Oh, of course! How could I have not seen it before?! All this time that I've been driving cars with great gas mileage, I've only been stifling progress! I can't believe how stupid I was--if only I hadn't been conserving fuel...
They should have warned me! They could have said, "Oh no, not another Prius owner! Why can't you just drive a 5 mpg Hummer like a normal person? Conserving your fuel? You're outright MAD!! What good could it possibly do to save fuel?"...
The problem with that is it's so selfish. It might be to my benefit to kill you and take all your possessions, yet I'm not going to do it, because I actually care about people other than myself. And I'm worse off for having "conserved" your life.
Erm, that was announced at or before E3. All Gates said is that they were looking into other options for the future of the console. With regard to limiting software to to regular DVDs, I fail to see why that's a problem. When was the last time you bought a game that was near the full capacity of a DVD9? And if they needed the extra space, two discs would not be a big deal. There have been plenty of great games that came on two CDs. Final Fantasy 7, Final Fantasy 8, and Skies of Arcadia, just to name a few. Nobody considered that a "bad" thing, though..
Every 360 game will fit on a regular DVD, so you'd be set for games. How many of your current games get anywhere *near* 9 gigs? As for movies, there isn't even a winner between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, so would it really make sense for Microsoft to spend the extra cash and include the drive?
Re:don't pay for xbox Live (xbl) to play xbox onli
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
He was specifically referring to Xbox Live when he said online access, so I just followed suit. Yes, our broadband bill is more expensive than dial-up. Sorry for making that clearer.
With regard to the broadband issue though, by requiring broadband, Live is able to integrate voice chat into every game without lag. Yes, it's a pain for dial-up users. Until recently we didn't have broadband in my area. Now that I've got it, though, I'm grateful for the experience I have.
Maybe Live should have a dial-up service also? Arcade games and the like wouldn't require much more. Granted, it's impossible due to the Xbox hardware, but I'm just saying.. That would be one possible alternative. Now that I've played it this way, though, there's no way I'd want dial-up users lagging up my games.
I think another problem is that people forget the other things that Live offers besides just playing games. The simple fact that most of my games now are Live Aware is a big deal. I can be playing Chaos Theory, my buddy can send me an invite to Halo, and I still receive it. It's a great feature, among many others.
Re:don't pay for xbox Live (xbl) to play xbox onli
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
First of all, we don't pay $60 per game, and we don't pay $6 per month for online access. Right now we pay $50 per game and $50 per year (~$4 per month) for online access. It's not a big difference, but it adds up. And it shows that you're exaggerating the price for some reason.
Your nephew plays online against hundreds of others on Halo 2? 381,267 played Halo 2 on Live within the last 24 hours. You can't realistically compare those numbers. GameSpy Tunnel, XBConnect, or XLink (my box is modded--I've tried them all) simply don't provide the same experience that Live does, neither in volume of players or quality of gaming sessions.
Just the same, ~$4 per month is only a 1/3 of the amount people pay for WoW, so which makes more sense? With Live, I can play many, many more games for my money. Compared in that regard, it's a pretty good deal--which is why Microsoft has over 1,000,000 subscribers.
Why pay, when others give it away for free?
That's only a good argument when the free alternative provides the same features and experience, or close to.
It is equivalent to looking at a dead rape victim and telling her family, "Well, she should not have worn a pretty dress today. She was asking to get raped, and by God she deserved it! That poor rapist had no other choice than to do what he did."
Yes, that would be a horrible thing to say. At the same time, it's naive to believe that certain women aren't more likely to be raped than others. No woman ever deserves to be raped or has it coming to her. However, there are times when you could say it wouldn't surprise you as much. Maybe it was the people she hung out, or maybe it was the way she dressed.
Walking down back alleys of Chicago late at night, you really are more likely to be mugged than if you're in your home in the country. Does that mean you deserved it? No, but you could have taken steps to prevent it.
Um, he hadn't done those things since we won the Gulf War. That's the problem.
Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.
I was calling him evil before 9/11... Don't give me that shit about keeping the attacks from happening for 4 years. He didn't keep 9/11 from happening. Strangely enough, after the one attack that did happen, we invade Iraq, the one country in the area without connections to Al Qaeda.
Well said. The idea that IBM is trying to help Indian workers is ludicrous. But even if that was its intent, that's no excuse to lay off Western workers.
Yes, it takes me about 5 minutes. Yes, I'm assuming I know exactly what extension I'm looking for. Uh, I did say, "the 5 minutes it takes for me to install the 15 or so extensions I use."
The average end-user doesn't need the extra functionality of Opera (or the extensions of Firefox to provide that functionality). Internet Explorer's continuing popularity is proof of that. The fact that you say "first they must look for a feature that they desire, if they even know" is proof of that.
Would average users probably prefer some of Opera's in-built features? Yeah. But to the average person, $40 isn't worth it. I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of Opera's users are "new" computer/internet users. I'd bet they're the ones still content with IE.
That's a weak analogy, and over-exaggerations are just stupid. Firefox works and in many cases works better than Opera.
