The traffic lights out here in California work. If you don't push the button you don't get the white walk symbol, you only get the flashing red hand and you miss an entire phase. (White walk, red flashing hand, solid red hand).
I have no idea why you were marked troll, and I wish I had some mod points to fix that.
There's an old saying that goes something like 'never attribute to ill intentions what can be better explained by stupidity'.
Which is exactly your point. There's no conspiracy theory needed about class warfare of the Feudalistic upper class against the downtrodden middle class. As you said, their goal isn't to crush the middle class. Their goal is to simply accumulate as much wealth as possible.
The manner in which they are doing it, as you've said, is removing the middle class from NA and birthing one China.
No troll about your comment as far as I can see.
No, it was pretty clear from his comments that the GP is under the belief that the money being spent on orchestras and the like is turning games into their big hollywood fluff counterparts.
He starts by saying he's played both Halo games, then trashes them for a lack of a story (huh?), and then complains about the money being spent.
I don't think it's a very big leap to draw the inference that the GP believes the money and resources should be spent on something other than the score.
Do you watch Cable or Satellite TV? Remember when cable tv first came out and it was promised to be ad-free? Then 'relatively' ad-free. Now, no company can remember making those claims? Same with Satellite Radio... same with in-game ads.
You'd be lucky if the ad's were in just games like Enemy Terroritory or America's Army that were actually free. But STEAM has already shown us the way. Don't you get it? It's not a method of providing the consumer with content, it's a method of providing an additional revenue stream for the company because they can not only sell fixed ads to their audience, they can continually re-sell the ads to new companies because you have to update via steam if you want to play any of their games online.
We're used to ads everywhere else we look, did we riot when they started showing us commercials before we got to see the $12 movie we just paid for?
I loved HL. It's one of my most favorite games, ever. Throw in HL multiplayer, mods like DoD, TFC and CS, (not to mention even the silly vampire ones and vikings ones, etc, and I've played more hours of HL then any other game, ever.
I was so pumped when HL2 was coming out.
I still haven't bought it. Spent my money on other FPS like Doom III and F.E.A.R. instead. Why? Steam. The problems with steam have been well discussed on Slashdot before, so I won't go into them again.. just to say that the problems and the tactics used by Valve convinced me not to purchase the sequel to my most beloved game of all time.
If that's what they were trying to accomplish.. Well done!
All interesting points, and I agree with most of them. But let me ask you the most important question.
What inputs does your HDTV actually have? Sure, the PS3 and BR can transmit a 1080p signal.
GREAT. Can your HDTV actually input a 1080p signal? I seriously doubt it. Most of them cannot. I've got a rather nice HDTV myself. It can't accept a 1080p signal. Unless you're paying five figures for a brand new HDTV, it won't. Which means nobody will be able to even SEEN the difference.
This isn't VHS vs DVD where a SDTV could display the difference in quality. This is BR vs DVD where the tvs that can display the difference are BARELY even available, much less have penetrated the market, and on top of it all most people can't even tell the difference in quality if it actually exists (and the TV isn't just upscaling)!
Re:Article is front-page news, summary is not
on
CNN On The $500 PS3
·
· Score: 1
Sure. Right. Those things would probably kill the 360.
As would Sony just giving away PS3's for free. Or, as long as we're in fantasy land, why don't we just imagine Sony PAYING people to have PS3s?
You're forgetting that Sony needs to actually manufacture and sell products in order to make money. MS makes their money selling licenses with virtually no cost to themselves.
That's why MS could afford to lose money on the Xbox, that's why MS can afford to lose money on the 360, and that's why MS has already planned price reductions.
If the PS3 comes out at $299, and $100 LESS than the 360 rather than the article's assumption it will come out at $499 and $100 MORE than the 360, it won't matter too much, because the Core unit will already cost LESS than $299 when the PS3 launches and the Premimum Bundle will be priced right at $299 or will have a price reduction itself to about $349.
MS has already announced they plan to have structured price reductions, you can bet the first of which will happen when the PS3 is released. So in order for Sony to undercut MS, they wouldn't have to target their current prices... they need to target the price point that the 360 will be at when the PS3 launches.
