How old are you dude? If you hate Square Enix games, why did you think that the one with all the Disney characters was going to reward you with a compelling story? I don't know much about this stuff, but as far as I can tell those games are designed to hook 10 year olds with easy gameplay and as much Disney-branded goodness as can be crammed into a single disc. If you are old enough to be allowed to watch Mulholland drive then you are WAY outside of the target audience.
You're complaining that Oblivion didn't have enough of a story, but that Japanese games are not flexible enough. You have to understand that it is very, very hard to do both. With all the time it takes nowadays for a game to look good, most developers don't have the time to make the game so that every little thing you do leads to a different, yet equally compelling storyline.
I can't believe the cube was given such a high score. I always thought of it as a complete failure. Slightly more powerful than the ps2 with far fewer games. Even the traditional nintendo titles seemed to be lacking (Mario Sunshine, Zelda Windwaker or whatever, etc. It didn't play Dvd's and near the end of its lifespan certain games had to be released on two discs (Tiger Woods). Also the controller was just plain annoying with all sorts of weirdly shaped buttons all over the place. There are titles that are better on xbox like shooters and online games. There are games that are better on PS2 like tony hawk, or any other game that uses 4 shoulder buttons. I can't think of one game that is better on the cube. It had weak graphics, weak online play, a crummy controller, and very few worthwhile first party titles. I know that people disagree with me on this, but I consider the N64 and the gamecube to be complete failures. Sure they sold pretty well, but they both made poor design decisions and allowed sony to take the lead. It looks like nintendo is back on the right track with the Wii, but I think anyone who gives the Cube a high rating has to be taking crazy pills. Unless you're a die hard zelda/mario fan, there really is not a good reason to get it.
I think the developers said that they'd port it to Mac if there was enough demand. They ported the first Bone game. Maybe if you Mac guys buy enough of them, they'll port everything.
This game is super-cheap. Nine bucks per episode, or you can buy the whole season (6 episodes) for 35 bucks. If you think you might like it, give it a shot. I just preordered the whole season, and I'm playing through the first episode right now. The coolest thing about it is that just about everything you do has a unique comment to it. I've been waiting for a sequel for so long. Lucasarts practically finished one, and then decided not to release it so they could come out with even more star wars crap, like lego star wars.
Anyway, people have been saying that the point and click adventure game has been dying for like the last 10 years. I never thought I'd see the day where lucasarts and sierra were both not making any of them. I hope that this downloadable episode idea catches on and breathes some life into them.
I don't know too much about this stuff, but if I was making a system that I wanted to last a while, I would err on the side of more storage. Whenever a new format comes out, there are always a group of people who say that it's too big and no one will ever use it. I think there are tons of cool things that the extra space could be used for. I'm sure Square will use it to make tons of really nice HD videos for the new final fantasy.
I don't know that requiring more artists is necessarily a bad thing. For example, a game could have 500 tracks of high definition audio. Musicians would kill to get their tracks bundled with games.
These retro game anthologies have also been very popular lately. With the storage of Blu Ray, for example, Lucasarts could release every graphic adventure they ever produced on a single disc. This specific example might never happen, but now that developers have all this extra space to deal with, they might just start throwing in large amounts of bonus content. Think about the 100 dollar loser fanboy version of Halo 3 that comes on 4 discs. With a Blu Ray it could come on one disc.
Also you might see more movie/game combinations in the future. I think sony did this on the PSP with Wipeout and that Jamie Foxx movie stealth. Just the other day I read about the guys from Oddworld doing a game and a movie at the same time. It seemed like a pretty cool idea.
You might not see developers filling the space with new content right away, but they will have the freedom to include anything they want, and I don't think this is a bad thing.
Re:Wing Commander 3...
on
Game Breakers
·
· Score: 1
Idunno man, I was pretty young when I played it, but I thought WC3 was pretty awesome, and the fact that there was video in it completely blew my mind. Another game I can remember that was like this was Gabriel Knight 2. After the series switched over to 3d it just wasn't the same. I've always sort of liked video in my games. I think it goes back to the old adventure games I used to play where if you solved a puzzle you'd be rewarded with a cool video sequence (The one that comes immediately to mind is getting the decoder ring out of the ball of twine in Sam n Max Hit the Road). There are games that overdo it, but I still think that if they're done right, they can still be pretty awesome.