His argument was that it was easier to just download and install one program that had every feature rather than downloading Firefox and installing extensions to support them.
My point was it's also $40, which isn't worth the 5 minutes it takes for me to install the 15 or so extensions I use. $40 is a decent chunk of change for software that I can find a free alternative for.
Well you called him a child for not wanting ads in his browser or while he's browsing, as if there was no other way for it to be.
Neither of us had a 'big moral issue' with it. You went on about how he's a child and didn't understand 'how things work in the real world'. After that you basically said why Opera isn't free. His point was that he could browse for free without ads, so he does it. I still don't see how that makes him a child.
audacity of Opera forcing ads upon you unless you pay to get rid of them... while posting on Slashdot... which has the exact same policy and model... hahahaha the cluephone rings for thee...
I run Adblock in conjunction with Firefox. I don't see the ads, which was our point from the beginning. Pretty much makes your point moot. Either way, though, there's no/. alternative without ads. There is an Opera alternative without ads. That was the point from the beginning. Who's the "cluephone" ringing for now?
Yeah, I don't know why I don't spend hours racking my brain at super tough mind teasers like those that Final Fantasy and Zelda present. Did you know they're actually considered good for the mind? Start your kids playing Zelda at birth, and they'll be geniuses! Sports games just turn them into zombies!
I've got to say, if you consider any videogame anything but mindless, I feel rather sorry for you. Do you really fall that far into the fantasy Mario or Metroid worlds? Yes, many games require more thought than others, but to consider them anything more than games is a little ridiculous.
As far as sports go, I did play them when I was in high school and I do so now with friends, but I'm a big enough fan of sports that I still like to 'play' them when I'm not out on the field. Nope, not all of us are good enough to make it at the college level, especially when you're going to a Big 10 school. No, I didn't have a good chance at making the Illinois bball team this year, but I did have season tickets. And when I went home after the games, I'd play a couple games of ESPN College Hoops.
I do also admit that FPSs are better suited for PC, but all my friends can't necessarily afford a video card to run Doom 3 (or what have you) when it costs more than the price of an Xbox and Halo 2 combined.
As far as many Xbox games being on PC, it's true. That's one of the benefits (for the developers) of Xbox games.. The architecture is so similar to a typical PC (hell, it's name is from the words DirectX and box..) that, yeah, it's easy to port them.
but they also created a new market toward older gamers
I guess admitting the GameCube is targeted at a younger market pretty much strengthens my belief that I made the right choice. No, I'm not 12 years old.
why would you want to use a console controller to play a game like that?
Primarily because I like the idea of starting up the box and being able to instantly jump into a 16-player game with players of similar skill who all have good, broadband connections and voice technology. I don't know, I guess that's silly of me.
In the end the Xbox outsold the GameCube in the US. I guess that's pretty sad considering it's an alternative to the PC, an already established and dominant market compared to the Xbox. From what you're saying, the GameCube didn't really even have any competition. You'd think they'd have sold a few more units under those circumstances, especially since they had more 3rd party support.
(Obviously Japan is a different story, but even Microsoft knows they shot themselves in the foot with the size of the Xbox and its controller and by not attracting Japanese developers. My point is still relevant about the US, though.)
I actually have to agree with the idea that Microsoft is going to have a lot of work to do. Like you said, the fact that the Xbox was powerful pushed a lot of consoles.
I do disagree with a few things you said, though. First, I don't think Microsoft's market rests on those numbers alone. They had decent lineup of exclusive games, themselves. Halo, PGR, Ninja Gaiden, Splinter Cell (originally exlusive; similar to GTA), Morrowind, KoTOR, Jade Empire, Forza, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, etc. That's not to say the PS2 or NGC couldn't counter those examples, but the fact remains that those games do exist.
Also, I find it hard to believe that you think Halo 3 would not be looked at as much of a killer app. I think the reviews speak for themselves. Halo 2's campaign was a disappointment, but it's clear it was designed as a multiplayer game to begin with, and it was very successful as one.
You also can't just dismiss Live. Sure, 2 million users really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but having an established technology and community is nothing to blow off--especially with some of the upgrades Microsoft is planning.
Lastly, I definitely disagree that the GameCube is superior in quality, much less 'extremely' superior. Being as sports, FPS, and '3rd person action' (think Ninja Gaiden) are my preferred console genres, I found the GameCube to be extremely lacking (if for no other reason than that the controller was not suited for them). Of course, I've also played and loved every one of the games I listed earlier on my box, with the exception of HL2 (own it for PC and it's great. who act like it's not major that it's exclusive for Xbox?). While yes, GameCube does have its own line of exclusive games, I prefer those listed to Zelda (the new one looks hot as shit, but the last one just wasn't my style), Mario, etc.