It would be Sony that would go out of business, not MS, with this strategy.
I keep hearing 'lack of originality' over and over again. It's the reason PC gaming has died, even though it hasn't. It's the reason that nobody is buying the X360, even though they are. Now it's the reason for the death of arcades?
It's actually the opposite in the arcade's case. All those "original" games come with huge contraptions that take up too much space that then require people to plunk down dollars to play for seconds in order to recover their investment.
And perhaps that's the real problem here. Not the games, not the influx of console or PC gaming, and not the quality differences (or lack thereof). Maybe the problem with arcades is the business model. Maybe games should be easier so you can play longer and feel like you did something for your $3. Or games should be cheaper so you'll be more willing to "try again".
There's no point in having a $3 per play machine sitting empty half of the day because the rest of the time people are deciding to play three other games with that $3 instead.
Have you been to an arcade lately? It appears by your post that you have, so what is your complaint? Arcades did make the transition from normal standup boxes to more interactive setups years ago. DDR is only one example. How many racing games are there that are in standup boxes anymore? None. They are all in big car shaped contraptions that shake and move, etc. There's motorcycle games where you get on "a motorcycle" in order to play, ski'ing games where you have to pretend to ski, jetski games, and it goes on and on.
The fact is that it's THOSE things that have killed the arcades. First, they take up too much space. So you get less games per square foot in the arcade, which means less revenue is generated. Second, they are too expensive compared to the old standup boxes. The combination of both of those things leads these games to cost upwards of $1 to play, and last time I checked, you were lucky if you could play a game for only a $1. More like $2 or $3.
It used to be that those games cost money, but they took a long time to play, they were very "forgiving" in their game mechanics. There used to be extremely few of them, they were used as the center piece to bring customers in. But arcades never made money off of those games, they made money off the other "basic" games that people played after watching the idiot who spent $3 for 5 minutes of pretending to drive a dunebuggy around.
I agree the PC can be used for things other than just gaming, so that gives them an extra inherent benefit.
However, I disagree that the $300 Xbox doesn't blow away a three year old $2000 PC. It most certainly does. Without upgrades, a PC that cost you $2000 three years ago can't come close to matching the quality of DoomIII or Far Cry Instincts, both of which the Xbox can render.
Can the Xbox render those games as well as a $2000 PC today? Of course not, but that's not really a fair comparison.
Also, I have never purchased a single hardware upgrade for my Xbox since I purchased it, and don't plan on ever upgrading hardware on the 360 (if I ever buy one). I've got a HDD. Why would I need memory cards?
The real sticking point is that you will have to upgrade that $2000 PC in three years (probably before) if you want to play the latest and greatest games. You won't have to do that for the 360, all you need to do is buy the new DVD which will still have improved performance because of optimizations, multi-threading, etc.
Hell, if you spent $2000 on a PC three years ago, you can't even upgrade it at this point. You need to throw it away and buy an entirely new one due to extreme advances in PCI-E, multi-core processors, DDRII, Sata, etc.
Actually, in three years, that $2000 pc you bought today will barely be capable of running the newest games available on the market.
Can a $2000 PC you purchased three years ago run F.E.A.R.? Or CivIV? Not if you haven't upgraded it in that time period, which makes it then a greater than $2000 PC.
On the other hand, three years later, that big ugly $300 Xbox can run Doom3, Far Cry Instincts, and all the latest games just fine. The same will hold true for the 360. Not to mention that because it's a closed box, the games released for the 360 will be far more optimized, actually multi-threaded, and will be far superior to the games available on the system now.
Bottom line, in three years you'll have to throw away or substantially upgrade that $2000 PC in order to play the latest and greatest games. In three years time, you'll have to do nothing other than purchase the DVD to play the latest and greatest 360 games.
And yet, he didn't say that PCs won't soon be able to eclipse the 360 gaming experience. In fact, he expliciting indicated that they would.
However, he was pointing out that CURRENTLY, you cannot match the level of gaming experience from the 360 on a PC. Which is true. Swapping ATI cards running crossfire for nVidia cards running SLI, doesn't it change it. Sure, I think he was exaggerating a bit when he said you won't be able to match in on the PC for a couple of years.
