Color me surprised. For some reason I thought Microsoft (and any other OS developer who wants in on most HD media format functionality) had to use DRM.
I also had this faint notion that Apple already surpasses most companies in terms of how deep they are in DRM, but hey! They're Apple. Apple is hip, and DRM is not, so I guess they don't "do" DRM.
I'm guesting whomever posted this is either a troll or a shill. Or uninformed.
"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty."
So I'm assuming they have yet to read the manual for the system or the games.
Or the on-screen instructions explicitly given before each game.
I hope they fail, and somehow die of AIDS and Ebola in a fire.
"Underground hackers are hawking a zero-day exploit for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop" = "Undeground hackers are hawking an exploit for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop on the day the exploit is released."
The value of the exploit diminishes with age, no?
The so called "self-constraint" and "discipline" have absolutely NOTHING to do with addiction. These are words you are associating with individuals who don't have as strong a predisposition to certain types of addiction.
I also should have mentioned in my post that while it is a physiological problem, that doesn't mean it's an excuse for browsing the web at work. Although I would argue the employer should simply remove his internet access (or certain parts of the net...).
Lastly... Say, two people are in a room with someone who has Ebola. One person gets it. The other doesn't. The guy who gets it dies. Does this mean it's not "real"? Is the other guy exhibiting self constraint? There are physiological (bad ones) changes caused by addiction. Just because you can't SEE them doesn't mean they aren't there.
I'm noticing a lot of skepticism about calling this a disease.
Addiction is a mental condition. It has real, physical symptoms and causes. It can be more problematic than many other serious neurological disorders. I suggest you doubters take a few neuroscience classes before forming a solid opinion on this.
One of the problems with addiction is that there can be many bases for it... Many typical drugs will produce similar end results in the brain (through alternate methods - [some] drugs are typically more direct in their addiction inducing nature) as a wide variety of activities ranging from gaming, to porn, to "the internet" and pretty much anything else someone intensely enjoys.
On the other hand, this presents a dilemma. I haven't been in classes for a while, but if I remember correctly, the only way to really test for an addiction is to see how badly someone fucks up their life (DSM requires several key things like the effect it has on work, sleep, and other needs). This, combined with the fact that different people will be predisposed to addiction (and perhaps different types of addiction) at different levels... It makes it hard to tell if it really is an addiction.
But then, you need to ask yourself... Before we knew what AIDS (insert other diseases here as well) was, was it not a disease?
As an atypical slashdot-college student who is a very very casual gamer, would you or your friends be willing to spend 600$ + the cost of games (+ 2000$++ for a good HDTV and 70$ for the cable??)??????
As another college student, who has been even less into games as you (console games that is), I can tell you the PS3 is not getting the most discussion here. Many girls in my fiances sorority are interested in the Wii (they're getting one for the lounge as well). My fiance is making me get one, although I was planning on it anyways. At work, two managers and three coworkers out of perhaps 10 workers I converse with normally will be lining up Saturday night, some for their children and selves, some for their wives. I've read countless responses on internet forums coming from men who's significant others are quite interested in gaming. When a Grandma goes to pick up a hot new present this Christmas, what game system will she get? The one not on the shelf, at 600$ (Grandma spending that much? HA), or the 250$ system (still a lot for a grandma, perhaps parents would be a better example) with family friendly games and a remote that looks like it gives you exercise.
I don't think there is really any way the Nintendo won't be incredibly successful this year. My guess is it will turn out to be an enormous hit, similar to the DS. I'd also venture to say that there will be plenty of stubborn people or people who simply aren't interested in Nintendo games who will make Sony and Microsoft successful as well. But think about it... With so many picking the Nintendo as a second system (two system houses are very common, but why would ANYONE get a PS3/360 at the cost and small differential in games...), so many non-gamers interested in the Nintendo, so many kids who will have their parents buy the Nintendo, and so many people who are tired of the same old flaming SHIT with a new paper bag around it... I think Nintendo is going to be on a whole different level.
I'll still have my PC if I crave "ultra-realistic games".
I have to ask. How, after years upon years of playing games on a standard definition, can any of the console fans here explain to me why resolution is all of a sudden at the forefront of important factors in determining the success of fun level of a console? If I'm not mistaken (apart from a few exceptions), I would guess 75% of you resolution pushers are the exact same people us computer gamers have been laughing at and mentioning our resolution to for years... With excuses like "I can't see the difference," and "Yeah, well your games suck."
