I agree that it was a bit too much for the script, but I hope you are joking with your fanfic remark.
Well, neither are the scripts by the people who get paid $1 million. Honestly, can you think of a movie based on a game that had an excellent or even good script. Generally, they tend to border on mediocrity at best.
As a fan of Halo, I hope do the Master Chief some justice and don't hire Ben Affleck/Hugh Jackman/Russel Crowe/Tom Cruise to play him. They should use an actor that at leat looks like he could kick some butt in real life. Unless they don't intend to show his face. In that case, stuff any extra into the suit and get Samuel L. Jackson to do the voice (he has the attitude, but IMHO lacks the physique, unless he pumps up like Edward Norton in American History X)
If they're not going to show the face of the actor, which the probably shouldn't do since you never get to see what Master Chief looks like (I wonder if they'll show him in Halo 3) in the games. In this case just get some grunt to wear the suit and do all the stunt work and have the person who does the voice in the games do the voice for the movie. If you're going to be basing a movie on a game with established voice talent, you should probably carry it over. If the character doens't look the part, makeup artists can always fix that. This would save a boatload of money by sticking with the voice actors instead of forking over several million for an A-list actor. The extra cash could be used to make a better movie, which is just better for everyone.
It's black Tuesday all over again. Everybody sell, sell, sell! The market is about to collapse!
Seriously, who cares? No system is ever perfect. It's better that it happens now and gets fixed then sometime down the road where it can cause serious problems.
"The script was penned by screenwriter Alex Garland (28 Days Later, The Beach), who was reportedly paid $1 million for his services."
I can't say that I'm a terribly large fan of either of those movies. I think this guy was overpaid just a little much. They could've lifted one of the internet from some fanfic site for a lot cheaper. I'm a little bit worried about how good of a script it is.
"Whatever studio picks up the project would also have to relinquish "strict control of development" to Halo developer Bungie Studios, who have written a "bible" which any director and producer would have to follow."
Amen to this though. I wish all movies based on games followed this fashion. It seems to me that a lot of game based movies that could be awesome end up being terrible because they don't follow the game closely. I'm 100% behind MS on this because it ensures that some asshat won't just add or invent new stuff to make the movie look cooler. Just imagine some studio adding a romance sub-plot to appeal to the 55-80 year old woman demographic.
Otherwise I kind of look foreward to a Halo movie. I'd also like to see a Metriod movie, and MGS movie since all of those games really have great potential. Make a good movie out of them and I will pay honor to it with my $7 movie ticket.
... on at least getting Longhorn released sometime this decade. It's been long enough already for crying out loud. Oh well, I suppose security and all the other nice features that their customers apparently "like" take time to add in.
In all honesty, this has to be more hype than not. We all know for a fact that the installed Sony base is something like four to five times larger than the Microsoft customer base. They might have gotten a lot of things right this time around, and seem to have addressed some of the issues they had with the Xbox, but let's be realistical here folks.
First, they've got both Sony and Nintendo releasing behind them. Even though the Xbox 360 and the PS3 have comparable specs, if the PS3 releases later, it's bound to have slightly better technology, which will draw some of the pure technophiles away from purchasing an Xbox 360 right away. The Nintendo camp has said the Revolution will be fully backwards compatible, appealing to a lot of older gamers who grew up with the NES and SNES. Add in the fact that the Revolution will likely have a much lower price tag and it seems to me that some people may be drawn to that as well.
I also wonder if the Xbox 360 will have any big launch titles like the Xbox had with Halo. If not, why buy an Xbox 360? Not to mention that a lot of people have said it won't be backwards compatible, or will only be partially backwards compatible (I can't recall if this was ever confirmed as certain or not). If this is true, then they can't rely on their catalogue of games from the Xbox to tide people over until some of the big games come to the system. Because the Revolution and the PS3 won't come out until later, it gives developers more time to crank out launch titles. Not to mention that both of these systems will be backwards compatible with older versions of the Company's consoles (the Revolution backwards compatible to a time when some of us weren't even a twinkle in our father's eye).
