You obviously dont know what your talking about if you think -every- single person working on the game needs a development kit. If you have one hundred people working on a game, are you going to need 100 dev kits? No, usually you only need a few, and people work on normal computers and load the data on the dev kit when they need too.
Seriously, what are you smoking? You can buy a television in america for under 150$ that includes component input. A normal, CRT television. You were probably thinking of DVI, no? This is one of the only connections that isnt included with a normal television set, and is normally found on LCD (not always) and HDtv sets.
Sony doesnt need to protect the disks, the blu-ray disk is designed with a special coating that protects the disk. You can literally take a screwdriver to the disk and it will still play. Which is another reason why blu-ray is such a better standard than dvd.
Umm, i made six spelling mistakes and you dedicate an entire post trying to flame me? Wow, you must feel pretty damn special. Grammer of course is not one of my strong points, but damn man, your kinda sad.
Not necessarily, alot of the time you end up with developers that do a half assed job when making there game. They decide that since it is so easy to make the game, why put in the extra effort when all you need is a popular name? There concern is getting the game out on time, and most of the time it wont matter if the game is fun to play or not. The ps2 might of been harder to develop for, but look at how many smash hits are on that console? Why? Because developers had to spend time actually learning to code for the system, and didnt do a half assed job to ruin there effort. We've already seen it on the 360, microsoft can market there launch games as 'the best in history', but they were nothing more than ports and cheesy ripoff's of other games that sometimes didnt even include the features that were on the lesser console.
If your talking bout the ps2, alot of those comments would be correct. People were blown away when we saw the first launch games on the ps2 (as well as the dreamcast), it was such a step up from the ps1 it wasnt funny. Right now the ps2 is still the best selling console on the market right now and even adding the gamecube and xbox sales wouldnt equal up to what the ps2 has sold. The ps2 -was- superior to any other products that were on the market, even the dreamcast (hello, dvd drive? hard drive?) when it was launched. You guys need to give sony a little credit here, they may say alot of crap, but it doesnt mean that in the end they develiver an excellent product.
You realise there are books and dvd's dedicated to christian parents on the subject of "Harry potter is witchcraft" do you not? Look at the dvd Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged.
Okay, then what about the christian guilds? are you telling me that a completly gay guild is going to get more flack than a christian guild, in a fantasy mmo? Where people use magic (and we all know, according to most christians, harry potter and magic is the devil), are elves, and go around killing magical beasts? If anything a religious guild should be banned as well. But they wouldnt do that, gay people suck right, christianity is where its at. (sarcasm)
This is true, especially since alot of these people have to pay to get into this show, so its not like they are there to look at the women, they are there to look at the games. There geeks that payed for a ticket, or are in the industry, and could careless about the loud flashy music and the pretty women. Maybe if they were digital women..then yes. qI vote for huge displays showing dancing digital women.
Because nintendo has hardly any third party suport? Because they release as many games a year than opm releases on a single disk every month? Or is it because nintendo knows no matter how bad the game is their mass following of fanboys would still buy it?
You see, there is a difference between a challenging game and a tedious game. Games should still be fun even if it takes you eighteen tries to beat a boss. You know why? Because its fun every single time you fight that boss, and you strive to beat him till you do. However, many games 'hard' modes seem to just make the easy games more tedious than they already are.
I'll give you an example, fighting a boss that kills you in under a minute is hard. Fighting a boss that takes 5-10 minutes to kill you is tedious. Running across a huge map to find 2 or 3 items is challenging (If its hard of course), running across a huge map to find 20 items is tedious. Developers sadly lack the ability to make games hard anymore, they just make them more tedious.
Have you ever heard of a demo? They come in gameing magazines for console games, over live for x360 games (along with magazines). Hell, for pc games you can get a demo of just about ANY game out there...for free..online.
Err...pirating stuff isnt stealing. It is called copyright infringement, get it right. Your not stealing from -anyone- when you download something, thus it is not stealing.
This actually did happen a while ago (in the 70's or 80's), programmers were tired of not getting credit for making the games and they eventually just quit and started there own companies to make there own games. I think it will happen soon, once EA dies, i think alot of the smaller companies will have a pretty good spotlight.
I think what development teams need to realise is that not every game has to be such a graphical leap over the previous one. I honestly believe that this will be the generation of consoles where we will be seeing a massive amount of highly visual games as well as a massive amount of low visual games that rely only on gameplay. Customers just need to understand that graphics dont make a game. Thats pretty much the only thing raising up development costs so high.
I think he was going on the idea that Microsoft selling a 360 loses them money for each machine they build and make there money back in games (It does, they sell the systems for a loss). However, if you dont sell systems your obviously not going to sell more games, so your going to lose money anyway. You must pump out more systems at a loss, then rake in the profits on all the games that are sold on the system.