These two excuses are now exactly what I can throw back in your face. Personally, I prefer higher resolution, but my affinity for a computer was more because it had/has the best FPS games and control scheme possible. However, how can you people now say that resolution is what makes the difference? And as you yourselves have pointed out in the past, there are PLENTY of high-res games with poor gameplay.
Regarding resolution on a TV: While it does make a difference to some people (like myself), the fact that you generally sit far away from a TV counters the high resolution (this is why many people never had a problem with standard def. TVs).
Regarding the resolution of games: Sure, graphics (and resolution) can make a great game more immersive and entertaining, but you underestimate the power of art. Cartoony and non "realistic" games are often better looking than graphics created by a bunch of monkeys (or inept graphics designers) simply because trying to make things look perfectly realistic will create a huge spotlight on anything that does not look realistic (some human characteristics and animations in beautiful sports games are just terrible and ruin the game for me... not that I enjoy typical sports games at all... tennis baby!)
Regarding the Wii: I think Nintendo has done a stand-up job of balancing cost, technology, and all the other factors that go into the success of a system. It's my guess that the Wii will be a HUGE influence in creating more interest in gaming for women. My fiance, girl friends, sister, and other women I have heard about (through the internet) are for the most part very excited about this console. Hell. We just got out of college, and I'm heading back (into more debt:-P), yet my Fiance has been pushing me to wake up early for the preorder days they have had so far... As for myself, it is the first gaming console I have been excited for since the anticipation of Mario in 3d... I left consoles because I love FPS games... Now I can go back because the standard controller for the system looks to be at least comparable to the effectiveness of a mouse and keyboard combo.
Oh. And the fact that I don't have $600 (PS3) + $200 (Controllers, Games, Cable) + $2000+++ (Worthy HDTV)... Not to mention the exclusive games just don't do it for me.
Wii for the win. Plus the 360. Plus the PS3. I'm sure all will be succesful (although if you refer to "success" as profit... then I don't think it's even a race anymore. Nintendo can't lose).
How do you define success?
Don't they lose money on each system sold?
Does anyone know how much they lose vs. MS vs. Nintendo's profit?
My guess is the Nintendo will reach the most homes, although I'm guessing it will be close to the 360, perhaps slightly behind. I think Sony will reach the least: It looks nice, I'm sure it will perform very well and last a long time, but at that price, or even a little cheaper when it comes down, I can't see it selling nearly as well as the two competitors, which will also be coming down from their already (relative) cheap prices.
In terms of money... I'm thinking Nintendo will come out way ahead of the pack, followed by MS and Sony being pretty far behind.
All of the above are based on the opinion of someone with relatively little knowledge... and a little common sense.
In the scheme of things, I think all three will get systems into homes and do well. They each have their place.
As for the article... I'm guessing/.ers purposely pick terrible articles on Sony's side... A name being the reason it will succeed? Lame.
Agreed. I love how they specifically say that you aren't guaranteed a system with a deposit. What a joke. *Almost* went to get in line early... pfffff.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how regulations that prevent Apple from restricting consumer rights are a problem, and how they might be stifling innovation. I'm a bit dismayed by society succumbing to Corporations.
Regarding the addiction arguments... The only thing you can debate regarding addiction with videogames is semantics. Everything can be addicting if a person enjoys it. Anyone who disagrees simply needs to read up on very basic neuroscience.
How similar is the hardware behind the players? Will we see combo players similar to + and - with DVD?
If not, then yes, the competition between these two will definately be slowing down their adoption...
I'm hoping Blu-Ray is adopted, but given the rampant greed in the world, I can see HD-DVD being backed given the cheaper production upgrades.
I'm guessing the launch of HD media will be similar to that of DVD... It was very slow to get off the ground, people were reluctant to uprade until prices came down and releases were abundant enough. Eventually it will become more widespread (after the PS3, after computer companies start installing them on basic computers, after HDTV is more widespread)
I'm guessing it will be a good 2 years before this starts happening give or take...
Arguing that it will stay a niche is naive, unless you expect some higher capacity/better media to emerge, which doesn't seem to be the case.
First post on slashdot...
You all are getting way too excited. The technology and knowledge of the brain to do what you all see as the end result the blind (who were not born blind) being able to see, even in a relatively rudimentary way, is years upon years upon years off. My guess would be 20-50 years at the LEAST./Sensory Motor Neuroscience.
