Bankshot Billiards was 1200 points, and most games are 800 points not 600. The only games that are less then 800 are ports of old classics (Pac Man Dig-Dug Joust, etc.) or simple card games (Uno, Spades, etc.). The only exception was Geometry Wars which was priced lower then 800 points a game of that quality would normally go for.
Does the price honestly surprise you when you consider the price of the PSP version? Does it surprise you when you consider that the Xbox 360 version includes new content that the PSP version doesn't have?
400 MP = $5.00 USD
Lumines on the PSP currently costs $20
IIRC It debuted at $45
Lumines on the 360 will cost $15
The Extra content will run you $7.50 for a total price of $22.50
So lets recap: It's debuting on the 360 with extra content for HALF of what it cost new on the PSP and only $2.50 more then the bargain bin price that the PSP version is today.
Just because it's distributed on XBLA doesn't mean it's not worth as much money as it's PSP counterpart. I would think the online features and ease of running it from your console without a disc alone are well worth the extra $2.50, not to mention you can get it cheaper if you're not interested in the extra content.
If the Xbox 360 was right on time, why are the other 'next gen' consoles (Wii & PS3) showing up so now?
You must have missed the various news &/. articles from game industry developers who were pissed off that the PS3 launch kept getting pushed back from last spring. I also don't recall many actual news articles or developer comments about MS's release date, IIRC it was more backlash from gamers and/.ers then it was from actual news sources or developers.
You must have also missed the part where I explained that Nintendo has launched late in nearly every generation. The SNES, N64, Gamecube, and now Wii will be launching at least 1 year (or more) from the start of their respective generations.
according to TFA the 360 wont be replaced until sometime after 2010, so NO not 3 years. more like 5 or 6
I think the thing people don't realize is that the Xbox 360 didn't come early... the Xbox 1 came late.. the 360 was pretty much right on time. The Dreamcast kicked off the last gen in 1999 and The Xbox wasn't released until more then 3 years later, Sony had planned to release the following spring but was delayed, Nintendo almost always launches late (so they can have competitive tech at a lower price). The fact that Sony is launching the same time as Nintendo shows that they're late in this genreation. The fact that MS launched the same time as Nintendo last time showed that they were late to the last generation.
Maybe on your PC but not necessarily in the console world... The Xbox 360's OS is stored on a small chip on the motherbaord, and when running with a game requires less then %2 of the CPU resources across two of the three cores.
I'll agree that's not nearly as doom and gloom as everyone has been making it out to be but honestly, I don't know how you can categorize the 360 game line up as "running dry" in the same breath you claim the PS3 is somehow doing better in that department. Lets take a look at what's being released between now and the end of November in terms of titles exclusive between the 3 next gen contenders:
Xbox 360:
Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors
Elebits
Excite Truck
GT Pro Series
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Metal Slug Anthology
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Monster 4x4 World Circuit
Rayman Raving Rabbids
Red Steel
SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Wii Sports
If anything the Wii has the most impressive lineup of games through November, AFAIK there are no Wii or PS3 titles schedueld for December... if anything it will play to those titles who's release date slips. As far as I can tell there is no point in buying a PS3 this year unless you REALLY want to play Resistance or fight Giant Crabs(TM) in Genji. There are 20 something great 3rd party titles coming out as well that I didn't mention here, but you can get any of those on either 360 or PS3 (though most of those on the PS3 wont arrive until next year). The rest of the PS3's launch line up are games that came out on the 360 months ago.
I guess I just don't see why the PS3 is suddenly "looking better all the time" while the 360 is "drying up" If anything the PS3's launch line up is just playing catch up to the 360.
I don't really think the argument is as much about semantics as you think it is. But you are correct that it comes down to how you define it. Personally I think the act of "watching TV" under debate here is the act of sitting down and watching cable live for an extended period of time. Even if you're sitting down at a particular time to watch a particular show you like.