Right now microsoft is in a bad position, they cannot meet up with demand, they cannot sell systems and thus cannot sell games (which is the only thing making them money alongside peripherals). Not only this but they are going to have to worry about losing there stock value and getting their stock holders angry (Hell, they've already suffered through a 4 BILLION dollar loss on the xbox). But really they have to worry about keeping their third party developers. If developers see that this system is taking a nose dive into the ground, they really arnt going to want to develop for it.
As i am on an internet discussion site, again the -internet-, i dont believe i need to care about my grammer. You might care, but i dont really. Never was good at it, never will be. Does that make me any less of a human? No.
The ps3 has been toated as being nearly identicle in power to the 360. The 360 is stated to having somewhere in the ballpark of 10x as powerful as the original xbox. Considering the xbox was identical if not more powerful than the gamecube, we can asume that a system that is 3x as powerful(Revolution) as its predicesor will not be as powerful as the 360. Which using simple logic clearly points out that if the 360 is 2-3x as powerful as the revolution and the ps3 is identical (if not more powerful) than the 360, than both systems are several times stronger in cpu and gpu calculations. Or can you nintendo fanboys not understand logic?
I dont get how people keep saying that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have nothing over dvd people can notice. There is alot of things that both formats have over DVD. The obvious one is size, no more boxsets, you'll only need a single disk for a dual-layer blu-ray to fit several television seasons on. Not to mention the added extra's that can be included on a single disk.
Hell, blu-ray is pretty much indestructible scratch wise. You can take a screwdriver to it and you can still play it. Not to mention that the quality of video blows dvd out of the water, and anyone with a High Definition television can tell the difference. Dvd's do not look that good on HD-tv's, you can clearly tell the quality limitations of the format. Considering High Def is the future, dvd's are not.
Your actually trying to say that the revolution can compete with either the 360 or the ps3 in polygon/floating point pushing power? Its already been said by nintendo that the system will be about 2-3.5 times more powerfull than the gamecube. This isnt anywhere near as powerfull as the 360, and definetly not as powerfull as the ps3.
Your logic is completly flawed. You say that they can process immence amounts of graphical power but cannot process logical power (I'm assuming you mean Psychics). Both systems have the capability to push out both logical and graphical power, many times over what the revolution will be able to do.
The only thing the revolution has over these systems is a controller, that could or could not revolutionize its gameplay. Hell the ps3 has more backwards compatability than the revolution at this point. The ps3 even has something that could revolutionize its system if done right. Just like the revolution's controller, the ps3 has the eyetoy, and if done right it could make games exactly like the revolutions.
I believe that both the x360 and the ps3 have something over the revolution, and thats not limiting what the developers can do. If they want to make a beautifull, highly detailed game they can. If they want to make a game such as katamari demancy, they can. If they want to make a game that has realistic psychics they can.
The problem is with the people who buy games. When they see a game on a system like Gears of War or MGS4, they expect ALL games to look like that. Even game critics that review games has a score for graphics. It shouldnt be like this. If a developer wants to make a game with ps2 graphics, they should, and not be scored against because it looks bad.
I disagree that they replaced people that know nothing about technology. Most of the people dont, but sarah and kevin do know alot about various different technologies. Pretty much everyone else though is just there to be pretty. Its sad to think how corporate america can take a perfectly good station, buy it, and turn it into a perfectly good piece of shit thinking its better. And they said you have to be smart to be rich..half of our nation's richness is filled with slave owning morons.
Its not really that HD is the future of gaming, its just that its what your going to need to play games. Normal 4:3 televisions have lived a long life and people are demanding higher quality, more detailed pictures. Its the future for everything really, and it -does- make gaming better.
This is where style is going to start coming in, and sadly alot of xbox games dont really take style into consideration and simply build on graphics, much like most pc games. Considering the ps2 was the weaker of the last generation, alot of its games have had to create there own style to look 'good' (Aka katamari demancy, god of war, shadow of the collossus).
I've already seen this in some of the latest ps3 games that have been shown. Look at Heavenly Sword or Metal Gear Solid 4, both games look great and detailed and have there own style. Same thing goes for 360, but sadly the only game thats been even alittle stylistic is Gears of War.
Still, it doesnt even matter, because even though most games that are for both systems will have graphical limitations of the smaller system..the games will still have the same gameplay. SO as long as the game is good, then everything will be fine. Not to mention that the first party titles will be excellent, and the ps3 will probably have more first party titles.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously dont know what your talking about if you think -every- single person working on the game needs a development kit. If you have one hundred people working on a game, are you going to need 100 dev kits? No, usually you only need a few, and people work on normal computers and load the data on the dev kit when they need too.
