AFAIK the only COD2 game on the PS2 was "COD2: Big Red One" which is a completely different game from "COD2" (which was only released on Xbox 360 and PC)
I think another important aspect in this... and keeping with the TiVo/Xbox theme. TiVo embrased the hacking community, they made their product hackable, and that gained TiVo a lot of respect from the hackers. So while TiVo makes some money from the fact that you have to buy a subscription to their TV listings the hacking community has pretty much ignored trying to screw over TiVo by circumventing the paying for the service. TiVo is happy, and the hackers are happy and the consumer gets a powerful and customizable product.
On the Xbox, the Xbox Linux people pushed and asked nicely for an official distro so they could customize the box. Microsoft refused and as a result the security holes were all blown way out into the open. MS didn't embrace the hacking community, they resisted it and as a result not only is their product hacked it's also insecure and allows games to be pirated very easily. The hacking community satisfied themselves regardless of MS's blessing, and MS isn't happy because their console has been exploited. I'm sure customers would also be more satisfied with the Xbox if it allowed some of the hacked features to be available legally as well.
The moral of the story: Hackers will get their way regardless, if you resist them you'll only end up disappointed, but if you embrace them you might wind up with a superior product and it's not like you'd be loosing anything because your sh*t would get hacked regardless of your choice.
Why is Sony a better console? I mean I'm sure it is a fine console and performs it's job well, once developers get a feel for it development kit and wrangling the power of the Cell... but still, what makes it better than a 360? (I would also ask the 360 crowd the same question... FIGHT!)
I agree that the PS3 is a fine console, and that it does have a lot of potential, but as far as I'm concerned potential is synonymous with hopes and dreams... I own all 4 consoles from the last generation, I own the big 3 from the generation before that. And I currently own a 360 and a Wii. At some point or another I end up buying most consoles, but I never buy them before such a point where the gaming experience is worth more then the price of admission (console+necessary accessories+games). I didn't buy my Xbox 1 until the controller S came out (the games were there at launch but I hated the controller), I didn't buy my PS2 until Gran Turismo 3, I didn't buy a Gamecube until Resident Evil 4. I bought both my Xbox 360 and Wii at their respective launches. I considered the Xbox 360 to be somewhat over priced, however hooking it up to my HDTV I needed ZERO accessories out of the box to get the gaming experince I was looking for, and it had a number of games I wanted, not just one or two: PGR3, Condemned, COD2, and DOA4. With 4 solid titles that I considered "need to have" games and all of the accessories I needed in the box (hd cables, headset, wireless controller) I bought it. The Wii only had Wii Sports and Zelda that I was interested in (though some titles like Trauma Center, Elebits, and Red Steel seemed worth a try as well), it also required me to purchase some $30 component cables, but the overall cost was still fairly low, which made it worth the price of admission. As of right now the PS3 has a net ZERO games that I have interest in playing, I'm sure Resistance is a decent game but nothing about it really excites me, the rest of the launch line up I either already have access to on the Xbox 360 or just doesn't look very fun. Not to mention the net cost is quite substantial... not just the price of the console but I'd also need to purchase some component video cables to connect it to my TV (since they're not included for whatever reason), as well as a bluetooth head-set for online play (which can also be fairly pricey).
Maybe I'll buy a PS3 down the road, but I don't buy things based on potential, I buy things based on what's tangible or within reach at the time of purchase. MGS4 might be a good game, maybe it wont be. I'm not going to spend $500+ now for the hopes and dreams that good games will eventually arrive. Many children have potential, even those of a proven pedigree... but not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.
What make the 360 better then the PS3? For me it is first and foremost TANGIBLE RESULTS. I have close to 20 games for the console already, some new classics that I'm sure to return to many years from now, I have an online system that is really good RIGHT NOW, as opposed to something that just shows promise. I have an achievement system that has let me get more replay ability and ultimately more enjoyment out of every title I own.... PS3 might have potential but I wont buy one until it's got something I can use.
XBox 360 is still of relatively little interest to anyone who doesn't care about FPS games (at least that's how I feel about it, being in that category myself).
Or Racing titles seeing as the Xbox 360 has exclusivity to PGR3 and Test Drive Unlimited which are arguably the best NextGen racing titles availble right now, lets not forget that Forza 2 and GTR (the PC's killer racing sim) are both coming to the 360 later this year. Not to mention that the Xbox 360 is, and will continue to be the only next gen console that support force feedback in the racing wheels (not possible on the PS3)
Ok so what about sandbox action titles like GTA? Well the 360 has already got SaintsRow, and Dead Rising, which are both highly liked titles, Crackdown is releasing later this month and is made by the same guy who pioneered the GTA series, and of course it's also got GTA4 coming out for it. AFAIK there's nothing like this coming out for the PS3 that isn't also arriving on the 360... and as of right now the PS3 doesn't have any of this type of title.
How about fighting games? Well the 360 has got a number of classic 2D fighters like Street Fighter 2, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, And there are some SNK fighters scheduled to hit the XBLA soon. It's got Dead or Alive 4 and it had Fight Night Round 3 months before the PS3 was even released, not to mention less popular wrestling titles like Rumble Roses XX (formerly a PSX exclusive) and a WWE title. Segas also announced that Virtua Fighter 5 will be hitting the Xbox 360 (which was exclusive to Sony after Sega stopped making consoles). Soul Calibur IV and Tekken 6 are both rumored to be going cross platform. Regardless... right now the Wii has no fighting titles and the PS3 just has Fight Night.