There is something fundamentally different about the experience when the network dictates when you watch, and dictate what you watch during the commercial breaks. How often do people hang around after the show just because? How many people have a 20 to 30 minutes to kill before the show so they turn the TV on early and watch whatever is on in the mean time?
I think a majority of people who "watch TV" basically just sit down and accept whatever is on. It's a distinctly different activity then pre-recording a show using a DVR or VCR, or watching a file on your PC or on DVD. Some TVs show do generally have worthwhile entertainment that can spark intellectual discussions with friends and family, perhaps even some introspect. But viewing it on the networks schedule you map out a larger portion of your time, you're subject to the massive amount of FUD in advertising (which IMO is where most of the real evil resides), and you're often tempted into watching just another half hour, just another half hour, just another half hour.
When people say "watching TV" they're typically referring to "watching network TV" Anything else is just video entertainment... but that's another argument altogether.
Basically when watching it "live" as you say then you're molding your life around the TV show, as opposed to putting the TV show where it best fits into your life. It fundamentally changes the role TV plays in your life reguardless of what shows you're watching.
I would think that batteries would add that weight back...
Weight doesn't always contribute to making something feel high in quality. There's also...
Tacktile feedback of buttons
size of the split in the plastic shell
consistancy of the split size in the plastic shell
amount that the controller can flex in areas where it shouldn't
Consistancy of linear feedback across the entire range of movements in the analog sticks and triggers
noises the controller might make that it shouldn't (creeks when flexed, or buttons rattling against the shell
how well the weight is balanaced across the controller
the surface finish of the plastic shell and buttons
the responce on screen following a button push
etc. etc. etc. Sometimes more weight makes something feel like it's higher in quality, but it's not even close to being the only metric. Pick up a cheap 3rd party knock-off controller, most of them will weigh the same as the 1st party they're emulating yet you can feel the quality difference just holding it in your hands, most of which is due to some of the factors I mentioned above. Using cheap plastics, or cheap injection molds will give the plastics a cheap feel regardless of weight, you can feel the minute unevenness of the split in the shell (even if you can't see it), smoothness of the analog feed back and crisp tactile buttons response go a long way towards perception of quality in a control device as well.
None of these new techs are 100% plug in solutions, they often require a lot of personal time with someone who knows what they're doing. Further a lot of animation is fluid melding of one animation sequence to the next which can often be difficult to automate.
I don't see the face mapping tech being much more different then mo-cap just on a smaller level. If anything proceduaral synthesis will bring the biggest changes to animation, but you'll still need people to code even that.
I think the stupid stigma has long vanish for anyone who's ever played Dance Dance Revolution or Guitar Hero... best prime those friends who still have fears.
I imagine it sucks, and I'm not saying no one is being directly effected... my point is you wont start hearing a large public outcry until the generic suburban living, SUV driving, soccer-moms and single-dads with their herd of children start getting personal visits from the 3 letter agencies.
Yes they are effected but how directly? Has most of the US populous been pegged as a terrorist because of something they did and been interrogated/had their world turned upside-down in a home search? Have any of them had a secret of theirs become public and suffered embarrassment or legal recourse because of it? Have any of them had their rights change so dramatically that it interrupts their daily routines beyond slower entry through security checkpoints.
Yes the things in motion do effect the citizens of the US (and others as well) but not yet to the point where it pops their little bubble of a happy world. Basically unless these violations of privacy come up and slap these people across the face HARD and knock them out of their daily grind onto their ass they're going to continue to be apathetic about it and ignore it.
Psychonauts is an awesome game, I bought it for the Xbox when it came out.
I think it's also worth mentioning that Gun is equally an awesome game that didn't get much recognition. For those who haven't played it it's an "old-west" action game some RPG and GTA style elements thrown in, the graphics aren't the greatest but the game has a solid storyline and is damn fun with lots of stuff to explore for plenty of replay value. Most people I talk to either haven't played it/don't know anything about it, or have and loved it.
the COD games are excellent as well but I don't think they need any introduction
yup, people make a big deal over this pre-order stuff when most of the stores that sell video games don't even take pre-orders. EBgames/Gamestop are small fries compared to Walmart and Best Buy, they get only a fraction of the stock. Unless you're #1 on their pre-order list you might as well through your money in a bank and wait for a few months past launch because their console allocations are crap.