So what you're saying is that if the material on the discs was coded in High Definition, which it isn't, you'd need 3 blu rays to hold it? Nice argument, but even if it were coded at high resolution you're still wrong. A 50 GB blu ray disc holds about 9 hours of high def video. Even the single layer holds 4.5 hours of video. In other words, all four of these discs could probably fit on one dual layer blu ray disc. So the "Troll" is actually correct.
By the way who modded this guy up to 3?
I don't know if I agree with the idea that brand name doesn't mean much. Nintendo, for example, has a super loyal brand following do to its other brands like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc. You know that when you buy a Nintendo system even if it completely sucks(Gamecube, N64) that it will have great first party software.
I have two xboxes. I refuse to buy the 360. Why? Because my friends who have PS2, which came out way before Xbox, still have new, original games to play. Microsoft will probably have the Xbox 720 coming out in 3 years or whatever.
I don't care what anyone says, I still think that Sony makes nice, although pricey stuff. For someone who is interested in HD Video though, the PS3 isn't the most expensive game console, but the cheapest HD Movie player. I think that the PS3 features look great, and they're making them so slowly that they should be sold out for a really long time. Sure there could be another catastrophe, but right now if you want one by Christmas, you're going to have to pay upwards of $1000 bucks.
If this thing does half of the stuff its supposed to, I'm going to buy one as soon as possible.
Both PS3's have full hdmi 1.3 output. Neither 360 does. The budget Ps3 has the same size hard drive as the premium xbox. As far as the lack of memory card slots go, I don't think anyone knows whether or not an external reader will be released, but if there is demand, i'm sure it's something that they could hook up through one of those USB ports. The premium system has 60 gb more hd, wifi, and the reader. The "nerfed" system is for people who don't want those features.
Calling the 360 comparable to either system is a joke. The crummy ps3 is "comparable" to the premium 360 with HD-DVD drive. The comparison you should be making is that the "nerfed" PS3 has the same features as the "premium" 360, and also comes with wifi, a wireless controller, a high def media drive, a card reader, and free network gaming. Whether that is worth 200 dollars to you or not probably depends on whether or not you have an HDTV and wireless internet in your house, but if the cheaper PS3 is nerfed, then both xbox 360's are super duper nerfed.
Blue Dragon Bundle? PFfffffffffft No one is ever going to buy a 360 in Japan. The PS3 will be outselling the 360 in Japan as soon as Sony ships enough of them there. I don't have any hard numbers for figures, but the 360 will certainly be behind the Wii in Japan at the moment of the Wii's launch, and the same might be true for the PS3 if Sony releases enough of them. I would be willing to bet that the PS2 continues to outsell the 360 in Japan for another 2 years.
I think you guys are both oversimplifying things. I'm not a big football game player, but my friends who play it do so because they prefer it to 2k6. Madden might have been losing market share to 2k6, but if i remember correctly they were selling it right when it came out for 20 bucks or something like that. In that case Madden might not have been losing market share, but the kids who bought madden might have been buying the game for 20 bucks to try it out, or they might have bought it because it was cheaper. Either way, this is not a Pepsi vs. Coke type of thing where the two products are very similar in price and quality. They are two different games that were sold at two different price points. Maybe the name Madden gave it some credibility, but NFL is pretty recognizable as well.
As to your discussion of how the DS is selling better because it wasn't associated with the game boy, I do not think there is anything to support this. Do you really think it would have mattered if they called it the Gameboy DS or the Gameboy 2? I'd like to think there was a little more to it than that. Maybe the enjoyable software, the cheaper price in comparison to the PSP, or the interesting control scheme. Also, by your reasoning, if the PSP was called something else like the Sony WooHoo perhaps, it would have sold better?
Bottom line is that branding does not play a huge part in decisions when competing products are very different.
Hey man easy with the stereotyping. There are plenty of brainy broads out there in pr0n. Like Thomas Pynchon's niece: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09282006/gossip/pagesi x/pagesix.htm (New York Post). Just because they're taking it in the dumper on film to make a living does not mean that they're all meth head junkies. Some are oversexed coeds from ultra liberal arts colleges who view the money as just an added bonus for what they would be doing in their spare time anyway.