Horror Titles? Well the Xbox 360 has Condemned, FEAR, Dead Rising, with Alan Wake, Resident Evil 5, and Alone in the dark coming. Once again a couple exclusives and nothing scheduled for Sony that isn't cross platform.
Sports titles maybe? Well the exception of the Sony brand NBA title pretty much everything is cross platform, well with the exception of the 2 premiere Soccer titles that MS bought exclusivity of for a year (FIFA and PES).
About the only thing that PS3 trumps the Xbox 360 on is JRPGs... but that's not even the current situation... that's a "down the road" situation. Even still the 360 is stronger then the Xbox 1 was with FFXI, Enchanted Arms, Ninty Nine Nights, Blue Dragon, and Lost Odyssey coming. Western Style RPGs are a whole lot stronger on the 360 though with Oblivion out months before the PS3 release and games like Fable 2, and MassEffect and Bioshock coming.
I'm not saying the PS3 is a bad platform, it certainly has a lot of potential and I'm interested to see what comes of it, but I'm quite tired of the stigma that the Xbox consoles are only for Shooters. I myself am not a big shooter fan, and I've found much to like on the Xbox 360. I'd honestly like to know: if there's nothing on the 360 that interests you, exactly what games do you like to play?
The "DualShock" was released in 1996 for the original Playstation. The "DualShock 2" was released in 1999 for the Playstation2, they are two different controllers and they have different names. If the text on the envelope was "DualShock" and not "DualShock 2" the award was given for the Playstation1 version of the controller.
I completely agree, there's nothing wrong with simpler chips, there's no real need for 100Mhz+ devices in your projects unless it calls for them. You don't pick some high speed piece of kit and thinking of something to do with it (that's a totally wrong approach IMO). You should be thinking of an application and then build the circuit to fit your application. You need to find a problem and develop a solution, not have a solution and try to find a problem it might fix. Choosing to use simple through hole logic circuits, or microcontrollers as opposed to modern high speed surface mount devices should be a decision you make based on the problem you're trying to solve... and there are quite a few problems that can be solved with simple circuits.
To the OP: As someone who has already gone down that road (from following pre-planed projects to building my own custom stuff)... There is just one simple factor to do...
Decide what you want to do (define your "problem) and then build it (develop the "solution").
Today I basically have an idea for something I want to build, and then I begin figuring how I can accomplish that using the individual part data, usually from simple chips like 74XXX and 555s to more complex chips like Basic STAMP and PIC chips. Most often I choose projects that I feel are just a hair out of my range and I learn some new skills along the way.
I've been working on many little projects but my last BIG project was an adapter that allowed you to use a Sega Saturn controller on an Xbox 360. I had limited microcontroller experience so I learned about them, figured out which one would best suit my needs, and costs, and then I learned the assembly language used to program it. I also learned a lot about multiplexers (and why they wouldn't work for what I was trying to do). But that project like many others weren't following any kind of guide, and they weren't based on something someone else had already done. I find developing a circuit similar to piecing together a puzzle, you have an idea if which pieces might fit where and you might have a few holes in your design and then hunt around for pieces that might fit that you didn't know about, expanding your knowledge along the way.
Basically just learning what the function, capabilities, and limits of number of electronic components do is the first step. Once you have those in your pocket you can start to utilize them for something unique. Like the words of a foreign language... now all you have to do is think of something creative to say. It's not anything you'll learn from a book, because the next step is be creative and think of something to build.
True, it would be much better if the conversion rate was based on real world items... like the PED value of X amount of Gold, then it could be related as the value of Gold fluctuates against the various world economies.
Another real world asset it could be related to is the trading value of the game developers company, then as the stock prices raise and lower so does the value of PED against other money markets. and if the company goes bankrupt... so does EU.
Or you know you could just searched for it, I figured we'd all been accosted with so much disc format news as of late another couple links weren't really needed.
You're right that Click was released on dual layer BRD... as I said it wasn't until recently that they released them... Click was released in mid November, I'd say that constitutes "recently".
Are ANY audio studios actually mastering in 5.1 for music intended for purchase? Movie soundtracks not withstanding.
Well what about SACD and DVD-Audio, DualDiscs, and DTS CDs, etc... I have a few Nine Inch Nails Dual Discs mastered in 5.1. The Downward Spiral re-mixed and re-mastered from the original tapes, and another one: With Teeth, which apparently was written for 5.1 from the get-go and then flattened for the regular CD release. I've seen other Surround sound releases in these "next-gen" audio formats though I'm not entirely sure if some of them are just extrapolated from the stereo recordings or genuinely created in 5.1.
Lets look at that...
"Holds more data..." yes, per layer, however Current BRDs have 1 layer and just recently came out with dual-layer discs due to tremendous issues they had with the stability of the second layer, single layer discs are 25GB and dual layers are 50GB... there's speculation that they wont go beyond 2 layers due to the problems they experienced with getting to 2 layers, at least not in any reasonable amount of time.
HD-DVD has been dual-layer from it's release which is 30GB (15GB per layer), before it's release they had a working prototype of 3-layer HD-DVDs capable of 45GB, speculated to be released late 2007. Well at CES they announced that later this year they'll have 3-layer HD-DVDs with 17GB per layer capable of storing 51GB of data, and that they have a high confidence of adding more layers down the road.... so the data storage argument is essentially a wash.