Slashdot Mirror
While I won't be joining the uber-expensive HD parade for several years, This is still good (tentative) news.
Color me surprised. For some reason I thought Microsoft (and any other OS developer who wants in on most HD media format functionality) had to use DRM.
I also had this faint notion that Apple already surpasses most companies in terms of how deep they are in DRM, but hey! They're Apple. Apple is hip, and DRM is not, so I guess they don't "do" DRM.
I'm guesting whomever posted this is either a troll or a shill. Or uninformed.
"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty." So I'm assuming they have yet to read the manual for the system or the games. Or the on-screen instructions explicitly given before each game. I hope they fail, and somehow die of AIDS and Ebola in a fire.
I guess I'm out of the loop. I always thought 0-day access implied access to materials the day they were released.
"Underground hackers are hawking a zero-day exploit for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop" = "Undeground hackers are hawking an exploit for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop on the day the exploit is released." The value of the exploit diminishes with age, no?
The so called "self-constraint" and "discipline" have absolutely NOTHING to do with addiction. These are words you are associating with individuals who don't have as strong a predisposition to certain types of addiction. I also should have mentioned in my post that while it is a physiological problem, that doesn't mean it's an excuse for browsing the web at work. Although I would argue the employer should simply remove his internet access (or certain parts of the net...). Lastly... Say, two people are in a room with someone who has Ebola. One person gets it. The other doesn't. The guy who gets it dies. Does this mean it's not "real"? Is the other guy exhibiting self constraint? There are physiological (bad ones) changes caused by addiction. Just because you can't SEE them doesn't mean they aren't there.
I'm noticing a lot of skepticism about calling this a disease.
Addiction is a mental condition. It has real, physical symptoms and causes. It can be more problematic than many other serious neurological disorders. I suggest you doubters take a few neuroscience classes before forming a solid opinion on this.
One of the problems with addiction is that there can be many bases for it... Many typical drugs will produce similar end results in the brain (through alternate methods - [some] drugs are typically more direct in their addiction inducing nature) as a wide variety of activities ranging from gaming, to porn, to "the internet" and pretty much anything else someone intensely enjoys.
On the other hand, this presents a dilemma. I haven't been in classes for a while, but if I remember correctly, the only way to really test for an addiction is to see how badly someone fucks up their life (DSM requires several key things like the effect it has on work, sleep, and other needs). This, combined with the fact that different people will be predisposed to addiction (and perhaps different types of addiction) at different levels... It makes it hard to tell if it really is an addiction.
But then, you need to ask yourself... Before we knew what AIDS (insert other diseases here as well) was, was it not a disease?
As another college student, who has been even less into games as you (console games that is), I can tell you the PS3 is not getting the most discussion here. Many girls in my fiances sorority are interested in the Wii (they're getting one for the lounge as well). My fiance is making me get one, although I was planning on it anyways. At work, two managers and three coworkers out of perhaps 10 workers I converse with normally will be lining up Saturday night, some for their children and selves, some for their wives. I've read countless responses on internet forums coming from men who's significant others are quite interested in gaming. When a Grandma goes to pick up a hot new present this Christmas, what game system will she get? The one not on the shelf, at 600$ (Grandma spending that much? HA), or the 250$ system (still a lot for a grandma, perhaps parents would be a better example) with family friendly games and a remote that looks like it gives you exercise.
I don't think there is really any way the Nintendo won't be incredibly successful this year. My guess is it will turn out to be an enormous hit, similar to the DS. I'd also venture to say that there will be plenty of stubborn people or people who simply aren't interested in Nintendo games who will make Sony and Microsoft successful as well. But think about it... With so many picking the Nintendo as a second system (two system houses are very common, but why would ANYONE get a PS3/360 at the cost and small differential in games...), so many non-gamers interested in the Nintendo, so many kids who will have their parents buy the Nintendo, and so many people who are tired of the same old flaming SHIT with a new paper bag around it... I think Nintendo is going to be on a whole different level.
I'll still have my PC if I crave "ultra-realistic games".