To me it just seems that Microsoft is looking to get the Xbox 360 a little bit of press. They want people to start discussing it again. A clever marketing gimmick, but little else.
99.9% of people might not have enough skill to mod a PSP or read a tutorial on how to do it, but 100% of people are easily capable of sending their system to someone who can.
I recall the PS2 being somewhat difficult to put a mod chip into, mostly because you had to solder at over 30 points and most people weren't willing to take the chance of having a "slip of the wrist." I'm not sure exactly what it cost, but I think people usually tended to charge around $30, plus whatever it cost to ship the system to them.
My reasoning behind the N64 lacking quality emulators is because no one really has the desire to spend time doing it. There are better things to do, such as hacking next gen. consoles or making something like XBMC, http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/ rather than spending time on an N64 emulator which isn't in high demand.
I think someone else posted that the difficulty in the emulation lies in the fact that insufficient documentation of the Nintendo hardware exists to create an effective emulator. If people had this information, it wouldn't be difficult at all. Just build an interpreter to take the code from and N64 game similar to how a java interpreter works. If you could do that, there's no way that a P4 or anything of equivalent power wouldn't be able to emulate an N64 smoothly.
My parents have one at home. I'm going to be formatting it again sometime this weekend. I know better than to waste my time talking to tech support from another country only to have them tell me to do what I was going to anyway.
At least the only person who has files that need extensive backing up is my brother. I feel sorry for the people who have several gigs of pictures and other things they'd like to backup, but can't because the system is so virus plagued it's impossible to do anything.
It's probably more fair to distinguish between the two, because saying a game has good graphics can be deceiving. Theoretically you could make a simple box with millions of polygons in it, but it still might not be exciting to look at.
Honestly, I believe graphics have a lot less impact on a game than the art style and how you use the graphics does. I really don't care if it has xxx,xxx polygons in it. I want it to look good.
Your Dell PC has a problem. You call Dell's 1-800 number for customer support. Because it is cheaper to pay people to do tech support overseas, your call is routed to India. Because there are not enough skilled people in India to handle your call, it is routed back to the United States where an English speaking individual fields your call.
How hard would it be to just route the call to the house of a tech support person. You could offer them a decent wage and the freedom to work from their own home. Just have them take a 3 month class on how to trouble shoot most problems. It shouldn't be so hard since almost any problem you call with involves reinstalling windows. Hell, a machine could do it for less.
I think people would be happier with customer service if it spoke the same language, even if it was the same pointless suggestion to fix your problems.
... maybe a lot of the Chinese gold farmers on the US Servers will go play on the Chinese servers. I don't intend to sound racist against Chinese people playing the game, but when they farm gold and sell it, it ruins the economy of the game.
Here's to wishful thinking!
Re:Hello World, Goodbye Gameboy
on
PSP Hackers Go Retro
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think that Nintendo mostly doesn't care about whether or not someone has hacked the firmware because people aren't using it to pirate games. When it comes to protecting their games, Nintendo takes the cake. The N64 used carts which no one wants to steal, the GC uses non-standard discs that Nintendo apparently controls the distrobution of. The DS uses carts as well if I'm not mistaken. Because no one goes around selling blanks and a machine to write data onto them, they're not to concerned.
Now if some website had a DS emulator for a PC, they'd probably be a little more irked about that. However, from your description of the DS, and the fact that N64 emulators aren't very good (probably because no one wants to bother making a good one or optimizing the ones that already exist. I mean, it's an N64, there aren't too many great games on it that don't have better versions on the GC or SNES.) makes me think this is unlikely. But I don't see a PSP having a problem with a regular Gameboy game.
Essentially what I'm saying is that this takes away an advantage the DS has with a huge back-library of games. What it boils down to is which system will have better games or features, because the playing field is a little more even.
... but just not in the way that most people think.
Will it make any difference to me if each individual drop of water in a waterfall is individually rendered and given its own physics? No. But will it matter if the waterfall doesn't look like a real waterfall or doesn't seem to fit? Yes.
It's not about how photorealistic something looks, but whether or not the art style used enhances the game by making you feel as if you're there. After a certain point, the graphics won't get any better. We'll be able to pump out more polygons than we know what to do with. Game designers need to use them to create a world that we can immerse ourselves in.