When I used to write for the Cornell Daily Sun I couldn't even bring it home to show my parents because the sex columnist would be writing about how she her bum was violated by a Naval Officer on shore leave. Seriously. Then again I don't know anyone who would pay to see her in a state of undress.
12b6 being failure to state a cause of action. In other words, they have no reason to sue, and unless they have some very crafty lawyers, the case will not even go to trial.
I read the article and there are a bunch of questionable facts and calculations in it. The first is that it assumes that Sony is losing $300 or $400 a system. Seems a little high, but I guess you never know how much all this stuff costs because it's all entirely brand new. Then they multiply it by 6 million consoles. Might not happen, but whatever. The result even in the worst case scenario is that Sony loses $2.4 billion at launch. The company is worth $36 billion dollars. I don't hink a 6% drop in the value of the company would make them any juicier of a target for Microsoft. Bill Gates could buy Sony himself if he wanted to. Right now. Oh yeah, and those figures all assume that Sony doesn't sell any software, or derive any benefit from selling 6 million blu ray players.
400 bucks for the complete game? Somehow I doubt it. Sony is known for pushing pricing limits, but I don't think they'd be risking one of their exclusive system sellers with a pricing scheme like that. If those values are anywhere near correct then the game itself will be completely free. I can't imagine that it won't come with at least a decent amount of tracks and cars. It would be a cool idea for that type of game, because anyone could try it out, and if you didn't like it, you'd have only wasted a few bucks, and they could support it with a million extra tracks for the people who really love it. Then again this strategy would leave people who did not have a means for hooking their PS3 to a fast internet connection in the dark, so I doubt it will be the dominant strategy.
Wow, I can't believe they cut the price that much. As far as I know, that makes the low end PS3 cheaper than the cheapest standalone HD-DVD player (and more than half the price of the cheapest Blu-Ray player). I don't know how Sony's going to do in the console wars, but it seems as though they are looking pretty good in the High Def wars.
I try to keep up on this stuff as much as I can, but it is starting to get impossible. It was my understanding that component cables top out at 1080i. I am not sure that DVI can do 1080p, does anyone know about this? I am sure that HDMI can. I thought that HD-DVD barely had enough storage to put out a 1080i signal, and that they still haven't implemented 1080p. Is the HD-DVD peripheral going to include support for this? There is a cable to convert HDMI to DVI, like the one Sony includes in their Blu Ray laptops, but i did not know of any device that can do the opposite. I thought that eventually the movie studios were going to insist that everything be done through HDMI and anyone who was trying to play High Def discs through DVI were going to be SOL and would have to resort to a lower resolution. Are new Xbox360 games going to support this, or are they just going to have the hardware upscale or de-interlace everything? I also heard that Microsoft will be selling the HD-DVD attachment for 200 bucks, and that it most certainly will not be able to be used for games. Paying $600 for a PS3 doesn't seem like so much money if you take into account how much you are going to have to pay 2 years down the line for a frankenbox with all sorts of dongles hanging off of it to get the same functionality. Blu Ray will have won the High def battle the instant the PS3 launches. I'd be loath to buy one of these attachments only to have to buy a Blu Ray attachment next year. People may argue that this thing will catch on, but I think it's still all too confusing. People know if they buy the PS3, they are well positioned to take advantage of our glorious HD future. The 360 still has so many questionmarks involved. If someone would please let me know if I got any facts wrong I'd appreciate it. I'm doing my best to understand the differences between these two formats and I'm still confused as hell.
"With the major "Buying Force" spending $50,000 on cars and buying $450,000 homes, I doubt price is the overall reason to buy or not to buy Apple products."
To continue with your analogy, the fact that I can afford a $50,000 car does not mean that I will be willing to spend $2000 for a computer with $1000 worth of components in in it.
There is something to be said for paying for luxury, but I don't consider the Mac OS to be luxurious enough to justify its price.
"But the "Buying Force" knows when you want something nice, your going to pay for it."
