually realise that you're doing something that's not the manufacturers intended use, and by opening your PS2, you have no chance of getting it replaced if it gets broke for good?
As to your opinion on blu-ray, I would avoid it completely for now. If you aren't interested in HD (for now at least), then there's no point on buying something for forward-compatability, as you would be gambling on a format for no reason. Plus, by the time that you do become intersted in Blu-Ray, they'll be much cheaper as standalone players.
The only reason to buy a PS3 is, for now, the games.
Woah, cal down. I'm not saying lighting shouldn't be considered in graphics technology, but some games today push it too far, and it looks like that's the way it will be in the next generation even more.
s /924363_20060325_screen047.jpg/ oblivion2_screen012.jpg_ 20060308_screen004.jpgs /928234_20050915_screen001.jpg
Examples: http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/083/review
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/news/03/21
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/066/924363
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2005/257/review
[...] These are two extremely diferent things
No they're not, they're basically the same.
It's to do with quantum mechanics, and it's not worth going into that now.
But the basic principle here is a wave-particle duality of matter, so both light, and say beta radiation, can be considered as particles and as waves.
With EM radiation, the particles are photons, and with beta-radiation they are electrons.
At low frequencies, EM-radiation shows wave-like characteristics, whilst at higher frequencies (and higher energy), it behaves much like particles.
X-rays or gamma rays are basically light at very high frequencies. And we know very well how harmfulthey can be.
The same goes for ultra-violet light, which is only just above the visual spectrum.
The question is, is the same kind of radiation harmful at lower frequencies, and relatively low power output?
But it would be wrong to assume that intensity or power would be the only deciding factor as to the harmful effects.
Then check how many of those are actually sold. After the initial rush, check what the prices are now like on ebay. Those early gamblers just want to get their money back.
Happened with the XBOX, maybe they'll have learnt their lesson with the PS3
If they haven't set their goals higher than the XBOX360, they've already given up.
Rendering at a higher-res and resampling to a lower resolution also does wonders to get rid of aliasing, fwiw.
Oh yeah, and so does taking off your glasses, if you're shortsighted. Unlike optimized anti-aliasing, it's distorting the pixels.
Lighting? You mean that recent trade to mark everything that has an edge with a radioactive glow? Yeah, we sure need a hell of a lot of that.
Placing an antenna directly over you would cause less exposion than if you were twohundred feet away. Most antennae are designed to emit their radiation parallel to the ground, and don't give off anything either above or below.
1) Waste heat in the electronic circuitry
2) Lacking air circulation arount your ear
3) heat from your hand
Oh noes, the bluetooth headset will also scramble my brain with EM-radiation.
Katamari Damacy - We Love Katamari
Huh?
Hardly two seperate exclusives
Final Fantasy X-2
WTF?
But unless you're obsessed on setting every graphics option on highest, and using every damn shader anyone ever conceived, you can get away very decently for considerably less.
You can build a gaming-class PC for 500 Dollars that can play the newest games in decent quality.
People who don't want to give out too much money can do exactly that, knowing they won't be playing the greatest of the latest.
But anybody intersted in the PS3 won't have a choice.