I've found the absolute best place to get consoles on launch day are stores like Costco and Sam's Club. Most people don't think of them when they think new video games, also the membership fee turns away pretty much anyone who doesn't already have a membership. I camped out at Sam's Club for my Xbox 360 but I didn't even need to, because they had 20 units and there were only 14 people in line including myself. Most of the people only showed up about 15 minutes before they opened and NONE of them seemed the hardcore gamer types. Mostly parents or girlfriends buying them for Christmas gifts, a few of them just happened by saw the line and decided it'd be worth picking one up because of the demand. Even after my $30 membership fee, the savings from the console, controller and game I bought was about $40 so I actually paid LESS then I would have at EB or Walmart.
I had a friend wait out at Costco which got 50 something units there were apparently only 5 or so people in line. He went back the next day and they still had 30 of them so he bought a few more to sell on ebay. Way back at the Gamecube, Xbox, and even PS2 launches the situation was essentially the same.
Pre-ordering really only benefits the store, who basically gets your money early and at the same time prevents you from taking your business elsewhere. I had another friend who had pre-ordered his 360 at EB... about a month later he still hadn't got it, he was in Best Buy and saw that they had just got about 10 in... too bad he'd already giving all his money to EB, he had to keep waiting until THEY got stock.
I can see that scenario, I was just providing some examples but my overall message was that dual monitors work best for when you need to multi-task or switch between things, and a single large monitor works when you need to view a single large item. I did list 2D graphics for both of them. If you were working on a large poster a single large monitor would be ideal but if you were working on web graphics you might be better off with 2 smaller monitors, one to create the images and the other to display the compiled image in a web browser, etc. I'm sure there are a lot of different scenarios that I didn't think of as well as versions of the scenarios I mentioned that don't work the same way I had in mind (for instance I didn't even think of textures when I created that list but that's a very good point and a case where 3D modeling would fit into the other side of it).
I think the important thing is taking a look at how you work and determining which setup is best for your particular needs.
I think it really depends on the task you doing. For instance:
Dual Monitors:
Programing/Coding
some forms of 2D Graphics
Stock trading
database development/management
some forms of word processing
General Multi Tasking
Basically any scenario where you're doing a lot of side by side comparisons, moving data from one place to another or Channing something on one end and watching the results somewhere else. Multi monitors helps keep you from constantly switching between things.
One Large Monitor
3D Graphics
Gaming
Media (movies/slide shows etc.)
Some forms of word processing
some forms of 2D Graphics
CAD solidmodeling/drawing
Basically any scenario where you need to do a lot of comparisons of the same object on both a large scale and a small scale, or just getting a large view of something that fills your vision. Any scenario where you're constantly zooming in and zooming out will benefit from a single large monitor by allowing you to leave it mostly zoomed in and using your eyes to move around or change focus to the whole picture instead of your mouse. Games and media benefit from this due to giving you a good immersive feel by filling your vision.
There are other scenarios, and hybrid scenarios: like the gamer who keeps an IM client and stock ticker open or the person who likes to play a movie in the background while they do other work. But the type of display that works "best" changes depending on what you're using it for. Perhaps the best universal scenario would be a 30" main display with a 19" secondary.
I would definitely agree that there's a point of being too big, but I don't think you could associate an actual size with it. 30" might be too big if you're only sitting 20" from it Similarly I've got a projector in my basement that's got a 114" image but I can comfortably use that from my couch 180" away. So size is relative to how far away you're set from the screen.
It's a good question, one that I can't answer but I think even if one is holding back the other it will drive the market and the tech forward. If traditional displays can only do X then the recording and storage techniques will only ever get as good as X. 1. because they can't tell when they're recording beyond that and 2. because there is no need to. But with the display tech capable of going beyond then the recording and storage techniques will improve to make use of it.
codecs are easy to upgrade and once that's in place (if it's even needed) computer generated content will probably be able to make use of it right away.