Well I am not the "Buying Force," but when I am about to buy something, I usually take into account what I want to do with that something, and then try and find the cheapest thing i can buy that does that thing. In the case of Apple, which doesn't really add any comfort for me, I am not willing to pay a ton of extra money for hardware, and a ton of extra money software to do the same thing.
"Anyway.....it's all based on what the Market will Bare...."
I don't know what the deal is with all the extra capitalization, is that some sort of pun (bare means naked), but that is quite true, there are a bunch of people who buy Apple and like Apple, and that is fine, but price is a reason not to buy Apple, and is perhaps why the market will only bear a user base of roughly 5%. The people who love Apple and are willing to pay for it, and the people who work in jobs where Apples are superior.
While I agree with most posters that the.02 percent shift is not very significant, I think the main reason that Apple's market share is either stagnant or growing slowly, or whatever, is that it is strictly a luxury brand. Computers are beginning to be so frequently used that even poor people (gasp) are starting to buy them. Office Depot was just selling a computer for $100 or something like that. For people who are not able to buy $50,000 cars, Apple is going to remain far out of reach.
Thanks, I just priced it out on the small business website and the Dell came in 1300 dollars cheaper. I don't love Dells or anything, and you certainly do get some extra value with an Apple, but I would still love to see an apple that is cheaper than a dell, I'd buy it in a second.
I priced this out on the Dell Home site and it didn't even come close to being true. Unless the Dell Home Site offers a $1000 discount that they don't offer to businesses and the Apple Business site offers a $1000 discount that Apple Home doesn't offer, then you are completely off with your figures. I am almost certain you are comparing a 3.7Ghz Dell to a 3.0Ghz Apple. Will someone please provide price points and specs for this exceptional case of an Apple being cheaper than a comparable anything? Last time I checked even Sony made less expensive stuff.
I was sort of shocked when I read this as well. Can you fellas be a little more specific with exactly what you configured? I just looked at Dell's website and I can't even find a 3.0Ghz single processor configuration. Maybe it's because I'm looking on the home site and not the small business site or somesuch confusing thing that is typical of Dell. I also noticed that the Dell workstations go up to 3.7 Ghz and the Apples only go up to 3.0. Is it possible that you are comparing Apples to Oranges? Right now I am comparing a dual 3.0 Ghz Apple Workstation with a Terabyte of hard drive 4 GB of ram and the best videocard to a comparable dell excepting the fact that the Dell has 3.2Ghz processors because i couldn't configure it like that. The Dell is $4,500 and the Apple is $6,649. Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that you're comparing a 3.7Ghz dell setup to a 3.0Ghz Apple setup.
Hey buddy, if you can figure out a way to cure diseases using gaming hardware without connecting them to the internet, let me know. What do you want it to do, burn the results on a cd and print you out a mailing label for it? I think that many people have wireless internet wherever they are doing their gaming and won't need one of these cat-5 cables you are talking about. There are others who will split their broadband to supply both their computer and their ps3. I'd say that considering that PS3 is incorporating free online gaming into the system, that people with 600 bucks to spend on a system are probably serious enough about technology that they have broadband internet, and might even know how to use wireless internet that the "subset" you are talking about is probably going to be around 90% of the early adopters. Sure, it's not going to be everyone who uses it, but I don't consider the fact that it requires an internet to be as much of a hindrance as you seem to.
I agree completely. It is most certainly not the source media's fault. When HD formats are discussed, uninformed journalists often make the comment that the current picture can't get any better because there is not enough information in the source material or somesuch nonsense. Movies currently are, and always have been created to be shown on a gigantic movie screen. It is at a way higher resolution than even the highest HD displays. Some people might argue that HD is not that much better looking, and they might have an argument, especially on smaller screens, but that is a different argument entirely. Obviously in older movies there may be the issue of damaged film, but as far as I can tell all the movies released are relatively new. It seems pretty obvious that something is being lost between the source media and the end display. Whether it has to do with bad transfers, bad compression, bad players, or crummy televisions is up for debate, but it is most certainly not from the source media. There have also been reports that samsung messed something up with their initial player, which seems to me to be a little more plausible than the original film from a movie made in the last decade or so not being clear enough.