For example, I absolutely love the graphical style used in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. The world I'm exploring feels so much deeper than Halo 2's. Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 has excellent graphics, but they just weren't used to design the same type of rich world that Metroid has.
4. I said GB games, not DS games. There really aren't too many DS games worth emulating at the moment anyhow. Not to mention I think it uses a similar processor to the N64. I've seen a PC do a pretty good job emulating an N64.
5. Once again, I said GB games. That's regular, color, and advance.
Re:But can everyone benefit from this?
on
PSP Hackers Go Retro
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If it's anything like the Xbox, you'll more than likely need a certain model or firmware version in order for any mods or hacks to work properly. Early versions of the Xbox were fairly easy to mod, but Microsoft changed a few things in later versions that made it harder or less desirable to do.
I'm sure someone will eventually figure out how to hack the newer firmwares so you can play Gameboy ROMs as well. But no, not everyone benefits from this, especially Nintendo.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that if you could emulate and play Gameboy (and eventually Gameboy color and advance) games on a PSP that it really negates any reason for buying a Gameboy Advance or DS?
It's like buying a PSP and getting a gameboy for free. Granted it is illegal, and the ROMs won't play as well as the originals, but how much will people notice or care?
In some of the other articles covering the Nintendo Revolution, a few people kicked around the idea of the Revolution serving as a wireless hub for the DS. This would literally create millions of such hot spots around the world if every Revolution was open to be used as a hub.
Would be even nicer if they had WiMax in them. Would cost a hell of a lot more, but think of the range. You could play your friend across on the Revolution or DS without either of you leaving home. Would be interesting if they offered the ability to upgrade the network card in the console.
If the existing talent wants to walk, I'd say let them. I've heard a lot of great voice acting in a few games, but in others it's been horrible. I don't think that a lot of the voice actors are well known Hollywood actors (GTA has used some big names, and David Hayter from MGS has become somewhat famous from the role of Snake) but there are a few.
EA is making a lot of money by not paying the people who work there the money they deserve. I don't think that just the voice actors should revolt, but the programmers as well. Eventually EA is going to have to give in.
However, given the fact that next generation games are expected to cost $60 per game, it looks like the big developing houses are going to push the cost on the consumers rather than absorb it themselves.
Quoted from the article: "now games becoming are content-led, not technology-led".
Although there are a few bright gems in the future that this may be true about, I feel that this statement is for the most part false.
Just look at the PS3 and Xbox 360. Sony and Microsoft have gotten into a dick measuring contest about who can have the best specs. Nintendo is promising a revolution, but I'm guessing it will be more of the same old. Next generation games will be a lot like today's games, only prettier.
Companies aren't going to use the power of next generation consoles to create better content. Square-Enix is just going to animate the individual 50,000 strands of hair on the heads of each character, and Team Ninja is just going to add even more detail and jiggle if you know what I mean.
Eventually things will shift back to games with content, but we'll eventually come full circle and repeat this nonsense all over again. If we've learned anything from our history, it's that we've never learned anything from our history.
Some of the speculation around Nintendo's method of selling and distributing the older games reminds me a lot of Apple's iPod. Awhile back, I read an article where Steve Jobs talked about how they really didn't make much money selling $.99 songs, but made a killing on all of the iPods they were selling.
Because the Revolution is supposedly a lot less powerful than either the Xbox 360 or the PS3, it will cost a lot less to make. Nintendo can and will sell them at a lower price than the competition and still make a profit on every console they sell. Having the ability to download and play all of those old school games (even if Nintendo hardly makes any money on them) is just another way to get people to buy consoles where they make the big money.
Who really cares in the first place? Only a small minority of people will actually be willing to import a PSP. Even more true if the imported PSPs have a different Region code, and they won't be compatible with the games and whatnot released later. Some of these people might end up with 2 PSPs then.
Sending a few over there would probably work in Sony's favor.
Kid 1: "Wow! Is that a PSP?"
Kid 2: "Sure is."