The problem is that computer tech to perform realtime augmented reality wasn't available 14 years ago. There are a few companies with tech available now and a few of the demos I've seen (and in one case USED) I would think it's very possible to do something like this theme park today.
The biggest stumbling block with VR system was always the computer power not being good enough to make it worth while nor small enough to not break your neck.
Except that they don't just look at the user base but more importantly the attach rate, which will tell you how many games have been sold per consoles sold. If Sony has sold 300 units and has an attach rate of 2 and Nintendo has sold only 150 units but has an attach rate of 5, the Nintendo system will probably be more desirable because it means the gamers are more likely to buy new games.
Selling replacement consoles might drive up the user base statistics but it proportionally drives down the attach rate statistics, which are equally as important when considering the market.
I think the differences is that Google doesn't actually have a monopoly. Sure they use their large Size to move their new stuff but Google has a Yahoo, Google Videos had a You Tube, but even still There's Myspace which is still a viable competitor for flash player video delivery, etc.
In the areas where Google excels they find themselves only #1 by a small margin, but the breadth of their offerings makes them seem larger then they really are. Because they still have strong competitors it doesn't make them a monopoly so they can use their clout to push their products without the same problems MS has.
Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview
on
Ballmer Sounds Off
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't really see how this changes things for Google, I mean they already have Google Video, which is essentially the same service as You Tube. If you're going to oversimplify you could say they basically the just bought a userbase. I can't imagine Google Video was any more immune to copyright infringement then You Tube is.
Traditional displays can't properly emulate shiny objects... It has to do with color reproduction no amount of resolution will help it... hence why TFA makes mention of traditional displays only capable of display 30 to 35% of the colors our eyes are capable of seeing while the laser display is capable of closer to 90%. Plasmas are better then most in this department which is why it was chosen for comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
Bankshot Billiards was 1200 points, and most games are 800 points not 600. The only games that are less then 800 are ports of old classics (Pac Man Dig-Dug Joust, etc.) or simple card games (Uno, Spades, etc.). The only exception was Geometry Wars which was priced lower then 800 points a game of that quality would normally go for.
Does the price honestly surprise you when you consider the price of the PSP version? Does it surprise you when you consider that the Xbox 360 version includes new content that the PSP version doesn't have?
400 MP = $5.00 USD
Lumines on the PSP currently costs $20
IIRC It debuted at $45
Lumines on the 360 will cost $15
The Extra content will run you $7.50 for a total price of $22.50
So lets recap: It's debuting on the 360 with extra content for HALF of what it cost new on the PSP and only $2.50 more then the bargain bin price that the PSP version is today.
Just because it's distributed on XBLA doesn't mean it's not worth as much money as it's PSP counterpart. I would think the online features and ease of running it from your console without a disc alone are well worth the extra $2.50, not to mention you can get it cheaper if you're not interested in the extra content.
just Axe handles.. the points parts are a-ok
You must have also missed the part where I explained that Nintendo has launched late in nearly every generation. The SNES, N64, Gamecube, and now Wii will be launching at least 1 year (or more) from the start of their respective generations.
according to TFA the 360 wont be replaced until sometime after 2010, so NO not 3 years. more like 5 or 6
I think the thing people don't realize is that the Xbox 360 didn't come early... the Xbox 1 came late.. the 360 was pretty much right on time. The Dreamcast kicked off the last gen in 1999 and The Xbox wasn't released until more then 3 years later, Sony had planned to release the following spring but was delayed, Nintendo almost always launches late (so they can have competitive tech at a lower price). The fact that Sony is launching the same time as Nintendo shows that they're late in this genreation. The fact that MS launched the same time as Nintendo last time showed that they were late to the last generation.
go easy on him, he just found out that the snozzberries taste like snozzberries.
Maybe on your PC but not necessarily in the console world... The Xbox 360's OS is stored on a small chip on the motherbaord, and when running with a game requires less then %2 of the CPU resources across two of the three cores.