Now lets look at other factors... since HD-DVD's configuration is very similar to that of DVDs most currently available machines used to press retail DVDs can be re-configured to also press HD-DVDs with a relatively low investment on the part of the manufacturer. BRDs on the other hand require all new machinery which could easily cost a single shop millions to setup. It might not be apparent now, but the down the road the average cost of HD-DVD will drop YEARS sooner then that of BRDs because it wont take them nearly as long to reach the point of return on investment. Not to mention the more apparent short term costs of the players with the BRD players costing on average double that of comparable HD-DVD players.
Finally I question how much the BRD backers really care about the quality of their releases when so many of the early released were encoded in the archaic Mpeg2 format as opposed to one of the newer and far superior codecs, particularly when you consider they only had single layer discs out at that point. Essentially they just pushed a number of crap quality releases out there for the sake of having releases out there. Some of them were just upscaled transfers from the DVD release and upon review were even found to look WORSE then their DVD brethren. Obviously they're no longer doing that at this point but you have to question their QC for letting something like that happen.
Personally I don't like either format for the equally restrictive DRM, and requiring me to use an HDCP protected connection (which my home theater equipment doesn't support). Honestly I see the BRD vs. HD-DVD going in one of two direction... either:
A. It will end up the same way as SACD vs. DVD-A vs. MP3... no one cares about a higher quality disc and would rather have downloadable content that's more versatile.
B. It will end up the same way as DVD+R vs DVD-R... Dual format players come out and the difference between the two formats will simply become invisible to the consumer.
It took the Xbox a year to get a game like GoW. Zelda is a launch title and easily beats GoW, in my opinion.
I only used GoW and VP because they're recent titles, but I found quite a bit to like with the 360 at launch: PGR3, Condemned, COD2, and DOA4 soon after launch. They might not be the most innovative titles (though Condemned was pretty original) but they were all quality releases and I still play PGR3 and DOA4 regularly, as do many other people (I know because the servers are still fairly populated online) which in my book makes it a fantastic title.
yup... I had bought Super Mario 64 DS as a christmas gift, then when I saw it had been released on the Wii VC, I returned the $30 DS game and got a $20 Wii points card + some other stuff. Super Mario 64 not only plays better on the Wii it's only $10. Meaning the rest of the points could easily be used for something else.
I'd have to disagree with that... after the initial excitement of getting a Wii wore off I've been quite bored with it. Zelda is a great game but quite similar to the experience I had on the N64 titles, Not to mention after playing the GC version, I'd rather use that controller if only for a better camera. Red steel is a terribly generic shooter thats only interest is in it's controller interface, which is so buggy it's horrible to play. Trauma Center is a cool title but it's identical to the DS version save a couple of newly added levels, Monkey ball, pretty much the same as the GC and Xbox versions I've already played, Excite Truck and Wii sports are fun for an hour or two with friends but they become quite boring after that... there just isn't enough depth to them beyond their initial impression. Elebits looks interesting but I haven't played it yet so I can't really comment on that title.
When you look at the 360 it's got Gears of War which is a very fresh shooter the game play is quite different and very unique in comparison to the many other shooters I've played, in terms of multiplayer/co-op the game has enough depth to provide much lasting appeal. Also Viva Pinata gets my pick for the most innovative game this holiday, it's what I'd image the results would be if Nintendo made Spore. Then of course there are older titles like Dead Rising which is akin to the melding GTA, Resident Evil, and Shenmue... and Test Drive Unlimited (the first MMO Racer).
Honestly I played nothing but the Wii for most of December, I wouldn't consider most of the games all that innovative, particularly as someone who's owned all of Nintendo's consoles. So far the games that truly utilize the Wii remote are horribly shallow and don't serve as much more then a way to impress your friends for an hour, other games that have the necessary depth that you'd expect from a modern game don't use the Wii remote in any real unique ways, they just replace pushing the analog stick with waving the remote around.
The Potential is there, and I'm excited to see what will come out in the next year or so but as of right now, the Wii is collecting dust and I've started playing the 360 again, the controller might not be anything new but the current crop of games are far more interesting in my opinion.
Well Squenix has already released FFXI on the 360, as well as Project Sylpheed in Japan, coming to the US eventually... and while FFXI is dated and PS isn't anywhere close to a flagship title it's still head and shoulders more support then they showed for the Xbox 1.
If that article is correct in saying that supply has already met demand then it's also true that the console is selling like crap (aka being ignored). Think of it this way...
Most stores received 5-10 units at launch and the launch quantities were estimated to be between 150k and 200k... nearly double the launch quantities are sitting on shelves at any given store which means there might be anywhere between 300K to 400K units shipped but not sold... If Sony has only shipped 1 million units to the US it means it only took about 600K-700K units to saturate the market (at very least substantially less then 1 million)... that is also known as crappy holiday console sales, even worse when you consider the Xbox 360 saturated the market and sold nearly 2.4 million units in the same period of time, and the Wii is still currently sold out with over 2 million units shipped also. Using the same logic if Sony delivered the PS3 in the same launch day quantities that Nintendo delivered their Wii, then the PS3 would not have sold out at launch.
By admitting that they've met demand they're admitting that the demand isn't all that high. Because the quantities that they've reached are still very low when compared to the competition.