Slashdot Mirror
How old are you dude? If you hate Square Enix games, why did you think that the one with all the Disney characters was going to reward you with a compelling story? I don't know much about this stuff, but as far as I can tell those games are designed to hook 10 year olds with easy gameplay and as much Disney-branded goodness as can be crammed into a single disc. If you are old enough to be allowed to watch Mulholland drive then you are WAY outside of the target audience. You're complaining that Oblivion didn't have enough of a story, but that Japanese games are not flexible enough. You have to understand that it is very, very hard to do both. With all the time it takes nowadays for a game to look good, most developers don't have the time to make the game so that every little thing you do leads to a different, yet equally compelling storyline.
I can't believe the cube was given such a high score. I always thought of it as a complete failure. Slightly more powerful than the ps2 with far fewer games. Even the traditional nintendo titles seemed to be lacking (Mario Sunshine, Zelda Windwaker or whatever, etc. It didn't play Dvd's and near the end of its lifespan certain games had to be released on two discs (Tiger Woods). Also the controller was just plain annoying with all sorts of weirdly shaped buttons all over the place. There are titles that are better on xbox like shooters and online games. There are games that are better on PS2 like tony hawk, or any other game that uses 4 shoulder buttons. I can't think of one game that is better on the cube. It had weak graphics, weak online play, a crummy controller, and very few worthwhile first party titles. I know that people disagree with me on this, but I consider the N64 and the gamecube to be complete failures. Sure they sold pretty well, but they both made poor design decisions and allowed sony to take the lead. It looks like nintendo is back on the right track with the Wii, but I think anyone who gives the Cube a high rating has to be taking crazy pills. Unless you're a die hard zelda/mario fan, there really is not a good reason to get it.
I think the developers said that they'd port it to Mac if there was enough demand. They ported the first Bone game. Maybe if you Mac guys buy enough of them, they'll port everything.
It was USA only for 15 days. You can buy it from any country. Really.
This game is super-cheap. Nine bucks per episode, or you can buy the whole season (6 episodes) for 35 bucks. If you think you might like it, give it a shot. I just preordered the whole season, and I'm playing through the first episode right now. The coolest thing about it is that just about everything you do has a unique comment to it. I've been waiting for a sequel for so long. Lucasarts practically finished one, and then decided not to release it so they could come out with even more star wars crap, like lego star wars. Anyway, people have been saying that the point and click adventure game has been dying for like the last 10 years. I never thought I'd see the day where lucasarts and sierra were both not making any of them. I hope that this downloadable episode idea catches on and breathes some life into them.
I don't know too much about this stuff, but if I was making a system that I wanted to last a while, I would err on the side of more storage. Whenever a new format comes out, there are always a group of people who say that it's too big and no one will ever use it. I think there are tons of cool things that the extra space could be used for. I'm sure Square will use it to make tons of really nice HD videos for the new final fantasy. I don't know that requiring more artists is necessarily a bad thing. For example, a game could have 500 tracks of high definition audio. Musicians would kill to get their tracks bundled with games. These retro game anthologies have also been very popular lately. With the storage of Blu Ray, for example, Lucasarts could release every graphic adventure they ever produced on a single disc. This specific example might never happen, but now that developers have all this extra space to deal with, they might just start throwing in large amounts of bonus content. Think about the 100 dollar loser fanboy version of Halo 3 that comes on 4 discs. With a Blu Ray it could come on one disc. Also you might see more movie/game combinations in the future. I think sony did this on the PSP with Wipeout and that Jamie Foxx movie stealth. Just the other day I read about the guys from Oddworld doing a game and a movie at the same time. It seemed like a pretty cool idea. You might not see developers filling the space with new content right away, but they will have the freedom to include anything they want, and I don't think this is a bad thing.
Idunno man, I was pretty young when I played it, but I thought WC3 was pretty awesome, and the fact that there was video in it completely blew my mind. Another game I can remember that was like this was Gabriel Knight 2. After the series switched over to 3d it just wasn't the same. I've always sort of liked video in my games. I think it goes back to the old adventure games I used to play where if you solved a puzzle you'd be rewarded with a cool video sequence (The one that comes immediately to mind is getting the decoder ring out of the ball of twine in Sam n Max Hit the Road). There are games that overdo it, but I still think that if they're done right, they can still be pretty awesome.