- Phantasy Star Universe
- Spliter Cell Double Agent
- Fuzion Frenzy 2
- Gears of War
- Viva Piniata
- FIFA 07
- Pro Evo Soccer 6
- Star Trek Legacy
- WWE SvR
- Rayman 4
- Dead or Alive Xtreme 2
- Cabela's African Safari
PS3:- Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom
- Full Auto 2: Battlelines*
- Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire
- Ridge Racer 7*
- Resistance: Fall of Man
- Genji: Days of the Blade
*Also I should note that the predecessors to both of theses games were exclusive to the 360 and bombed horribly.Wii:
- Barnyard
- Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2
- Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors
- Elebits
- Excite Truck
- GT Pro Series
- Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers
- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
- Metal Slug Anthology
- Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
- Monster 4x4 World Circuit
- Rayman Raving Rabbids
- Red Steel
- SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab
- Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
- Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam
- Trauma Center: Second Opinion
- Wii Sports
If anything the Wii has the most impressive lineup of games through November, AFAIK there are no Wii or PS3 titles schedueld for December... if anything it will play to those titles who's release date slips. As far as I can tell there is no point in buying a PS3 this year unless you REALLY want to play Resistance or fight Giant Crabs(TM) in Genji. There are 20 something great 3rd party titles coming out as well that I didn't mention here, but you can get any of those on either 360 or PS3 (though most of those on the PS3 wont arrive until next year). The rest of the PS3's launch line up are games that came out on the 360 months ago.I guess I just don't see why the PS3 is suddenly "looking better all the time" while the 360 is "drying up" If anything the PS3's launch line up is just playing catch up to the 360.
I don't really think the argument is as much about semantics as you think it is. But you are correct that it comes down to how you define it. Personally I think the act of "watching TV" under debate here is the act of sitting down and watching cable live for an extended period of time. Even if you're sitting down at a particular time to watch a particular show you like.
There is something fundamentally different about the experience when the network dictates when you watch, and dictate what you watch during the commercial breaks. How often do people hang around after the show just because? How many people have a 20 to 30 minutes to kill before the show so they turn the TV on early and watch whatever is on in the mean time?
I think a majority of people who "watch TV" basically just sit down and accept whatever is on. It's a distinctly different activity then pre-recording a show using a DVR or VCR, or watching a file on your PC or on DVD. Some TVs show do generally have worthwhile entertainment that can spark intellectual discussions with friends and family, perhaps even some introspect. But viewing it on the networks schedule you map out a larger portion of your time, you're subject to the massive amount of FUD in advertising (which IMO is where most of the real evil resides), and you're often tempted into watching just another half hour, just another half hour, just another half hour.
When people say "watching TV" they're typically referring to "watching network TV" Anything else is just video entertainment... but that's another argument altogether.
Basically when watching it "live" as you say then you're molding your life around the TV show, as opposed to putting the TV show where it best fits into your life. It fundamentally changes the role TV plays in your life reguardless of what shows you're watching.
Weight doesn't always contribute to making something feel high in quality. There's also...
- Tacktile feedback of buttons
- size of the split in the plastic shell
- consistancy of the split size in the plastic shell
- amount that the controller can flex in areas where it shouldn't
- Consistancy of linear feedback across the entire range of movements in the analog sticks and triggers
- noises the controller might make that it shouldn't (creeks when flexed, or buttons rattling against the shell
- how well the weight is balanaced across the controller
- the surface finish of the plastic shell and buttons
- the responce on screen following a button push
etc. etc. etc. Sometimes more weight makes something feel like it's higher in quality, but it's not even close to being the only metric. Pick up a cheap 3rd party knock-off controller, most of them will weigh the same as the 1st party they're emulating yet you can feel the quality difference just holding it in your hands, most of which is due to some of the factors I mentioned above. Using cheap plastics, or cheap injection molds will give the plastics a cheap feel regardless of weight, you can feel the minute unevenness of the split in the shell (even if you can't see it), smoothness of the analog feed back and crisp tactile buttons response go a long way towards perception of quality in a control device as well.None of these new techs are 100% plug in solutions, they often require a lot of personal time with someone who knows what they're doing. Further a lot of animation is fluid melding of one animation sequence to the next which can often be difficult to automate.