Don't you find it rather foolish though, that for a game that's based entirely around team based combat, you can't play ranked matches with your actual team?
Think of team based capture the flag in any professionally played PC Shooter... wouldn't you find it ridiculous if you went to a tournament and they told the members of your team that everyone would be broken up and play with random members of other teams?
I agree that they should do what they can to eliminate boosting and other ranked mode cheating tactics, but for a game who's ONLY mode of play is within a team... they should allow for professional players to partake in ranked matches AS A TEAM.
From what I know the actual achievement rules are as follows:
Full retail games: (those $40 and up at release)
-anywhere between a minimum of 5 achievements and a maximum of 50.
-total cumulative points must be 1000 or below (I'm not sure if there is a bottom end but the lowest I've seen is somewhere in the 600s)
-individual achievements must be worth between 0 and 500 points
Arcade or otherwise cheap games: (those below $20 and below release)
-anywhere between a minimum of 5 achievements and a maximum of 12.
-total cumulative points must be 200 or below (I'm not sure if there is a bottom end)
-individual achievements must be worth between 0 and 100 points
I'm also not sure what happens in the $21-$39 price range as there haven't been any games released within that range.
Many games have had additional achievement added later, so long as with the newly added achievements allow the game to still fit within the above criteria
I think the problem is that unlike the Movie industry the Video Game industry doesn't have repercussions or even testing in place to ensure retailers are enforcing their ratings.
The movie industry has "secret shoppers" if you will that are minors and attempt to purchase a ticket or tickets to films they aren't old enough to see, if the theater fails they risk loosing their blockbusters to other local theaters, or worse loosing all MPAA support. It's in the best interests to enforce the rating system.
The Video Game industry on the other had doesn't seem to have anything like that in place, they have no idea if retailers are respecting their ratings, and retailers have no punishment from the Video game industry if they neglect ratings. AFAIK the only thing the Video game industry does is have long talks and meetings with retail franchises where they agree to enforce them. The problem is that this corporate policy isn't really strongly followed down to the local managers and assistant-managers, again rarely having any internal corporate repercussions. And as a result some store actually ENCOURAGE the sale to minors because it improves their bottom line without retribution for breaking the rules.
This is where JT comes in, as do all of the other wontsomeonethinkofthechildren people. They feel it's their duty to create government law where the Video Game industry has obviously failed. It's absolutely true that the Video Game industry has failed, but the solution isn't to have the Government step in and enforce it. The Video Game industry needs to enforce it themselves, and until that happens this monkey wont be off their back.
I think the Wii has a definitive 2nd place strong hold... Nintendo can't make them fast enough, they're pumping out at nearly twice the speed Microsoft did last year and still retailers can't get enough stock to meet demand. So far they've already reached 20% of the Xbox 360's install base, which is fairly impressive. The only question in my mind is if they will catch up to the Xbox 360 as next year the Wii demand will take a dip after the launch window rush while the 360 will likely hold steady as it's already on auto-pilot. Not to mention the 360 will likely see either a price cut and or bundle which will push more and more units.
the PS3 doesn't seem to be doing too hot. I was at Gamestop last night picking up a gift for a friend and they had a sign on the door "PS3s are IN STOCK!" I asked the clerk about it and apparently they had 5 consoles, they got 3 in a shipment and after a week they couldn't sell a single one of them. Meanwhile they had 2 returns from launch day buyers who couldn't manage to turn a profit on eBay. I was in the store no longer then 10 minutes and during that time the clerk I was talking to received 3 phone calls from people asking for the Wii (of which they had none). He also told me that about the same time they got the 3 PS3s in they also about 20 Wiis and sold out within an hour.
the PS1 and PS2 did well because they were excellent, middle-of-the-road consoles, good for the everyman, they didn't have the best graphics, or the most innovative controllers and game, or the most features, but they had a wide selection of games that appealed to most people and they were reasonably priced. Sony has priced themselves out of that demographic completely with the PS3, and it's scary to think that they're only 500K units into this generation, it's not even Christmas yet and there are already consoles sitting on the shelves and eBay auctions deflated to MSRP prices.
I couldn't agree more... I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer... I own every console from the last generation, and every console for the generation before that, I bought a 360 on launch day, I bought a Wii 2 days after launch... I have about 20-40 for each of the last gen console, I have about 20 Xbox 360 games already (only 3 Wii games). My Xbox 360 gamerscore is in the top 1500 world wide.
...and I have absolutely ZERO interest in the PS3. The price is ridiculous. I hated the controller shape back when they introduced it in 1995, and there aren't any exclusive games availble worth buying the console for. Not to mention with all the bad PR the exclusives are going cross-platform faster then you can say "dropping eBay prices".
If I really wanted the biggest and best gaming machine, I'd buy a PC.
As far as I'm concerned the only thing a PS3 is good for right now, is a cheap Blu-Ray player. But at the same time you'd have to convince yourself that it's even worth buying any blue laser disc player at all, nevermind the Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.
Actually there are a number of Xbox 360 titles (even launch titles) that can now do 1080p natively. Basically the games that were previously 1080i native... they all rendered to a progressive frame in the frame buffer and the interlacing was added after the fact. now that 1080p support has been added they basically just removed the interlacing step. Splinter Cell Double Agent is probably the most notable recent release that can render natively to 1080p, I know Moto GP renders to an odd resolution halfway between 720p and 1080p. It's difficult to tell with the 360 because it will scale the output to whatever you set it to, the only true way to determine natively supported resolutions is to pull screenshots directly out of the frame buffer. You are correct that MOST current games only go up to 720p...