I think by the time the PS3 launches, PC gaming will have surpassed both the 360 and the PS3 in terms of high-level quality (if you want to pay for it). But right now, he's correct. And right now, the grandparent is incorrect in saying that the 360 games are of the quality of PC games two years ago.
That's just absurd. Right now, the 360 offers the best experience (for the same game) across different platforms. That will change in 6 months to 1 year, when the PC market will adjust and surpass the console market. But the statement that PCs 2 years ago can do what the 360 is doing to day is ridiculous. PCs TODAY can't do what the 360 is doing today.
Simply because a certain product doesn't include features that you wish it included, doesn't mean that not including those features constitutes a design flaw.
A design flaw is poor ergonomics. A design flaw is over heating because there isn't enough airflow in the product (when used according to directions). A design flaw is something that prohibits the proper use of the product as intended by the manufacturer.
Not something that was excluded and never promised, or unallowable use of the product in a manner that wasn't intended.
I have a 6800NU (128mb), and 512k of ram on a P2.4c and I can play the game on huge settings, with tons of AI. But.. it does get slow. Especially late in the game when there's a bunch of units all moving around (really bad on ocean maps with lots of AI boats roaming around). It'll take up to a minute between turns while the computer 'waits' for the AI to finish all their moves.
So, it's playable, but definately needs more RAM. I've heard that in most cases, even 1 Gig isn't enough to get the game to run smoothly.
That doesn't explain the same situation happening at Best Buy,though. They don't sell preowned console games. Last time I ventured to Best Buy, their three isles of PC games had turned into a single isle.
It's crap, that's what it is. I'm one of those people with a HDTV with no digital content except for my DVD player. I cancelled my subscription to HD Cable. Why? Because it's bad enough that you have to remember to go from watching the Discovery Channel on 56 to Discovery Channel HD on 623. But on top of that, there's a worse problem!
Oh? There's a program I want to watch on Discovery Channel? Cool.. I'll watch it in HD. You switch over and... Whaaat? It's a completely different program! The show you wanted to watch in HD, simply isn't on, because all the HD channels aren't simply the same programs in HD.. They are completely different channels with completely different programming! That's what none of the content providers want to tell the public. They want you to believe you get all your normal programming, but with the extra benefit of HD!
It's simply NOT TRUE. It's like a bait and switch. Watch Discovery Channel in HD! But you can't, because all you get on Discovery HD is the same 10 programs about Ocean Life played over and over again, while none of their "normal" programming is ever broadcast in HD!
Are you going to factor in the cost of the gasoline that you used going to the store to buy your copy of Halo 2? Or the amount of Mountain Dew and Hot Pockets you consumed while playing Halo 2?
Ha! Voodoo Banshee! My first gpu upgrade! Nice PCI card, didn't even have AGP at that time.
I never spend over $200 for a vid card, so I hear what you're saying. Got my last card in the $150 range.. a 5900NU w/ Call of Duty (game was selling retail at that time for $59.99, so the card was only about $100), and that lasted a good year. Just "upgraded" to an XFX 6800NU. It didn't come with any software at all (except drivers), but it was on weekend sale at Newegg for $160. If you're looking at a card under $150, I assume you're still AGP bound? (like me)
Newegg has an eVGA 6800NU for $159 after mail in rebate
Wait.. Wait.. Wait. I thought we were all complaining about the LACK of the HDD? Now you want to complain that if you buy the HDD it costs too much? But you don't HAVE to buy it! Allard just say so. Not any game that don't require the HDD can't be played! So you don't have to buy it! But if you do buy it, it costs too much? Aaaagh!
Sure! There's no reason why Sony can't completely change the PS3 specs still. It's not like they actually have any GAMES already created for it anyway!
Slashdot Mirror
The traffic lights out here in California work. If you don't push the button you don't get the white walk symbol, you only get the flashing red hand and you miss an entire phase. (White walk, red flashing hand, solid red hand).