I don't see the face mapping tech being much more different then mo-cap just on a smaller level. If anything proceduaral synthesis will bring the biggest changes to animation, but you'll still need people to code even that.
I think the stupid stigma has long vanish for anyone who's ever played Dance Dance Revolution or Guitar Hero... best prime those friends who still have fears.
I imagine it sucks, and I'm not saying no one is being directly effected... my point is you wont start hearing a large public outcry until the generic suburban living, SUV driving, soccer-moms and single-dads with their herd of children start getting personal visits from the 3 letter agencies.
Yes they are effected but how directly? Has most of the US populous been pegged as a terrorist because of something they did and been interrogated/had their world turned upside-down in a home search? Have any of them had a secret of theirs become public and suffered embarrassment or legal recourse because of it? Have any of them had their rights change so dramatically that it interrupts their daily routines beyond slower entry through security checkpoints.
Yes the things in motion do effect the citizens of the US (and others as well) but not yet to the point where it pops their little bubble of a happy world. Basically unless these violations of privacy come up and slap these people across the face HARD and knock them out of their daily grind onto their ass they're going to continue to be apathetic about it and ignore it.
Psychonauts is an awesome game, I bought it for the Xbox when it came out.
I think it's also worth mentioning that Gun is equally an awesome game that didn't get much recognition. For those who haven't played it it's an "old-west" action game some RPG and GTA style elements thrown in, the graphics aren't the greatest but the game has a solid storyline and is damn fun with lots of stuff to explore for plenty of replay value. Most people I talk to either haven't played it/don't know anything about it, or have and loved it.
the COD games are excellent as well but I don't think they need any introduction
What about Street Fighter vs. Zombies... eh? eh?
yup, people make a big deal over this pre-order stuff when most of the stores that sell video games don't even take pre-orders. EBgames/Gamestop are small fries compared to Walmart and Best Buy, they get only a fraction of the stock. Unless you're #1 on their pre-order list you might as well through your money in a bank and wait for a few months past launch because their console allocations are crap.
I've found the absolute best place to get consoles on launch day are stores like Costco and Sam's Club. Most people don't think of them when they think new video games, also the membership fee turns away pretty much anyone who doesn't already have a membership. I camped out at Sam's Club for my Xbox 360 but I didn't even need to, because they had 20 units and there were only 14 people in line including myself. Most of the people only showed up about 15 minutes before they opened and NONE of them seemed the hardcore gamer types. Mostly parents or girlfriends buying them for Christmas gifts, a few of them just happened by saw the line and decided it'd be worth picking one up because of the demand. Even after my $30 membership fee, the savings from the console, controller and game I bought was about $40 so I actually paid LESS then I would have at EB or Walmart.
I had a friend wait out at Costco which got 50 something units there were apparently only 5 or so people in line. He went back the next day and they still had 30 of them so he bought a few more to sell on ebay. Way back at the Gamecube, Xbox, and even PS2 launches the situation was essentially the same.
Pre-ordering really only benefits the store, who basically gets your money early and at the same time prevents you from taking your business elsewhere. I had another friend who had pre-ordered his 360 at EB... about a month later he still hadn't got it, he was in Best Buy and saw that they had just got about 10 in... too bad he'd already giving all his money to EB, he had to keep waiting until THEY got stock.
I can see that scenario, I was just providing some examples but my overall message was that dual monitors work best for when you need to multi-task or switch between things, and a single large monitor works when you need to view a single large item. I did list 2D graphics for both of them. If you were working on a large poster a single large monitor would be ideal but if you were working on web graphics you might be better off with 2 smaller monitors, one to create the images and the other to display the compiled image in a web browser, etc. I'm sure there are a lot of different scenarios that I didn't think of as well as versions of the scenarios I mentioned that don't work the same way I had in mind (for instance I didn't even think of textures when I created that list but that's a very good point and a case where 3D modeling would fit into the other side of it).