Even still the Xbox 360 does a much nicer job of scaling a 720p game to 1080p then your TV would because it has the luxury of doing it before the signal gets compressed for the AV output. Not to mention it does it without any lag unlike the scalers in some HDTVs.
THAT, I can completely understand. I always thought the Harry Potter books were meant for children to grow up with, basically adding reading difficulty as they progressed, entertaining for children with a sprinkling of life lessons.
I guess it just frustrates me when people who don't normally read, read these book and start boasting about them like they ARE literary works of art.
Oddly enough you could summarize many, if not most, fiction and video games that way.
Very true, however that's also why there are only a few books out of millions that are revered as being fantastic works... it doesn't exactly answer the question as to why Harry Potter is considered any better then the many others it apparently shares plot lines with.
well, the other argument is video games. both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can play games at 1080p and some already at 60FPS, Not to mention the Xbox 360 has an internal scaler to upscale 720p games to 1080i/p if so desired, you'd be halving your frame rate if you used this feature and neglected to
you're absolutely right about showing low frame rate films... but I wouldn't be so sure about films NOT going to 60FPS in the future. Movie frame rates are low because back on the old film reels the lower the framerate the smaller the reel it was easier and cheaper to handle and ship. I wouldn't be surprised of 60FPS films and TV shows started popping up now that the technology is in place. if you shoot a film in digital it doesn't really change much to shoot it at 24fps or 60fps. Maybe a little more work in editing but in terms of equipment and cost... storage is cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK the only COD2 game on the PS2 was "COD2: Big Red One" which is a completely different game from "COD2" (which was only released on Xbox 360 and PC)
"COD2" is actually a fantastic game
I think another important aspect in this... and keeping with the TiVo/Xbox theme. TiVo embrased the hacking community, they made their product hackable, and that gained TiVo a lot of respect from the hackers. So while TiVo makes some money from the fact that you have to buy a subscription to their TV listings the hacking community has pretty much ignored trying to screw over TiVo by circumventing the paying for the service. TiVo is happy, and the hackers are happy and the consumer gets a powerful and customizable product.
On the Xbox, the Xbox Linux people pushed and asked nicely for an official distro so they could customize the box. Microsoft refused and as a result the security holes were all blown way out into the open. MS didn't embrace the hacking community, they resisted it and as a result not only is their product hacked it's also insecure and allows games to be pirated very easily. The hacking community satisfied themselves regardless of MS's blessing, and MS isn't happy because their console has been exploited. I'm sure customers would also be more satisfied with the Xbox if it allowed some of the hacked features to be available legally as well.
The moral of the story: Hackers will get their way regardless, if you resist them you'll only end up disappointed, but if you embrace them you might wind up with a superior product and it's not like you'd be loosing anything because your sh*t would get hacked regardless of your choice.
Maybe I'll buy a PS3 down the road, but I don't buy things based on potential, I buy things based on what's tangible or within reach at the time of purchase. MGS4 might be a good game, maybe it wont be. I'm not going to spend $500+ now for the hopes and dreams that good games will eventually arrive. Many children have potential, even those of a proven pedigree... but not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.
What make the 360 better then the PS3? For me it is first and foremost TANGIBLE RESULTS. I have close to 20 games for the console already, some new classics that I'm sure to return to many years from now, I have an online system that is really good RIGHT NOW, as opposed to something that just shows promise. I have an achievement system that has let me get more replay ability and ultimately more enjoyment out of every title I own.... PS3 might have potential but I wont buy one until it's got something I can use.
Ok so what about sandbox action titles like GTA? Well the 360 has already got SaintsRow, and Dead Rising, which are both highly liked titles, Crackdown is releasing later this month and is made by the same guy who pioneered the GTA series, and of course it's also got GTA4 coming out for it. AFAIK there's nothing like this coming out for the PS3 that isn't also arriving on the 360... and as of right now the PS3 doesn't have any of this type of title.
How about fighting games? Well the 360 has got a number of classic 2D fighters like Street Fighter 2, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, And there are some SNK fighters scheduled to hit the XBLA soon. It's got Dead or Alive 4 and it had Fight Night Round 3 months before the PS3 was even released, not to mention less popular wrestling titles like Rumble Roses XX (formerly a PSX exclusive) and a WWE title. Segas also announced that Virtua Fighter 5 will be hitting the Xbox 360 (which was exclusive to Sony after Sega stopped making consoles). Soul Calibur IV and Tekken 6 are both rumored to be going cross platform. Regardless... right now the Wii has no fighting titles and the PS3 just has Fight Night.
Horror Titles? Well the Xbox 360 has Condemned, FEAR, Dead Rising, with Alan Wake, Resident Evil 5, and Alone in the dark coming. Once again a couple exclusives and nothing scheduled for Sony that isn't cross platform.
Sports titles maybe? Well the exception of the Sony brand NBA title pretty much everything is cross platform, well with the exception of the 2 premiere Soccer titles that MS bought exclusivity of for a year (FIFA and PES).