So what you're saying is that if the material on the discs was coded in High Definition, which it isn't, you'd need 3 blu rays to hold it? Nice argument, but even if it were coded at high resolution you're still wrong. A 50 GB blu ray disc holds about 9 hours of high def video. Even the single layer holds 4.5 hours of video. In other words, all four of these discs could probably fit on one dual layer blu ray disc. So the "Troll" is actually correct. By the way who modded this guy up to 3?
I don't know if I agree with the idea that brand name doesn't mean much. Nintendo, for example, has a super loyal brand following do to its other brands like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc. You know that when you buy a Nintendo system even if it completely sucks(Gamecube, N64) that it will have great first party software. I have two xboxes. I refuse to buy the 360. Why? Because my friends who have PS2, which came out way before Xbox, still have new, original games to play. Microsoft will probably have the Xbox 720 coming out in 3 years or whatever. I don't care what anyone says, I still think that Sony makes nice, although pricey stuff. For someone who is interested in HD Video though, the PS3 isn't the most expensive game console, but the cheapest HD Movie player. I think that the PS3 features look great, and they're making them so slowly that they should be sold out for a really long time. Sure there could be another catastrophe, but right now if you want one by Christmas, you're going to have to pay upwards of $1000 bucks. If this thing does half of the stuff its supposed to, I'm going to buy one as soon as possible.
Both PS3's have full hdmi 1.3 output. Neither 360 does. The budget Ps3 has the same size hard drive as the premium xbox. As far as the lack of memory card slots go, I don't think anyone knows whether or not an external reader will be released, but if there is demand, i'm sure it's something that they could hook up through one of those USB ports. The premium system has 60 gb more hd, wifi, and the reader. The "nerfed" system is for people who don't want those features. Calling the 360 comparable to either system is a joke. The crummy ps3 is "comparable" to the premium 360 with HD-DVD drive. The comparison you should be making is that the "nerfed" PS3 has the same features as the "premium" 360, and also comes with wifi, a wireless controller, a high def media drive, a card reader, and free network gaming. Whether that is worth 200 dollars to you or not probably depends on whether or not you have an HDTV and wireless internet in your house, but if the cheaper PS3 is nerfed, then both xbox 360's are super duper nerfed.
Blue Dragon Bundle? PFfffffffffft No one is ever going to buy a 360 in Japan. The PS3 will be outselling the 360 in Japan as soon as Sony ships enough of them there. I don't have any hard numbers for figures, but the 360 will certainly be behind the Wii in Japan at the moment of the Wii's launch, and the same might be true for the PS3 if Sony releases enough of them. I would be willing to bet that the PS2 continues to outsell the 360 in Japan for another 2 years.
I think you guys are both oversimplifying things. I'm not a big football game player, but my friends who play it do so because they prefer it to 2k6. Madden might have been losing market share to 2k6, but if i remember correctly they were selling it right when it came out for 20 bucks or something like that. In that case Madden might not have been losing market share, but the kids who bought madden might have been buying the game for 20 bucks to try it out, or they might have bought it because it was cheaper. Either way, this is not a Pepsi vs. Coke type of thing where the two products are very similar in price and quality. They are two different games that were sold at two different price points. Maybe the name Madden gave it some credibility, but NFL is pretty recognizable as well. As to your discussion of how the DS is selling better because it wasn't associated with the game boy, I do not think there is anything to support this. Do you really think it would have mattered if they called it the Gameboy DS or the Gameboy 2? I'd like to think there was a little more to it than that. Maybe the enjoyable software, the cheaper price in comparison to the PSP, or the interesting control scheme. Also, by your reasoning, if the PSP was called something else like the Sony WooHoo perhaps, it would have sold better? Bottom line is that branding does not play a huge part in decisions when competing products are very different.
Hey man easy with the stereotyping. There are plenty of brainy broads out there in pr0n. Like Thomas Pynchon's niece: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09282006/gossip/pagesi x/pagesix.htm (New York Post). Just because they're taking it in the dumper on film to make a living does not mean that they're all meth head junkies. Some are oversexed coeds from ultra liberal arts colleges who view the money as just an added bonus for what they would be doing in their spare time anyway.