I have to ask. How, after years upon years of playing games on a standard definition, can any of the console fans here explain to me why resolution is all of a sudden at the forefront of important factors in determining the success of fun level of a console? If I'm not mistaken (apart from a few exceptions), I would guess 75% of you resolution pushers are the exact same people us computer gamers have been laughing at and mentioning our resolution to for years... With excuses like "I can't see the difference," and "Yeah, well your games suck." These two excuses are now exactly what I can throw back in your face. Personally, I prefer higher resolution, but my affinity for a computer was more because it had/has the best FPS games and control scheme possible. However, how can you people now say that resolution is what makes the difference? And as you yourselves have pointed out in the past, there are PLENTY of high-res games with poor gameplay. Regarding resolution on a TV: While it does make a difference to some people (like myself), the fact that you generally sit far away from a TV counters the high resolution (this is why many people never had a problem with standard def. TVs). Regarding the resolution of games: Sure, graphics (and resolution) can make a great game more immersive and entertaining, but you underestimate the power of art. Cartoony and non "realistic" games are often better looking than graphics created by a bunch of monkeys (or inept graphics designers) simply because trying to make things look perfectly realistic will create a huge spotlight on anything that does not look realistic (some human characteristics and animations in beautiful sports games are just terrible and ruin the game for me... not that I enjoy typical sports games at all... tennis baby!) Regarding the Wii: I think Nintendo has done a stand-up job of balancing cost, technology, and all the other factors that go into the success of a system. It's my guess that the Wii will be a HUGE influence in creating more interest in gaming for women. My fiance, girl friends, sister, and other women I have heard about (through the internet) are for the most part very excited about this console. Hell. We just got out of college, and I'm heading back (into more debt :-P), yet my Fiance has been pushing me to wake up early for the preorder days they have had so far... As for myself, it is the first gaming console I have been excited for since the anticipation of Mario in 3d... I left consoles because I love FPS games... Now I can go back because the standard controller for the system looks to be at least comparable to the effectiveness of a mouse and keyboard combo.
Oh. And the fact that I don't have $600 (PS3) + $200 (Controllers, Games, Cable) + $2000+++ (Worthy HDTV)... Not to mention the exclusive games just don't do it for me.
Wii for the win. Plus the 360. Plus the PS3. I'm sure all will be succesful (although if you refer to "success" as profit... then I don't think it's even a race anymore. Nintendo can't lose).
How do you define success? Don't they lose money on each system sold? Does anyone know how much they lose vs. MS vs. Nintendo's profit? My guess is the Nintendo will reach the most homes, although I'm guessing it will be close to the 360, perhaps slightly behind. I think Sony will reach the least: It looks nice, I'm sure it will perform very well and last a long time, but at that price, or even a little cheaper when it comes down, I can't see it selling nearly as well as the two competitors, which will also be coming down from their already (relative) cheap prices. In terms of money... I'm thinking Nintendo will come out way ahead of the pack, followed by MS and Sony being pretty far behind. All of the above are based on the opinion of someone with relatively little knowledge... and a little common sense. In the scheme of things, I think all three will get systems into homes and do well. They each have their place. As for the article... I'm guessing /.ers purposely pick terrible articles on Sony's side... A name being the reason it will succeed? Lame.
Agreed. I love how they specifically say that you aren't guaranteed a system with a deposit. What a joke. *Almost* went to get in line early... pfffff.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how regulations that prevent Apple from restricting consumer rights are a problem, and how they might be stifling innovation. I'm a bit dismayed by society succumbing to Corporations.
Regarding the addiction arguments... The only thing you can debate regarding addiction with videogames is semantics. Everything can be addicting if a person enjoys it. Anyone who disagrees simply needs to read up on very basic neuroscience.
How similar is the hardware behind the players? Will we see combo players similar to + and - with DVD? If not, then yes, the competition between these two will definately be slowing down their adoption... I'm hoping Blu-Ray is adopted, but given the rampant greed in the world, I can see HD-DVD being backed given the cheaper production upgrades.
I'm guessing the launch of HD media will be similar to that of DVD... It was very slow to get off the ground, people were reluctant to uprade until prices came down and releases were abundant enough. Eventually it will become more widespread (after the PS3, after computer companies start installing them on basic computers, after HDTV is more widespread) I'm guessing it will be a good 2 years before this starts happening give or take... Arguing that it will stay a niche is naive, unless you expect some higher capacity/better media to emerge, which doesn't seem to be the case.
By that logic, any game out now is just an advanced version of (insert old game that used game pad). Troll.
First post on slashdot... You all are getting way too excited. The technology and knowledge of the brain to do what you all see as the end result the blind (who were not born blind) being able to see, even in a relatively rudimentary way, is years upon years upon years off. My guess would be 20-50 years at the LEAST. /Sensory Motor Neuroscience.