About the only thing that PS3 trumps the Xbox 360 on is JRPGs... but that's not even the current situation... that's a "down the road" situation. Even still the 360 is stronger then the Xbox 1 was with FFXI, Enchanted Arms, Ninty Nine Nights, Blue Dragon, and Lost Odyssey coming. Western Style RPGs are a whole lot stronger on the 360 though with Oblivion out months before the PS3 release and games like Fable 2, and MassEffect and Bioshock coming.
I'm not saying the PS3 is a bad platform, it certainly has a lot of potential and I'm interested to see what comes of it, but I'm quite tired of the stigma that the Xbox consoles are only for Shooters. I myself am not a big shooter fan, and I've found much to like on the Xbox 360. I'd honestly like to know: if there's nothing on the 360 that interests you, exactly what games do you like to play?
The "DualShock" was released in 1996 for the original Playstation. The "DualShock 2" was released in 1999 for the Playstation2, they are two different controllers and they have different names. If the text on the envelope was "DualShock" and not "DualShock 2" the award was given for the Playstation1 version of the controller.
Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
I completely agree, there's nothing wrong with simpler chips, there's no real need for 100Mhz+ devices in your projects unless it calls for them. You don't pick some high speed piece of kit and thinking of something to do with it (that's a totally wrong approach IMO). You should be thinking of an application and then build the circuit to fit your application. You need to find a problem and develop a solution, not have a solution and try to find a problem it might fix. Choosing to use simple through hole logic circuits, or microcontrollers as opposed to modern high speed surface mount devices should be a decision you make based on the problem you're trying to solve... and there are quite a few problems that can be solved with simple circuits.
To the OP: As someone who has already gone down that road (from following pre-planed projects to building my own custom stuff)... There is just one simple factor to do...
Decide what you want to do (define your "problem) and then build it (develop the "solution").
Today I basically have an idea for something I want to build, and then I begin figuring how I can accomplish that using the individual part data, usually from simple chips like 74XXX and 555s to more complex chips like Basic STAMP and PIC chips. Most often I choose projects that I feel are just a hair out of my range and I learn some new skills along the way.
I've been working on many little projects but my last BIG project was an adapter that allowed you to use a Sega Saturn controller on an Xbox 360. I had limited microcontroller experience so I learned about them, figured out which one would best suit my needs, and costs, and then I learned the assembly language used to program it. I also learned a lot about multiplexers (and why they wouldn't work for what I was trying to do). But that project like many others weren't following any kind of guide, and they weren't based on something someone else had already done. I find developing a circuit similar to piecing together a puzzle, you have an idea if which pieces might fit where and you might have a few holes in your design and then hunt around for pieces that might fit that you didn't know about, expanding your knowledge along the way.
Basically just learning what the function, capabilities, and limits of number of electronic components do is the first step. Once you have those in your pocket you can start to utilize them for something unique. Like the words of a foreign language... now all you have to do is think of something creative to say. It's not anything you'll learn from a book, because the next step is be creative and think of something to build.
True, it would be much better if the conversion rate was based on real world items... like the PED value of X amount of Gold, then it could be related as the value of Gold fluctuates against the various world economies.
Another real world asset it could be related to is the trading value of the game developers company, then as the stock prices raise and lower so does the value of PED against other money markets. and if the company goes bankrupt... so does EU.
45GB HD-DVd triple layer - May 2005
51GB HD-DVD Triple layer @ CES last week
Or you know you could just searched for it, I figured we'd all been accosted with so much disc format news as of late another couple links weren't really needed.
You're right that Click was released on dual layer BRD... as I said it wasn't until recently that they released them... Click was released in mid November, I'd say that constitutes "recently".
Lets look at that...
"Holds more data..." yes, per layer, however Current BRDs have 1 layer and just recently came out with dual-layer discs due to tremendous issues they had with the stability of the second layer, single layer discs are 25GB and dual layers are 50GB... there's speculation that they wont go beyond 2 layers due to the problems they experienced with getting to 2 layers, at least not in any reasonable amount of time.
HD-DVD has been dual-layer from it's release which is 30GB (15GB per layer), before it's release they had a working prototype of 3-layer HD-DVDs capable of 45GB, speculated to be released late 2007. Well at CES they announced that later this year they'll have 3-layer HD-DVDs with 17GB per layer capable of storing 51GB of data, and that they have a high confidence of adding more layers down the road.... so the data storage argument is essentially a wash.
Now lets look at other factors... since HD-DVD's configuration is very similar to that of DVDs most currently available machines used to press retail DVDs can be re-configured to also press HD-DVDs with a relatively low investment on the part of the manufacturer. BRDs on the other hand require all new machinery which could easily cost a single shop millions to setup. It might not be apparent now, but the down the road the average cost of HD-DVD will drop YEARS sooner then that of BRDs because it wont take them nearly as long to reach the point of return on investment. Not to mention the more apparent short term costs of the players with the BRD players costing on average double that of comparable HD-DVD players.
Finally I question how much the BRD backers really care about the quality of their releases when so many of the early released were encoded in the archaic Mpeg2 format as opposed to one of the newer and far superior codecs, particularly when you consider they only had single layer discs out at that point. Essentially they just pushed a number of crap quality releases out there for the sake of having releases out there. Some of them were just upscaled transfers from the DVD release and upon review were even found to look WORSE then their DVD brethren. Obviously they're no longer doing that at this point but you have to question their QC for letting something like that happen.