Kid 1: "When can I get one? They look so awesome."
Kid 2: "I imported mine, but they'll officially be launched soon."
To a certain extent, I think this would drive up the consumer interest in PSPs.
Why do companies do such stupid things?
On a side note, I wonder what would happen if someone was mass selling them on ebay to Europeans...
I honestly feel that Apple has no long term plans with Intel unless they know something we don't. Intel might have some radical technology that will rock the planet in a few years. I'm guessing they don't though.
Right now Apple is just making the transition to x86, and who better to use than Intel? Because Intel pumps out the largest number of chips, it's going to cost Apple a lot less right now. If they can start selling $400 Mac mini's that can run almost anything a Windows PC can, a lot of people who use a computer for the internet and little else will be able to get the wide array of PC software and the security of a Mac all in the same package.
Once Apple has established a foothold in the x86 market and has moved its customer base from PPC to x86, they'll probably ditch Intel for AMD. AMD's high end CPUs are better than those of Intel (or at least that's the general concensus). Then again, if Intel does have something great in store, Apple can just stick with them.
While it's a daring move on their part, I think that Apple can only gain from this. Their popularity is up at the moment because of iPods and concerns with Windows security.
I'm really not terribly big into PC gaming so I'm not 100% on everything, but aren't a majority of the games developed for Mac also for PC as well. Either two seperate versions are released at the same time, or someone ports the game over at a later time. To me it seems that a majority of computer games are created for the PC because it's the major market. Since Apple has a really low market share, not many developers will want to make exclusive titles for the Mac. Even Escape Velocity Nova from Ambrosia software was ported over to the PC. I know that they've been longtime supporters of Mac gaming (I've still got a few of their games on a really old 6200 Performa from so long ago I can't even begin to recall).
Most of the PC gaming I do consists of old titles like Civilization 2 or Sim City 2000. I don't think any modern computer would have a problem emulating either of those.
My point is that, at heart, PCs and Macs will use x86 processors. The assembly isn't going to change between a Mac and a PC. I'm sure a few things will need to change from a Windows version, but it seems a lot easier now, rather than having to change it from x86 to PPC.
In the long run this benefits Apple more than it hurts them. In the short run it might suck though.
What does the processor have to do with stability. Stability issues are caused by the OS running on the hardware.
Just because Windows is generally viewed as an unstable OS running on x86, doesn't mean that every single OS will be. Just look at the various Linux versions that run on x86 processors. You wouldn't call them unstable, would you?
I think you can even expand this more to Apple switching to the x86 architecture than just Intel. Apple could just as easily use AMD chips as Intel chips down the road.
Although the fastest Mac will only be as fast as the fastest PC, Apple will more than likely continue the tradition of building systems for high-end professionaly use. I don't forsee too many Celeron chips being used in Macs (but then again with the Mac mini, who knows). I see Apple being somewhat comparible to Alienware in that they will design high end systems.
What I think a lot of people are forgetting is that Apple will still be designing the computers. We're still going to see the same sleek and sexy designs like the iPod and iMac. The only difference will be the CPU(s) on the inside.
As many people have pointed out, this change will make running Windows software that people "can't live without" on a Mac a lot easier as well. In fact, I don't think that we'll be able to see much of a noticable performance difference. What this means is that people will now have the ability to choose Mac's for their OS and design more than ever before. If you could run the same applications without much of a problem on Windows os OS X, which do you think people would choose: the one that's riddled with viruses and security problems, or the one that rarely has any viruses or security problems at all?
I really can't see Apple leaving the hardware business though. If they just made an OS that could run on any x86 machine, they run into the same problems that MS does with Windows. They would need to have drivers for thousands of different products made by thousands of different companies. By making a lot of the hardware (or at least deciding on it) they eliminate a lot of these problems.
For the first time in my life I can honestly say that Apple might be a real threat to the PC market.
Honestly, I believe this is going to be a good thing for gaming on the Mac. What architecture are almost all computer games designed on currently? The x86. What type of architecture is Apple using in its computers from now on? *gasp* The x86!
Is it possible that because of this, porting games would be incredibly easier?