I have no idea why you were marked troll, and I wish I had some mod points to fix that. There's an old saying that goes something like 'never attribute to ill intentions what can be better explained by stupidity'. Which is exactly your point. There's no conspiracy theory needed about class warfare of the Feudalistic upper class against the downtrodden middle class. As you said, their goal isn't to crush the middle class. Their goal is to simply accumulate as much wealth as possible. The manner in which they are doing it, as you've said, is removing the middle class from NA and birthing one China. No troll about your comment as far as I can see.
FACTS? If this were actually about facts, there wouldn't be anything to VOTE on, would there?
Exactly. Anybody who doesn't see there's something fundamentally wrong with using the terms 'science' and 'vote' together, has already missed the bus.
No, it was pretty clear from his comments that the GP is under the belief that the money being spent on orchestras and the like is turning games into their big hollywood fluff counterparts.
He starts by saying he's played both Halo games, then trashes them for a lack of a story (huh?), and then complains about the money being spent.
I don't think it's a very big leap to draw the inference that the GP believes the money and resources should be spent on something other than the score.
Do you watch Cable or Satellite TV? Remember when cable tv first came out and it was promised to be ad-free? Then 'relatively' ad-free. Now, no company can remember making those claims? Same with Satellite Radio... same with in-game ads.
You'd be lucky if the ad's were in just games like Enemy Terroritory or America's Army that were actually free. But STEAM has already shown us the way. Don't you get it? It's not a method of providing the consumer with content, it's a method of providing an additional revenue stream for the company because they can not only sell fixed ads to their audience, they can continually re-sell the ads to new companies because you have to update via steam if you want to play any of their games online.
We're used to ads everywhere else we look, did we riot when they started showing us commercials before we got to see the $12 movie we just paid for?
I loved HL. It's one of my most favorite games, ever. Throw in HL multiplayer, mods like DoD, TFC and CS, (not to mention even the silly vampire ones and vikings ones, etc, and I've played more hours of HL then any other game, ever.
I was so pumped when HL2 was coming out.
I still haven't bought it. Spent my money on other FPS like Doom III and F.E.A.R. instead. Why? Steam. The problems with steam have been well discussed on Slashdot before, so I won't go into them again.. just to say that the problems and the tactics used by Valve convinced me not to purchase the sequel to my most beloved game of all time.
If that's what they were trying to accomplish.. Well done!
All interesting points, and I agree with most of them. But let me ask you the most important question.
What inputs does your HDTV actually have? Sure, the PS3 and BR can transmit a 1080p signal.
GREAT. Can your HDTV actually input a 1080p signal? I seriously doubt it. Most of them cannot. I've got a rather nice HDTV myself. It can't accept a 1080p signal. Unless you're paying five figures for a brand new HDTV, it won't. Which means nobody will be able to even SEEN the difference.
This isn't VHS vs DVD where a SDTV could display the difference in quality. This is BR vs DVD where the tvs that can display the difference are BARELY even available, much less have penetrated the market, and on top of it all most people can't even tell the difference in quality if it actually exists (and the TV isn't just upscaling)!
Sure. Right. Those things would probably kill the 360.
As would Sony just giving away PS3's for free. Or, as long as we're in fantasy land, why don't we just imagine Sony PAYING people to have PS3s?
You're forgetting that Sony needs to actually manufacture and sell products in order to make money. MS makes their money selling licenses with virtually no cost to themselves.
That's why MS could afford to lose money on the Xbox, that's why MS can afford to lose money on the 360, and that's why MS has already planned price reductions.
If the PS3 comes out at $299, and $100 LESS than the 360 rather than the article's assumption it will come out at $499 and $100 MORE than the 360, it won't matter too much, because the Core unit will already cost LESS than $299 when the PS3 launches and the Premimum Bundle will be priced right at $299 or will have a price reduction itself to about $349.
MS has already announced they plan to have structured price reductions, you can bet the first of which will happen when the PS3 is released. So in order for Sony to undercut MS, they wouldn't have to target their current prices... they need to target the price point that the 360 will be at when the PS3 launches.
It would be Sony that would go out of business, not MS, with this strategy.
I keep hearing 'lack of originality' over and over again. It's the reason PC gaming has died, even though it hasn't. It's the reason that nobody is buying the X360, even though they are. Now it's the reason for the death of arcades?
