Why buy a PC if your console can do it? Last time I checked a Wii cost $250 US dollars. Xbox 360 cost $200. Never mind buying used. Hell if the requirements are so low why not a PS2?. What's stop the Big 3 from creating a newer, low power box for little of nothing?
Every since I've read about OnLive I've wanted to know why this is big deal. I've wanted to know what is it that their little box can do that is SO impossible to do on an existing game console. What is it that will make Nintendo, Sony, and MS suddenly stop innovating?
People get caught up on the latency issue, and as far as I know if OnLive licks is that will be a bigger deal than the gaming aspect. But latency aside, what does OnLive offer that can't be don't by the Big 3? Is it a cheaper console? I imagine that with the low hardware requirement for OnLive that the Wii could run a similar program with just an update. How OnLive anyone compete that? MS and Sony can't.
Then there's the matter of games. The Big 3 have them, OnLive needs them. In fact what on live is likely to have are PC games, which are cool in there on right, but according to the "popular believe" PC gaming is dead, or dying or whatever. Apparently everyone is in to consoles these days. If OnLive is to succeed does that mead everyone will drop their consoles and start playing PC games en mass? I would like to see that, honestly being a PC gamer myself.
If the Big 3 somehow loses to OnLive the they deserve to lose. That means that they did nothing to activly compete. But I don't that that they won't stop competing.
I've often wondered this myself. Even if latency was not an issue, what is so unique about Onlive that no game console can offer. If all you need is a browser, both the Wii and the PS3 offer one. It wouldn't be such a stretch for MS to include one on the 360. And just like that OnLive has no real advantage, besides, maybe patents, but good luck with that. One big advantage all console makers have is a huge pre-exsiting library of games, games meant for a TV screen. OnLive has just PC games that must be modified for TVs.
I don't think that the whining is 100% unjustified, as annoying as whining can be. Sometimes the "new and improved" has a tendency to displace the old and traditional. There's the idea that if it's new and popular it must be better than the old so let's slow down with the old stuff and focus on the new. Which is the way it should be, that's how progress works. But sometimes the old works just as well, if not better, for some people.
When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while. So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it. And that was that. The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass. In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game. That's how I uses cheating now days, beat the game at least once, then cheat. I extends the life of the game IMHO.
If Billboard existed back then and Beethoven always number one, who was number two, or ten? Every one brings up Beethoven as the pinnacle of classic music but no one talks about the all of the mediocre and awful one as if the never existed. As if there was never a bad piece of classical music written back then. There are those who simple wish to point out the crappy ones, they existed along with the good ones.
One of the things that kill me about people who say stuff like "games where better back in the day" is that they only talk about all the good (and popular) games. They seem to filter out or forget all off the crappy ones. They will talk about how games were more unique back then, never mind all of the Mario clones, the countless shoot-em-up, and beat-em-ups, and the RPGs. Don't forget the movie tie ins and the other licensed crap that was invented back the. These are not some new recent ideas.
There are folks out there that make a living on dissing old games like the Angry Videogame Nerd and Seanbaby.
I'm just saying for every criticism about new games you can come up with can easily be applied to a game from 20 years ago. History has reruns.
Not to sound all nitpicky and geeky, but the holodecks aren't just for one person at a time. Several people can interact inside. In fact they had a whole village of real people thinking that they were in a real place. How exactly a holodeck really works I have no idea.
If I were to create the end-all-be-all of graphics programs, being that IANAP, I would call it either 'Graphica', in the vein of Mathematica. I'm not quite sure what it does but I know it has something to do with math. Or I would call it 'Graphium' which sounds like a radioactive element and is the name of a butterfly.
Slashdot Mirror
Why buy a PC if your console can do it? Last time I checked a Wii cost $250 US dollars. Xbox 360 cost $200. Never mind buying used. Hell if the requirements are so low why not a PS2?. What's stop the Big 3 from creating a newer, low power box for little of nothing?