Seriously, what are you smoking? You can buy a television in america for under 150$ that includes component input. A normal, CRT television. You were probably thinking of DVI, no? This is one of the only connections that isnt included with a normal television set, and is normally found on LCD (not always) and HDtv sets.
Sony doesnt need to protect the disks, the blu-ray disk is designed with a special coating that protects the disk. You can literally take a screwdriver to the disk and it will still play. Which is another reason why blu-ray is such a better standard than dvd.
Umm, i made six spelling mistakes and you dedicate an entire post trying to flame me? Wow, you must feel pretty damn special. Grammer of course is not one of my strong points, but damn man, your kinda sad.
Not necessarily, alot of the time you end up with developers that do a half assed job when making there game. They decide that since it is so easy to make the game, why put in the extra effort when all you need is a popular name? There concern is getting the game out on time, and most of the time it wont matter if the game is fun to play or not. The ps2 might of been harder to develop for, but look at how many smash hits are on that console? Why? Because developers had to spend time actually learning to code for the system, and didnt do a half assed job to ruin there effort. We've already seen it on the 360, microsoft can market there launch games as 'the best in history', but they were nothing more than ports and cheesy ripoff's of other games that sometimes didnt even include the features that were on the lesser console.
If your talking bout the ps2, alot of those comments would be correct. People were blown away when we saw the first launch games on the ps2 (as well as the dreamcast), it was such a step up from the ps1 it wasnt funny. Right now the ps2 is still the best selling console on the market right now and even adding the gamecube and xbox sales wouldnt equal up to what the ps2 has sold. The ps2 -was- superior to any other products that were on the market, even the dreamcast (hello, dvd drive? hard drive?) when it was launched. You guys need to give sony a little credit here, they may say alot of crap, but it doesnt mean that in the end they develiver an excellent product.
You realise there are books and dvd's dedicated to christian parents on the subject of "Harry potter is witchcraft" do you not? Look at the dvd Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged.
Okay, then what about the christian guilds? are you telling me that a completly gay guild is going to get more flack than a christian guild, in a fantasy mmo? Where people use magic (and we all know, according to most christians, harry potter and magic is the devil), are elves, and go around killing magical beasts? If anything a religious guild should be banned as well. But they wouldnt do that, gay people suck right, christianity is where its at. (sarcasm)
This is true, especially since alot of these people have to pay to get into this show, so its not like they are there to look at the women, they are there to look at the games. There geeks that payed for a ticket, or are in the industry, and could careless about the loud flashy music and the pretty women. Maybe if they were digital women..then yes. qI vote for huge displays showing dancing digital women.
Because nintendo has hardly any third party suport? Because they release as many games a year than opm releases on a single disk every month? Or is it because nintendo knows no matter how bad the game is their mass following of fanboys would still buy it?
You see, there is a difference between a challenging game and a tedious game. Games should still be fun even if it takes you eighteen tries to beat a boss. You know why? Because its fun every single time you fight that boss, and you strive to beat him till you do. However, many games 'hard' modes seem to just make the easy games more tedious than they already are.
I'll give you an example, fighting a boss that kills you in under a minute is hard. Fighting a boss that takes 5-10 minutes to kill you is tedious. Running across a huge map to find 2 or 3 items is challenging (If its hard of course), running across a huge map to find 20 items is tedious. Developers sadly lack the ability to make games hard anymore, they just make them more tedious.
Have you ever heard of a demo? They come in gameing magazines for console games, over live for x360 games (along with magazines). Hell, for pc games you can get a demo of just about ANY game out there...for free..online.
Err...pirating stuff isnt stealing. It is called copyright infringement, get it right. Your not stealing from -anyone- when you download something, thus it is not stealing.
This actually did happen a while ago (in the 70's or 80's), programmers were tired of not getting credit for making the games and they eventually just quit and started there own companies to make there own games. I think it will happen soon, once EA dies, i think alot of the smaller companies will have a pretty good spotlight.
I think what development teams need to realise is that not every game has to be such a graphical leap over the previous one. I honestly believe that this will be the generation of consoles where we will be seeing a massive amount of highly visual games as well as a massive amount of low visual games that rely only on gameplay. Customers just need to understand that graphics dont make a game. Thats pretty much the only thing raising up development costs so high.
The ps3 costs $495 dollars to produce a single unit. It will not sell for 500 dollars.