It's actually the opposite in the arcade's case. All those "original" games come with huge contraptions that take up too much space that then require people to plunk down dollars to play for seconds in order to recover their investment.
And perhaps that's the real problem here. Not the games, not the influx of console or PC gaming, and not the quality differences (or lack thereof). Maybe the problem with arcades is the business model. Maybe games should be easier so you can play longer and feel like you did something for your $3. Or games should be cheaper so you'll be more willing to "try again".
There's no point in having a $3 per play machine sitting empty half of the day because the rest of the time people are deciding to play three other games with that $3 instead.
Wow. Laser Tag?
By the time Laser Tag came out, arcades were already in a steep decline.
Have you been to an arcade lately? It appears by your post that you have, so what is your complaint? Arcades did make the transition from normal standup boxes to more interactive setups years ago. DDR is only one example. How many racing games are there that are in standup boxes anymore? None. They are all in big car shaped contraptions that shake and move, etc. There's motorcycle games where you get on "a motorcycle" in order to play, ski'ing games where you have to pretend to ski, jetski games, and it goes on and on.
The fact is that it's THOSE things that have killed the arcades. First, they take up too much space. So you get less games per square foot in the arcade, which means less revenue is generated. Second, they are too expensive compared to the old standup boxes. The combination of both of those things leads these games to cost upwards of $1 to play, and last time I checked, you were lucky if you could play a game for only a $1. More like $2 or $3.
It used to be that those games cost money, but they took a long time to play, they were very "forgiving" in their game mechanics. There used to be extremely few of them, they were used as the center piece to bring customers in. But arcades never made money off of those games, they made money off the other "basic" games that people played after watching the idiot who spent $3 for 5 minutes of pretending to drive a dunebuggy around.
I agree the PC can be used for things other than just gaming, so that gives them an extra inherent benefit.
However, I disagree that the $300 Xbox doesn't blow away a three year old $2000 PC. It most certainly does. Without upgrades, a PC that cost you $2000 three years ago can't come close to matching the quality of DoomIII or Far Cry Instincts, both of which the Xbox can render.
Can the Xbox render those games as well as a $2000 PC today? Of course not, but that's not really a fair comparison.
Also, I have never purchased a single hardware upgrade for my Xbox since I purchased it, and don't plan on ever upgrading hardware on the 360 (if I ever buy one). I've got a HDD. Why would I need memory cards?
The real sticking point is that you will have to upgrade that $2000 PC in three years (probably before) if you want to play the latest and greatest games. You won't have to do that for the 360, all you need to do is buy the new DVD which will still have improved performance because of optimizations, multi-threading, etc.
Hell, if you spent $2000 on a PC three years ago, you can't even upgrade it at this point. You need to throw it away and buy an entirely new one due to extreme advances in PCI-E, multi-core processors, DDRII, Sata, etc.
Actually, in three years, that $2000 pc you bought today will barely be capable of running the newest games available on the market.
Can a $2000 PC you purchased three years ago run F.E.A.R.? Or CivIV? Not if you haven't upgraded it in that time period, which makes it then a greater than $2000 PC.
On the other hand, three years later, that big ugly $300 Xbox can run Doom3, Far Cry Instincts, and all the latest games just fine. The same will hold true for the 360. Not to mention that because it's a closed box, the games released for the 360 will be far more optimized, actually multi-threaded, and will be far superior to the games available on the system now.
Bottom line, in three years you'll have to throw away or substantially upgrade that $2000 PC in order to play the latest and greatest games. In three years time, you'll have to do nothing other than purchase the DVD to play the latest and greatest 360 games.
And yet, he didn't say that PCs won't soon be able to eclipse the 360 gaming experience. In fact, he expliciting indicated that they would.
However, he was pointing out that CURRENTLY, you cannot match the level of gaming experience from the 360 on a PC. Which is true. Swapping ATI cards running crossfire for nVidia cards running SLI, doesn't it change it. Sure, I think he was exaggerating a bit when he said you won't be able to match in on the PC for a couple of years.
I think by the time the PS3 launches, PC gaming will have surpassed both the 360 and the PS3 in terms of high-level quality (if you want to pay for it). But right now, he's correct. And right now, the grandparent is incorrect in saying that the 360 games are of the quality of PC games two years ago.