Every since I've read about OnLive I've wanted to know why this is big deal. I've wanted to know what is it that their little box can do that is SO impossible to do on an existing game console. What is it that will make Nintendo, Sony, and MS suddenly stop innovating?
People get caught up on the latency issue, and as far as I know if OnLive licks is that will be a bigger deal than the gaming aspect. But latency aside, what does OnLive offer that can't be don't by the Big 3? Is it a cheaper console? I imagine that with the low hardware requirement for OnLive that the Wii could run a similar program with just an update. How OnLive anyone compete that? MS and Sony can't.
Then there's the matter of games. The Big 3 have them, OnLive needs them. In fact what on live is likely to have are PC games, which are cool in there on right, but according to the "popular believe" PC gaming is dead, or dying or whatever. Apparently everyone is in to consoles these days. If OnLive is to succeed does that mead everyone will drop their consoles and start playing PC games en mass? I would like to see that, honestly being a PC gamer myself.
If the Big 3 somehow loses to OnLive the they deserve to lose. That means that they did nothing to activly compete. But I don't that that they won't stop competing.
I've often wondered this myself. Even if latency was not an issue, what is so unique about Onlive that no game console can offer. If all you need is a browser, both the Wii and the PS3 offer one. It wouldn't be such a stretch for MS to include one on the 360. And just like that OnLive has no real advantage, besides, maybe patents, but good luck with that. One big advantage all console makers have is a huge pre-exsiting library of games, games meant for a TV screen. OnLive has just PC games that must be modified for TVs.
I don't think that the whining is 100% unjustified, as annoying as whining can be. Sometimes the "new and improved" has a tendency to displace the old and traditional. There's the idea that if it's new and popular it must be better than the old so let's slow down with the old stuff and focus on the new. Which is the way it should be, that's how progress works. But sometimes the old works just as well, if not better, for some people.
When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while. So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it. And that was that. The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass. In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game. That's how I uses cheating now days, beat the game at least once, then cheat. I extends the life of the game IMHO.
If Billboard existed back then and Beethoven always number one, who was number two, or ten? Every one brings up Beethoven as the pinnacle of classic music but no one talks about the all of the mediocre and awful one as if the never existed. As if there was never a bad piece of classical music written back then. There are those who simple wish to point out the crappy ones, they existed along with the good ones.
One of the things that kill me about people who say stuff like "games where better back in the day" is that they only talk about all the good (and popular) games. They seem to filter out or forget all off the crappy ones. They will talk about how games were more unique back then, never mind all of the Mario clones, the countless shoot-em-up, and beat-em-ups, and the RPGs. Don't forget the movie tie ins and the other licensed crap that was invented back the. These are not some new recent ideas. There are folks out there that make a living on dissing old games like the Angry Videogame Nerd and Seanbaby. I'm just saying for every criticism about new games you can come up with can easily be applied to a game from 20 years ago. History has reruns.
You obviously never played a Colecovison, or an Intellevison before.
Not to sound all nitpicky and geeky, but the holodecks aren't just for one person at a time. Several people can interact inside. In fact they had a whole village of real people thinking that they were in a real place. How exactly a holodeck really works I have no idea.
If I were to create the end-all-be-all of graphics programs, being that IANAP, I would call it either 'Graphica', in the vein of Mathematica. I'm not quite sure what it does but I know it has something to do with math. Or I would call it 'Graphium' which sounds like a radioactive element and is the name of a butterfly.
How do you explain YouTube? Humanity might not be interested in the thoughts of random people, but other randome people are.
That's Otisburg
I saw this and previous veriations on this way back in 1987 on a tech show called Beyond 2000. 20 years later and still a prototype.
"Running out of good ideas?" They never have a good idea.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff &ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=MicroMV
I just got the animated DVD a week ago, I'm not even thinking about that movie. I might pick it up in the bargin bin.