Personally I don't like either format for the equally restrictive DRM, and requiring me to use an HDCP protected connection (which my home theater equipment doesn't support). Honestly I see the BRD vs. HD-DVD going in one of two direction... either:
A. It will end up the same way as SACD vs. DVD-A vs. MP3... no one cares about a higher quality disc and would rather have downloadable content that's more versatile.
B. It will end up the same way as DVD+R vs DVD-R... Dual format players come out and the difference between the two formats will simply become invisible to the consumer.
yup... I had bought Super Mario 64 DS as a christmas gift, then when I saw it had been released on the Wii VC, I returned the $30 DS game and got a $20 Wii points card + some other stuff. Super Mario 64 not only plays better on the Wii it's only $10. Meaning the rest of the points could easily be used for something else.
I'd have to disagree with that... after the initial excitement of getting a Wii wore off I've been quite bored with it. Zelda is a great game but quite similar to the experience I had on the N64 titles, Not to mention after playing the GC version, I'd rather use that controller if only for a better camera. Red steel is a terribly generic shooter thats only interest is in it's controller interface, which is so buggy it's horrible to play. Trauma Center is a cool title but it's identical to the DS version save a couple of newly added levels, Monkey ball, pretty much the same as the GC and Xbox versions I've already played, Excite Truck and Wii sports are fun for an hour or two with friends but they become quite boring after that... there just isn't enough depth to them beyond their initial impression. Elebits looks interesting but I haven't played it yet so I can't really comment on that title.
When you look at the 360 it's got Gears of War which is a very fresh shooter the game play is quite different and very unique in comparison to the many other shooters I've played, in terms of multiplayer/co-op the game has enough depth to provide much lasting appeal. Also Viva Pinata gets my pick for the most innovative game this holiday, it's what I'd image the results would be if Nintendo made Spore. Then of course there are older titles like Dead Rising which is akin to the melding GTA, Resident Evil, and Shenmue... and Test Drive Unlimited (the first MMO Racer).
Honestly I played nothing but the Wii for most of December, I wouldn't consider most of the games all that innovative, particularly as someone who's owned all of Nintendo's consoles. So far the games that truly utilize the Wii remote are horribly shallow and don't serve as much more then a way to impress your friends for an hour, other games that have the necessary depth that you'd expect from a modern game don't use the Wii remote in any real unique ways, they just replace pushing the analog stick with waving the remote around.
The Potential is there, and I'm excited to see what will come out in the next year or so but as of right now, the Wii is collecting dust and I've started playing the 360 again, the controller might not be anything new but the current crop of games are far more interesting in my opinion.
hell, the Neo-Geo is still limping along.. I have a friend that just picked up some recently released Metal Slug and King of Fighter carts.
Well Squenix has already released FFXI on the 360, as well as Project Sylpheed in Japan, coming to the US eventually... and while FFXI is dated and PS isn't anywhere close to a flagship title it's still head and shoulders more support then they showed for the Xbox 1.
If that article is correct in saying that supply has already met demand then it's also true that the console is selling like crap (aka being ignored). Think of it this way...
Most stores received 5-10 units at launch and the launch quantities were estimated to be between 150k and 200k... nearly double the launch quantities are sitting on shelves at any given store which means there might be anywhere between 300K to 400K units shipped but not sold... If Sony has only shipped 1 million units to the US it means it only took about 600K-700K units to saturate the market (at very least substantially less then 1 million)... that is also known as crappy holiday console sales, even worse when you consider the Xbox 360 saturated the market and sold nearly 2.4 million units in the same period of time, and the Wii is still currently sold out with over 2 million units shipped also. Using the same logic if Sony delivered the PS3 in the same launch day quantities that Nintendo delivered their Wii, then the PS3 would not have sold out at launch.
By admitting that they've met demand they're admitting that the demand isn't all that high. Because the quantities that they've reached are still very low when compared to the competition.
Don't you find it rather foolish though, that for a game that's based entirely around team based combat, you can't play ranked matches with your actual team?
Think of team based capture the flag in any professionally played PC Shooter... wouldn't you find it ridiculous if you went to a tournament and they told the members of your team that everyone would be broken up and play with random members of other teams?
I agree that they should do what they can to eliminate boosting and other ranked mode cheating tactics, but for a game who's ONLY mode of play is within a team... they should allow for professional players to partake in ranked matches AS A TEAM.
From what I know the actual achievement rules are as follows:
Full retail games: (those $40 and up at release)
-anywhere between a minimum of 5 achievements and a maximum of 50.
-total cumulative points must be 1000 or below (I'm not sure if there is a bottom end but the lowest I've seen is somewhere in the 600s)
-individual achievements must be worth between 0 and 500 points
Arcade or otherwise cheap games: (those below $20 and below release)
-anywhere between a minimum of 5 achievements and a maximum of 12.
-total cumulative points must be 200 or below (I'm not sure if there is a bottom end)
-individual achievements must be worth between 0 and 100 points
I'm also not sure what happens in the $21-$39 price range as there haven't been any games released within that range.
Many games have had additional achievement added later, so long as with the newly added achievements allow the game to still fit within the above criteria
I think the problem is that unlike the Movie industry the Video Game industry doesn't have repercussions or even testing in place to ensure retailers are enforcing their ratings.