When I used to write for the Cornell Daily Sun I couldn't even bring it home to show my parents because the sex columnist would be writing about how she her bum was violated by a Naval Officer on shore leave. Seriously. Then again I don't know anyone who would pay to see her in a state of undress.
12b6 being failure to state a cause of action. In other words, they have no reason to sue, and unless they have some very crafty lawyers, the case will not even go to trial.
I read the article and there are a bunch of questionable facts and calculations in it. The first is that it assumes that Sony is losing $300 or $400 a system. Seems a little high, but I guess you never know how much all this stuff costs because it's all entirely brand new. Then they multiply it by 6 million consoles. Might not happen, but whatever. The result even in the worst case scenario is that Sony loses $2.4 billion at launch. The company is worth $36 billion dollars. I don't hink a 6% drop in the value of the company would make them any juicier of a target for Microsoft. Bill Gates could buy Sony himself if he wanted to. Right now. Oh yeah, and those figures all assume that Sony doesn't sell any software, or derive any benefit from selling 6 million blu ray players.
And if you adjust your 1988 dollars for inflation, that game would cost the equivalent of roughly $130 today.
400 bucks for the complete game? Somehow I doubt it. Sony is known for pushing pricing limits, but I don't think they'd be risking one of their exclusive system sellers with a pricing scheme like that. If those values are anywhere near correct then the game itself will be completely free. I can't imagine that it won't come with at least a decent amount of tracks and cars. It would be a cool idea for that type of game, because anyone could try it out, and if you didn't like it, you'd have only wasted a few bucks, and they could support it with a million extra tracks for the people who really love it. Then again this strategy would leave people who did not have a means for hooking their PS3 to a fast internet connection in the dark, so I doubt it will be the dominant strategy.
Wow, I can't believe they cut the price that much. As far as I know, that makes the low end PS3 cheaper than the cheapest standalone HD-DVD player (and more than half the price of the cheapest Blu-Ray player). I don't know how Sony's going to do in the console wars, but it seems as though they are looking pretty good in the High Def wars.
I try to keep up on this stuff as much as I can, but it is starting to get impossible. It was my understanding that component cables top out at 1080i. I am not sure that DVI can do 1080p, does anyone know about this? I am sure that HDMI can. I thought that HD-DVD barely had enough storage to put out a 1080i signal, and that they still haven't implemented 1080p. Is the HD-DVD peripheral going to include support for this? There is a cable to convert HDMI to DVI, like the one Sony includes in their Blu Ray laptops, but i did not know of any device that can do the opposite. I thought that eventually the movie studios were going to insist that everything be done through HDMI and anyone who was trying to play High Def discs through DVI were going to be SOL and would have to resort to a lower resolution. Are new Xbox360 games going to support this, or are they just going to have the hardware upscale or de-interlace everything? I also heard that Microsoft will be selling the HD-DVD attachment for 200 bucks, and that it most certainly will not be able to be used for games. Paying $600 for a PS3 doesn't seem like so much money if you take into account how much you are going to have to pay 2 years down the line for a frankenbox with all sorts of dongles hanging off of it to get the same functionality. Blu Ray will have won the High def battle the instant the PS3 launches. I'd be loath to buy one of these attachments only to have to buy a Blu Ray attachment next year. People may argue that this thing will catch on, but I think it's still all too confusing. People know if they buy the PS3, they are well positioned to take advantage of our glorious HD future. The 360 still has so many questionmarks involved. If someone would please let me know if I got any facts wrong I'd appreciate it. I'm doing my best to understand the differences between these two formats and I'm still confused as hell.