That's just absurd. Right now, the 360 offers the best experience (for the same game) across different platforms. That will change in 6 months to 1 year, when the PC market will adjust and surpass the console market. But the statement that PCs 2 years ago can do what the 360 is doing to day is ridiculous. PCs TODAY can't do what the 360 is doing today.
These are new units, coming out in new weekly shipments. This is just more Anti-MS FUD. http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&t ask=view&id=1864&Itemid=2
MOST of these things aren't "design flaws".
Simply because a certain product doesn't include features that you wish it included, doesn't mean that not including those features constitutes a design flaw.
A design flaw is poor ergonomics. A design flaw is over heating because there isn't enough airflow in the product (when used according to directions). A design flaw is something that prohibits the proper use of the product as intended by the manufacturer.
Not something that was excluded and never promised, or unallowable use of the product in a manner that wasn't intended.
I have a 6800NU (128mb), and 512k of ram on a P2.4c and I can play the game on huge settings, with tons of AI. But.. it does get slow. Especially late in the game when there's a bunch of units all moving around (really bad on ocean maps with lots of AI boats roaming around). It'll take up to a minute between turns while the computer 'waits' for the AI to finish all their moves.
So, it's playable, but definately needs more RAM. I've heard that in most cases, even 1 Gig isn't enough to get the game to run smoothly.
That doesn't explain the same situation happening at Best Buy,though. They don't sell preowned console games. Last time I ventured to Best Buy, their three isles of PC games had turned into a single isle.
It's crap, that's what it is. I'm one of those people with a HDTV with no digital content except for my DVD player. I cancelled my subscription to HD Cable. Why? Because it's bad enough that you have to remember to go from watching the Discovery Channel on 56 to Discovery Channel HD on 623. But on top of that, there's a worse problem!
Oh? There's a program I want to watch on Discovery Channel? Cool.. I'll watch it in HD. You switch over and... Whaaat? It's a completely different program! The show you wanted to watch in HD, simply isn't on, because all the HD channels aren't simply the same programs in HD.. They are completely different channels with completely different programming! That's what none of the content providers want to tell the public. They want you to believe you get all your normal programming, but with the extra benefit of HD!
It's simply NOT TRUE. It's like a bait and switch. Watch Discovery Channel in HD! But you can't, because all you get on Discovery HD is the same 10 programs about Ocean Life played over and over again, while none of their "normal" programming is ever broadcast in HD!
Are you going to factor in the cost of the gasoline that you used going to the store to buy your copy of Halo 2? Or the amount of Mountain Dew and Hot Pockets you consumed while playing Halo 2?
Ha! Voodoo Banshee! My first gpu upgrade! Nice PCI card, didn't even have AGP at that time.
2 E16814130202
2 E16814130220
I never spend over $200 for a vid card, so I hear what you're saying. Got my last card in the $150 range.. a 5900NU w/ Call of Duty (game was selling retail at that time for $59.99, so the card was only about $100), and that lasted a good year. Just "upgraded" to an XFX 6800NU. It didn't come with any software at all (except drivers), but it was on weekend sale at Newegg for $160. If you're looking at a card under $150, I assume you're still AGP bound? (like me)
Newegg has an eVGA 6800NU for $159 after mail in rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
Or you can pick up an eVGA 6600GT for $144 after the rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
I'd go for the 6800NU, myself but definately stay away from the 6600 non-gt.
These aren't going to be spectacular cards, but they should run 'all last year's games at 800x600' just fine.
Wait.. Wait.. Wait. I thought we were all complaining about the LACK of the HDD? Now you want to complain that if you buy the HDD it costs too much? But you don't HAVE to buy it! Allard just say so. Not any game that don't require the HDD can't be played! So you don't have to buy it! But if you do buy it, it costs too much? Aaaagh!
ATI makes the Xenos GPU for the X360 (as well as the GPU in the Revolution), while nVidia is making the RSX GPU for the PS3.
Sure! There's no reason why Sony can't completely change the PS3 specs still. It's not like they actually have any GAMES already created for it anyway!