If you look at the system requirements for a majority of games you get something like: Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz (or equivelent), xxx RAM, etc.
I'm sure there will be a few things that will need to be changed (i.e. the way the game interfaces with the OS) but not the major differences in switching between an x86 and PowerPC chip that currently exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, neither are the scripts by the people who get paid $1 million. Honestly, can you think of a movie based on a game that had an excellent or even good script. Generally, they tend to border on mediocrity at best.
As a fan of Halo, I hope do the Master Chief some justice and don't hire Ben Affleck/Hugh Jackman/Russel Crowe/Tom Cruise to play him. They should use an actor that at leat looks like he could kick some butt in real life. Unless they don't intend to show his face. In that case, stuff any extra into the suit and get Samuel L. Jackson to do the voice (he has the attitude, but IMHO lacks the physique, unless he pumps up like Edward Norton in American History X)
If they're not going to show the face of the actor, which the probably shouldn't do since you never get to see what Master Chief looks like (I wonder if they'll show him in Halo 3) in the games. In this case just get some grunt to wear the suit and do all the stunt work and have the person who does the voice in the games do the voice for the movie. If you're going to be basing a movie on a game with established voice talent, you should probably carry it over. If the character doens't look the part, makeup artists can always fix that. This would save a boatload of money by sticking with the voice actors instead of forking over several million for an A-list actor. The extra cash could be used to make a better movie, which is just better for everyone.
Seriously, who cares? No system is ever perfect. It's better that it happens now and gets fixed then sometime down the road where it can cause serious problems.
I can't say that I'm a terribly large fan of either of those movies. I think this guy was overpaid just a little much. They could've lifted one of the internet from some fanfic site for a lot cheaper. I'm a little bit worried about how good of a script it is.
"Whatever studio picks up the project would also have to relinquish "strict control of development" to Halo developer Bungie Studios, who have written a "bible" which any director and producer would have to follow."
Amen to this though. I wish all movies based on games followed this fashion. It seems to me that a lot of game based movies that could be awesome end up being terrible because they don't follow the game closely. I'm 100% behind MS on this because it ensures that some asshat won't just add or invent new stuff to make the movie look cooler. Just imagine some studio adding a romance sub-plot to appeal to the 55-80 year old woman demographic.
Otherwise I kind of look foreward to a Halo movie. I'd also like to see a Metriod movie, and MGS movie since all of those games really have great potential. Make a good movie out of them and I will pay honor to it with my $7 movie ticket.
... on at least getting Longhorn released sometime this decade. It's been long enough already for crying out loud. Oh well, I suppose security and all the other nice features that their customers apparently "like" take time to add in.
First, they've got both Sony and Nintendo releasing behind them. Even though the Xbox 360 and the PS3 have comparable specs, if the PS3 releases later, it's bound to have slightly better technology, which will draw some of the pure technophiles away from purchasing an Xbox 360 right away. The Nintendo camp has said the Revolution will be fully backwards compatible, appealing to a lot of older gamers who grew up with the NES and SNES. Add in the fact that the Revolution will likely have a much lower price tag and it seems to me that some people may be drawn to that as well.
I also wonder if the Xbox 360 will have any big launch titles like the Xbox had with Halo. If not, why buy an Xbox 360? Not to mention that a lot of people have said it won't be backwards compatible, or will only be partially backwards compatible (I can't recall if this was ever confirmed as certain or not). If this is true, then they can't rely on their catalogue of games from the Xbox to tide people over until some of the big games come to the system. Because the Revolution and the PS3 won't come out until later, it gives developers more time to crank out launch titles. Not to mention that both of these systems will be backwards compatible with older versions of the Company's consoles (the Revolution backwards compatible to a time when some of us weren't even a twinkle in our father's eye).
To me it just seems that Microsoft is looking to get the Xbox 360 a little bit of press. They want people to start discussing it again. A clever marketing gimmick, but little else.
I recall the PS2 being somewhat difficult to put a mod chip into, mostly because you had to solder at over 30 points and most people weren't willing to take the chance of having a "slip of the wrist." I'm not sure exactly what it cost, but I think people usually tended to charge around $30, plus whatever it cost to ship the system to them.