"With the major "Buying Force" spending $50,000 on cars and buying $450,000 homes, I doubt price is the overall reason to buy or not to buy Apple products." To continue with your analogy, the fact that I can afford a $50,000 car does not mean that I will be willing to spend $2000 for a computer with $1000 worth of components in in it. There is something to be said for paying for luxury, but I don't consider the Mac OS to be luxurious enough to justify its price. "But the "Buying Force" knows when you want something nice, your going to pay for it." Well I am not the "Buying Force," but when I am about to buy something, I usually take into account what I want to do with that something, and then try and find the cheapest thing i can buy that does that thing. In the case of Apple, which doesn't really add any comfort for me, I am not willing to pay a ton of extra money for hardware, and a ton of extra money software to do the same thing. "Anyway.....it's all based on what the Market will Bare...." I don't know what the deal is with all the extra capitalization, is that some sort of pun (bare means naked), but that is quite true, there are a bunch of people who buy Apple and like Apple, and that is fine, but price is a reason not to buy Apple, and is perhaps why the market will only bear a user base of roughly 5%. The people who love Apple and are willing to pay for it, and the people who work in jobs where Apples are superior. While I agree with most posters that the .02 percent shift is not very significant, I think the main reason that Apple's market share is either stagnant or growing slowly, or whatever, is that it is strictly a luxury brand. Computers are beginning to be so frequently used that even poor people (gasp) are starting to buy them. Office Depot was just selling a computer for $100 or something like that. For people who are not able to buy $50,000 cars, Apple is going to remain far out of reach.
Thanks, I just priced it out on the small business website and the Dell came in 1300 dollars cheaper. I don't love Dells or anything, and you certainly do get some extra value with an Apple, but I would still love to see an apple that is cheaper than a dell, I'd buy it in a second.
I priced this out on the Dell Home site and it didn't even come close to being true. Unless the Dell Home Site offers a $1000 discount that they don't offer to businesses and the Apple Business site offers a $1000 discount that Apple Home doesn't offer, then you are completely off with your figures. I am almost certain you are comparing a 3.7Ghz Dell to a 3.0Ghz Apple. Will someone please provide price points and specs for this exceptional case of an Apple being cheaper than a comparable anything? Last time I checked even Sony made less expensive stuff.
I was sort of shocked when I read this as well. Can you fellas be a little more specific with exactly what you configured? I just looked at Dell's website and I can't even find a 3.0Ghz single processor configuration. Maybe it's because I'm looking on the home site and not the small business site or somesuch confusing thing that is typical of Dell. I also noticed that the Dell workstations go up to 3.7 Ghz and the Apples only go up to 3.0. Is it possible that you are comparing Apples to Oranges? Right now I am comparing a dual 3.0 Ghz Apple Workstation with a Terabyte of hard drive 4 GB of ram and the best videocard to a comparable dell excepting the fact that the Dell has 3.2Ghz processors because i couldn't configure it like that. The Dell is $4,500 and the Apple is $6,649. Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that you're comparing a 3.7Ghz dell setup to a 3.0Ghz Apple setup.
Hey buddy, if you can figure out a way to cure diseases using gaming hardware without connecting them to the internet, let me know. What do you want it to do, burn the results on a cd and print you out a mailing label for it? I think that many people have wireless internet wherever they are doing their gaming and won't need one of these cat-5 cables you are talking about. There are others who will split their broadband to supply both their computer and their ps3. I'd say that considering that PS3 is incorporating free online gaming into the system, that people with 600 bucks to spend on a system are probably serious enough about technology that they have broadband internet, and might even know how to use wireless internet that the "subset" you are talking about is probably going to be around 90% of the early adopters. Sure, it's not going to be everyone who uses it, but I don't consider the fact that it requires an internet to be as much of a hindrance as you seem to.
I agree completely. It is most certainly not the source media's fault. When HD formats are discussed, uninformed journalists often make the comment that the current picture can't get any better because there is not enough information in the source material or somesuch nonsense. Movies currently are, and always have been created to be shown on a gigantic movie screen. It is at a way higher resolution than even the highest HD displays. Some people might argue that HD is not that much better looking, and they might have an argument, especially on smaller screens, but that is a different argument entirely. Obviously in older movies there may be the issue of damaged film, but as far as I can tell all the movies released are relatively new. It seems pretty obvious that something is being lost between the source media and the end display. Whether it has to do with bad transfers, bad compression, bad players, or crummy televisions is up for debate, but it is most certainly not from the source media. There have also been reports that samsung messed something up with their initial player, which seems to me to be a little more plausible than the original film from a movie made in the last decade or so not being clear enough.