I think the important thing is taking a look at how you work and determining which setup is best for your particular needs.
Dual Monitors:
- Programing/Coding
- some forms of 2D Graphics
- Stock trading
- database development/management
- some forms of word processing
- General Multi Tasking
Basically any scenario where you're doing a lot of side by side comparisons, moving data from one place to another or Channing something on one end and watching the results somewhere else. Multi monitors helps keep you from constantly switching between things.One Large Monitor
- 3D Graphics
- Gaming
- Media (movies/slide shows etc.)
- Some forms of word processing
- some forms of 2D Graphics
- CAD solidmodeling/drawing
Basically any scenario where you need to do a lot of comparisons of the same object on both a large scale and a small scale, or just getting a large view of something that fills your vision. Any scenario where you're constantly zooming in and zooming out will benefit from a single large monitor by allowing you to leave it mostly zoomed in and using your eyes to move around or change focus to the whole picture instead of your mouse. Games and media benefit from this due to giving you a good immersive feel by filling your vision.There are other scenarios, and hybrid scenarios: like the gamer who keeps an IM client and stock ticker open or the person who likes to play a movie in the background while they do other work. But the type of display that works "best" changes depending on what you're using it for. Perhaps the best universal scenario would be a 30" main display with a 19" secondary.
I would definitely agree that there's a point of being too big, but I don't think you could associate an actual size with it. 30" might be too big if you're only sitting 20" from it Similarly I've got a projector in my basement that's got a 114" image but I can comfortably use that from my couch 180" away. So size is relative to how far away you're set from the screen.
It's a good question, one that I can't answer but I think even if one is holding back the other it will drive the market and the tech forward. If traditional displays can only do X then the recording and storage techniques will only ever get as good as X. 1. because they can't tell when they're recording beyond that and 2. because there is no need to. But with the display tech capable of going beyond then the recording and storage techniques will improve to make use of it.
codecs are easy to upgrade and once that's in place (if it's even needed) computer generated content will probably be able to make use of it right away.
The problem is that computer tech to perform realtime augmented reality wasn't available 14 years ago. There are a few companies with tech available now and a few of the demos I've seen (and in one case USED) I would think it's very possible to do something like this theme park today.
The biggest stumbling block with VR system was always the computer power not being good enough to make it worth while nor small enough to not break your neck.
Except that they don't just look at the user base but more importantly the attach rate, which will tell you how many games have been sold per consoles sold. If Sony has sold 300 units and has an attach rate of 2 and Nintendo has sold only 150 units but has an attach rate of 5, the Nintendo system will probably be more desirable because it means the gamers are more likely to buy new games.
Selling replacement consoles might drive up the user base statistics but it proportionally drives down the attach rate statistics, which are equally as important when considering the market.
I think the differences is that Google doesn't actually have a monopoly. Sure they use their large Size to move their new stuff but Google has a Yahoo, Google Videos had a You Tube, but even still There's Myspace which is still a viable competitor for flash player video delivery, etc.
In the areas where Google excels they find themselves only #1 by a small margin, but the breadth of their offerings makes them seem larger then they really are. Because they still have strong competitors it doesn't make them a monopoly so they can use their clout to push their products without the same problems MS has.
I don't really see how this changes things for Google, I mean they already have Google Video, which is essentially the same service as You Tube. If you're going to oversimplify you could say they basically the just bought a userbase. I can't imagine Google Video was any more immune to copyright infringement then You Tube is.
Traditional displays can't properly emulate shiny objects... It has to do with color reproduction no amount of resolution will help it... hence why TFA makes mention of traditional displays only capable of display 30 to 35% of the colors our eyes are capable of seeing while the laser display is capable of closer to 90%. Plasmas are better then most in this department which is why it was chosen for comparison.
Yeah but don't you want to buy one to cook up some tasty low-fat Sony brand burgers!