My reasoning behind the N64 lacking quality emulators is because no one really has the desire to spend time doing it. There are better things to do, such as hacking next gen. consoles or making something like XBMC, http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/ rather than spending time on an N64 emulator which isn't in high demand.
I think someone else posted that the difficulty in the emulation lies in the fact that insufficient documentation of the Nintendo hardware exists to create an effective emulator. If people had this information, it wouldn't be difficult at all. Just build an interpreter to take the code from and N64 game similar to how a java interpreter works. If you could do that, there's no way that a P4 or anything of equivalent power wouldn't be able to emulate an N64 smoothly.
At least the only person who has files that need extensive backing up is my brother. I feel sorry for the people who have several gigs of pictures and other things they'd like to backup, but can't because the system is so virus plagued it's impossible to do anything.
Honestly, I believe graphics have a lot less impact on a game than the art style and how you use the graphics does. I really don't care if it has xxx,xxx polygons in it. I want it to look good.
How hard would it be to just route the call to the house of a tech support person. You could offer them a decent wage and the freedom to work from their own home. Just have them take a 3 month class on how to trouble shoot most problems. It shouldn't be so hard since almost any problem you call with involves reinstalling windows. Hell, a machine could do it for less.
I think people would be happier with customer service if it spoke the same language, even if it was the same pointless suggestion to fix your problems.
Here's to wishful thinking!
Now if some website had a DS emulator for a PC, they'd probably be a little more irked about that. However, from your description of the DS, and the fact that N64 emulators aren't very good (probably because no one wants to bother making a good one or optimizing the ones that already exist. I mean, it's an N64, there aren't too many great games on it that don't have better versions on the GC or SNES.) makes me think this is unlikely. But I don't see a PSP having a problem with a regular Gameboy game.
Essentially what I'm saying is that this takes away an advantage the DS has with a huge back-library of games. What it boils down to is which system will have better games or features, because the playing field is a little more even.
Will it make any difference to me if each individual drop of water in a waterfall is individually rendered and given its own physics? No. But will it matter if the waterfall doesn't look like a real waterfall or doesn't seem to fit? Yes.
It's not about how photorealistic something looks, but whether or not the art style used enhances the game by making you feel as if you're there. After a certain point, the graphics won't get any better. We'll be able to pump out more polygons than we know what to do with. Game designers need to use them to create a world that we can immerse ourselves in.
For example, I absolutely love the graphical style used in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. The world I'm exploring feels so much deeper than Halo 2's. Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 has excellent graphics, but they just weren't used to design the same type of rich world that Metroid has.
2. For the time being
3. That's your opinion
4. I said GB games, not DS games. There really aren't too many DS games worth emulating at the moment anyhow. Not to mention I think it uses a similar processor to the N64. I've seen a PC do a pretty good job emulating an N64.
5. Once again, I said GB games. That's regular, color, and advance.
I'm sure someone will eventually figure out how to hack the newer firmwares so you can play Gameboy ROMs as well. But no, not everyone benefits from this, especially Nintendo.
It's like buying a PSP and getting a gameboy for free. Granted it is illegal, and the ROMs won't play as well as the originals, but how much will people notice or care?
Would be even nicer if they had WiMax in them. Would cost a hell of a lot more, but think of the range. You could play your friend across on the Revolution or DS without either of you leaving home. Would be interesting if they offered the ability to upgrade the network card in the console.
EA is making a lot of money by not paying the people who work there the money they deserve. I don't think that just the voice actors should revolt, but the programmers as well. Eventually EA is going to have to give in.
However, given the fact that next generation games are expected to cost $60 per game, it looks like the big developing houses are going to push the cost on the consumers rather than absorb it themselves.
Although there are a few bright gems in the future that this may be true about, I feel that this statement is for the most part false.
Just look at the PS3 and Xbox 360. Sony and Microsoft have gotten into a dick measuring contest about who can have the best specs. Nintendo is promising a revolution, but I'm guessing it will be more of the same old. Next generation games will be a lot like today's games, only prettier.