I think he was going on the idea that Microsoft selling a 360 loses them money for each machine they build and make there money back in games (It does, they sell the systems for a loss). However, if you dont sell systems your obviously not going to sell more games, so your going to lose money anyway. You must pump out more systems at a loss, then rake in the profits on all the games that are sold on the system.
Right now microsoft is in a bad position, they cannot meet up with demand, they cannot sell systems and thus cannot sell games (which is the only thing making them money alongside peripherals). Not only this but they are going to have to worry about losing there stock value and getting their stock holders angry (Hell, they've already suffered through a 4 BILLION dollar loss on the xbox). But really they have to worry about keeping their third party developers. If developers see that this system is taking a nose dive into the ground, they really arnt going to want to develop for it.
Maybe they'll try to make a new, original game, instead of rehashing there old titles?
As i am on an internet discussion site, again the -internet-, i dont believe i need to care about my grammer. You might care, but i dont really. Never was good at it, never will be. Does that make me any less of a human? No. The ps3 has been toated as being nearly identicle in power to the 360. The 360 is stated to having somewhere in the ballpark of 10x as powerful as the original xbox. Considering the xbox was identical if not more powerful than the gamecube, we can asume that a system that is 3x as powerful(Revolution) as its predicesor will not be as powerful as the 360. Which using simple logic clearly points out that if the 360 is 2-3x as powerful as the revolution and the ps3 is identical (if not more powerful) than the 360, than both systems are several times stronger in cpu and gpu calculations. Or can you nintendo fanboys not understand logic?
I dont get how people keep saying that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have nothing over dvd people can notice. There is alot of things that both formats have over DVD. The obvious one is size, no more boxsets, you'll only need a single disk for a dual-layer blu-ray to fit several television seasons on. Not to mention the added extra's that can be included on a single disk. Hell, blu-ray is pretty much indestructible scratch wise. You can take a screwdriver to it and you can still play it. Not to mention that the quality of video blows dvd out of the water, and anyone with a High Definition television can tell the difference. Dvd's do not look that good on HD-tv's, you can clearly tell the quality limitations of the format. Considering High Def is the future, dvd's are not.
Your actually trying to say that the revolution can compete with either the 360 or the ps3 in polygon/floating point pushing power? Its already been said by nintendo that the system will be about 2-3.5 times more powerfull than the gamecube. This isnt anywhere near as powerfull as the 360, and definetly not as powerfull as the ps3.
Your logic is completly flawed. You say that they can process immence amounts of graphical power but cannot process logical power (I'm assuming you mean Psychics). Both systems have the capability to push out both logical and graphical power, many times over what the revolution will be able to do. The only thing the revolution has over these systems is a controller, that could or could not revolutionize its gameplay. Hell the ps3 has more backwards compatability than the revolution at this point. The ps3 even has something that could revolutionize its system if done right. Just like the revolution's controller, the ps3 has the eyetoy, and if done right it could make games exactly like the revolutions. I believe that both the x360 and the ps3 have something over the revolution, and thats not limiting what the developers can do. If they want to make a beautifull, highly detailed game they can. If they want to make a game such as katamari demancy, they can. If they want to make a game that has realistic psychics they can. The problem is with the people who buy games. When they see a game on a system like Gears of War or MGS4, they expect ALL games to look like that. Even game critics that review games has a score for graphics. It shouldnt be like this. If a developer wants to make a game with ps2 graphics, they should, and not be scored against because it looks bad.
I disagree that they replaced people that know nothing about technology. Most of the people dont, but sarah and kevin do know alot about various different technologies. Pretty much everyone else though is just there to be pretty. Its sad to think how corporate america can take a perfectly good station, buy it, and turn it into a perfectly good piece of shit thinking its better. And they said you have to be smart to be rich..half of our nation's richness is filled with slave owning morons.
Its not really that HD is the future of gaming, its just that its what your going to need to play games. Normal 4:3 televisions have lived a long life and people are demanding higher quality, more detailed pictures. Its the future for everything really, and it -does- make gaming better.
This is where style is going to start coming in, and sadly alot of xbox games dont really take style into consideration and simply build on graphics, much like most pc games. Considering the ps2 was the weaker of the last generation, alot of its games have had to create there own style to look 'good' (Aka katamari demancy, god of war, shadow of the collossus). I've already seen this in some of the latest ps3 games that have been shown. Look at Heavenly Sword or Metal Gear Solid 4, both games look great and detailed and have there own style. Same thing goes for 360, but sadly the only game thats been even alittle stylistic is Gears of War. Still, it doesnt even matter, because even though most games that are for both systems will have graphical limitations of the smaller system..the games will still have the same gameplay. SO as long as the game is good, then everything will be fine. Not to mention that the first party titles will be excellent, and the ps3 will probably have more first party titles.