The movie industry has "secret shoppers" if you will that are minors and attempt to purchase a ticket or tickets to films they aren't old enough to see, if the theater fails they risk loosing their blockbusters to other local theaters, or worse loosing all MPAA support. It's in the best interests to enforce the rating system.
The Video Game industry on the other had doesn't seem to have anything like that in place, they have no idea if retailers are respecting their ratings, and retailers have no punishment from the Video game industry if they neglect ratings. AFAIK the only thing the Video game industry does is have long talks and meetings with retail franchises where they agree to enforce them. The problem is that this corporate policy isn't really strongly followed down to the local managers and assistant-managers, again rarely having any internal corporate repercussions. And as a result some store actually ENCOURAGE the sale to minors because it improves their bottom line without retribution for breaking the rules.
This is where JT comes in, as do all of the other wontsomeonethinkofthechildren people. They feel it's their duty to create government law where the Video Game industry has obviously failed. It's absolutely true that the Video Game industry has failed, but the solution isn't to have the Government step in and enforce it. The Video Game industry needs to enforce it themselves, and until that happens this monkey wont be off their back.
I think the Wii has a definitive 2nd place strong hold... Nintendo can't make them fast enough, they're pumping out at nearly twice the speed Microsoft did last year and still retailers can't get enough stock to meet demand. So far they've already reached 20% of the Xbox 360's install base, which is fairly impressive. The only question in my mind is if they will catch up to the Xbox 360 as next year the Wii demand will take a dip after the launch window rush while the 360 will likely hold steady as it's already on auto-pilot. Not to mention the 360 will likely see either a price cut and or bundle which will push more and more units.
the PS3 doesn't seem to be doing too hot. I was at Gamestop last night picking up a gift for a friend and they had a sign on the door "PS3s are IN STOCK!" I asked the clerk about it and apparently they had 5 consoles, they got 3 in a shipment and after a week they couldn't sell a single one of them. Meanwhile they had 2 returns from launch day buyers who couldn't manage to turn a profit on eBay. I was in the store no longer then 10 minutes and during that time the clerk I was talking to received 3 phone calls from people asking for the Wii (of which they had none). He also told me that about the same time they got the 3 PS3s in they also about 20 Wiis and sold out within an hour.
the PS1 and PS2 did well because they were excellent, middle-of-the-road consoles, good for the everyman, they didn't have the best graphics, or the most innovative controllers and game, or the most features, but they had a wide selection of games that appealed to most people and they were reasonably priced. Sony has priced themselves out of that demographic completely with the PS3, and it's scary to think that they're only 500K units into this generation, it's not even Christmas yet and there are already consoles sitting on the shelves and eBay auctions deflated to MSRP prices.
I couldn't agree more... I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer... I own every console from the last generation, and every console for the generation before that, I bought a 360 on launch day, I bought a Wii 2 days after launch... I have about 20-40 for each of the last gen console, I have about 20 Xbox 360 games already (only 3 Wii games). My Xbox 360 gamerscore is in the top 1500 world wide.
...and I have absolutely ZERO interest in the PS3. The price is ridiculous. I hated the controller shape back when they introduced it in 1995, and there aren't any exclusive games availble worth buying the console for. Not to mention with all the bad PR the exclusives are going cross-platform faster then you can say "dropping eBay prices".
If I really wanted the biggest and best gaming machine, I'd buy a PC.
As far as I'm concerned the only thing a PS3 is good for right now, is a cheap Blu-Ray player. But at the same time you'd have to convince yourself that it's even worth buying any blue laser disc player at all, nevermind the Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.
Actually there are a number of Xbox 360 titles (even launch titles) that can now do 1080p natively. Basically the games that were previously 1080i native... they all rendered to a progressive frame in the frame buffer and the interlacing was added after the fact. now that 1080p support has been added they basically just removed the interlacing step. Splinter Cell Double Agent is probably the most notable recent release that can render natively to 1080p, I know Moto GP renders to an odd resolution halfway between 720p and 1080p. It's difficult to tell with the 360 because it will scale the output to whatever you set it to, the only true way to determine natively supported resolutions is to pull screenshots directly out of the frame buffer. You are correct that MOST current games only go up to 720p...
Even still the Xbox 360 does a much nicer job of scaling a 720p game to 1080p then your TV would because it has the luxury of doing it before the signal gets compressed for the AV output. Not to mention it does it without any lag unlike the scalers in some HDTVs.
THAT, I can completely understand. I always thought the Harry Potter books were meant for children to grow up with, basically adding reading difficulty as they progressed, entertaining for children with a sprinkling of life lessons.
I guess it just frustrates me when people who don't normally read, read these book and start boasting about them like they ARE literary works of art.
well, the other argument is video games. both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can play games at 1080p and some already at 60FPS, Not to mention the Xbox 360 has an internal scaler to upscale 720p games to 1080i/p if so desired, you'd be halving your frame rate if you used this feature and neglected to
you're absolutely right about showing low frame rate films... but I wouldn't be so sure about films NOT going to 60FPS in the future. Movie frame rates are low because back on the old film reels the lower the framerate the smaller the reel it was easier and cheaper to handle and ship. I wouldn't be surprised of 60FPS films and TV shows started popping up now that the technology is in place. if you shoot a film in digital it doesn't really change much to shoot it at 24fps or 60fps. Maybe a little more work in editing but in terms of equipment and cost... storage is cheap.