Companies aren't going to use the power of next generation consoles to create better content. Square-Enix is just going to animate the individual 50,000 strands of hair on the heads of each character, and Team Ninja is just going to add even more detail and jiggle if you know what I mean.
Eventually things will shift back to games with content, but we'll eventually come full circle and repeat this nonsense all over again. If we've learned anything from our history, it's that we've never learned anything from our history.
Because the Revolution is supposedly a lot less powerful than either the Xbox 360 or the PS3, it will cost a lot less to make. Nintendo can and will sell them at a lower price than the competition and still make a profit on every console they sell. Having the ability to download and play all of those old school games (even if Nintendo hardly makes any money on them) is just another way to get people to buy consoles where they make the big money.
Sending a few over there would probably work in Sony's favor.
Kid 1: "Wow! Is that a PSP?"
Kid 2: "Sure is."
Kid 1: "When can I get one? They look so awesome."
Kid 2: "I imported mine, but they'll officially be launched soon."
To a certain extent, I think this would drive up the consumer interest in PSPs.
Why do companies do such stupid things?
On a side note, I wonder what would happen if someone was mass selling them on ebay to Europeans...
Right now Apple is just making the transition to x86, and who better to use than Intel? Because Intel pumps out the largest number of chips, it's going to cost Apple a lot less right now. If they can start selling $400 Mac mini's that can run almost anything a Windows PC can, a lot of people who use a computer for the internet and little else will be able to get the wide array of PC software and the security of a Mac all in the same package.
Once Apple has established a foothold in the x86 market and has moved its customer base from PPC to x86, they'll probably ditch Intel for AMD. AMD's high end CPUs are better than those of Intel (or at least that's the general concensus). Then again, if Intel does have something great in store, Apple can just stick with them.
While it's a daring move on their part, I think that Apple can only gain from this. Their popularity is up at the moment because of iPods and concerns with Windows security.
Most of the PC gaming I do consists of old titles like Civilization 2 or Sim City 2000. I don't think any modern computer would have a problem emulating either of those.
My point is that, at heart, PCs and Macs will use x86 processors. The assembly isn't going to change between a Mac and a PC. I'm sure a few things will need to change from a Windows version, but it seems a lot easier now, rather than having to change it from x86 to PPC.
In the long run this benefits Apple more than it hurts them. In the short run it might suck though.
Just because Windows is generally viewed as an unstable OS running on x86, doesn't mean that every single OS will be. Just look at the various Linux versions that run on x86 processors. You wouldn't call them unstable, would you?
Although the fastest Mac will only be as fast as the fastest PC, Apple will more than likely continue the tradition of building systems for high-end professionaly use. I don't forsee too many Celeron chips being used in Macs (but then again with the Mac mini, who knows). I see Apple being somewhat comparible to Alienware in that they will design high end systems.
What I think a lot of people are forgetting is that Apple will still be designing the computers. We're still going to see the same sleek and sexy designs like the iPod and iMac. The only difference will be the CPU(s) on the inside.
As many people have pointed out, this change will make running Windows software that people "can't live without" on a Mac a lot easier as well. In fact, I don't think that we'll be able to see much of a noticable performance difference. What this means is that people will now have the ability to choose Mac's for their OS and design more than ever before. If you could run the same applications without much of a problem on Windows os OS X, which do you think people would choose: the one that's riddled with viruses and security problems, or the one that rarely has any viruses or security problems at all?
I really can't see Apple leaving the hardware business though. If they just made an OS that could run on any x86 machine, they run into the same problems that MS does with Windows. They would need to have drivers for thousands of different products made by thousands of different companies. By making a lot of the hardware (or at least deciding on it) they eliminate a lot of these problems.
For the first time in my life I can honestly say that Apple might be a real threat to the PC market.
Is it possible that because of this, porting games would be incredibly easier?
If you look at the system requirements for a majority of games you get something like: Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz (or equivelent), xxx RAM, etc.
I'm sure there will be a few things that will need to be changed (i.e. the way the game interfaces with the OS) but not the major differences in switching between an x86 and PowerPC chip that currently exist.