It really all comes down to a matter of personal preference, and in the current generation I prefer the Xbox. I honestly feel unconfortable playing with a GameCube controller. It feels too small for me--I actually prefer the original Xbox controller to the controller s, and I realize that puts me in the minority. Like I said, it's a matter of preference. I think the Xbox is a great console, from the power to the inclusion of ethernet and a hard drive. From everything I'm seeing, though, it looks like the PS3 will likely be my choice for the next generation. I only hope that controller feels better than it looks like it does..
"Blu-ray technology guarantees the highest graphic quality"
Yeah, because that makes a lot of sense. What does higher capacity discs have to do with quality? Sure, if current games were using all 9.5 gigs of a dual-layered DVD, that might be true. They're not, however, so it doesn't make much sense.
I don't understand why you have to exaggerate when the PS3's merits stand on their own. 2x+? No. They had a nice shiny graph in their presentation that said 2.18 to 1.15 teraflops. I'm not denying it's impressive. The numbers definitely speak for themselves. But it's less that twice as powerful (albeit very close), not more than.
Also, I don't understand why everybody takes the numbers so seriously. Yes, granted, it does say something when you're almost twice as powerful. But the original Xbox is the most powerful of the current-gen consoles, and it didn't really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, of course! How could I have not seen it before?! All this time that I've been driving cars with great gas mileage, I've only been stifling progress! I can't believe how stupid I was--if only I hadn't been conserving fuel...
...
They should have warned me! They could have said, "Oh no, not another Prius owner! Why can't you just drive a 5 mpg Hummer like a normal person? Conserving your fuel? You're outright MAD!! What good could it possibly do to save fuel?"
Yeah that really doesn't make any sense.
The problem with that is it's so selfish. It might be to my benefit to kill you and take all your possessions, yet I'm not going to do it, because I actually care about people other than myself. And I'm worse off for having "conserved" your life.
Because it worked for Sony with the PS2, and most people have short memories.. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's got to be the reason.
Erm, that was announced at or before E3. All Gates said is that they were looking into other options for the future of the console. With regard to limiting software to to regular DVDs, I fail to see why that's a problem. When was the last time you bought a game that was near the full capacity of a DVD9? And if they needed the extra space, two discs would not be a big deal. There have been plenty of great games that came on two CDs. Final Fantasy 7, Final Fantasy 8, and Skies of Arcadia, just to name a few. Nobody considered that a "bad" thing, though..
Every 360 game will fit on a regular DVD, so you'd be set for games. How many of your current games get anywhere *near* 9 gigs? As for movies, there isn't even a winner between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, so would it really make sense for Microsoft to spend the extra cash and include the drive?
He was specifically referring to Xbox Live when he said online access, so I just followed suit. Yes, our broadband bill is more expensive than dial-up. Sorry for making that clearer.
With regard to the broadband issue though, by requiring broadband, Live is able to integrate voice chat into every game without lag. Yes, it's a pain for dial-up users. Until recently we didn't have broadband in my area. Now that I've got it, though, I'm grateful for the experience I have.
Maybe Live should have a dial-up service also? Arcade games and the like wouldn't require much more. Granted, it's impossible due to the Xbox hardware, but I'm just saying.. That would be one possible alternative. Now that I've played it this way, though, there's no way I'd want dial-up users lagging up my games.
I think another problem is that people forget the other things that Live offers besides just playing games. The simple fact that most of my games now are Live Aware is a big deal. I can be playing Chaos Theory, my buddy can send me an invite to Halo, and I still receive it. It's a great feature, among many others.
First of all, we don't pay $60 per game, and we don't pay $6 per month for online access. Right now we pay $50 per game and $50 per year (~$4 per month) for online access. It's not a big difference, but it adds up. And it shows that you're exaggerating the price for some reason.
Your nephew plays online against hundreds of others on Halo 2? 381,267 played Halo 2 on Live within the last 24 hours. You can't realistically compare those numbers. GameSpy Tunnel, XBConnect, or XLink (my box is modded--I've tried them all) simply don't provide the same experience that Live does, neither in volume of players or quality of gaming sessions.
Just the same, ~$4 per month is only a 1/3 of the amount people pay for WoW, so which makes more sense? With Live, I can play many, many more games for my money. Compared in that regard, it's a pretty good deal--which is why Microsoft has over 1,000,000 subscribers.
Why pay, when others give it away for free?
That's only a good argument when the free alternative provides the same features and experience, or close to.
It is equivalent to looking at a dead rape victim and telling her family, "Well, she should not have worn a pretty dress today. She was asking to get raped, and by God she deserved it! That poor rapist had no other choice than to do what he did."
Yes, that would be a horrible thing to say. At the same time, it's naive to believe that certain women aren't more likely to be raped than others. No woman ever deserves to be raped or has it coming to her. However, there are times when you could say it wouldn't surprise you as much. Maybe it was the people she hung out, or maybe it was the way she dressed.
Walking down back alleys of Chicago late at night, you really are more likely to be mugged than if you're in your home in the country. Does that mean you deserved it? No, but you could have taken steps to prevent it.
Well said.
Um, he hadn't done those things since we won the Gulf War. That's the problem.
Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.
I was calling him evil before 9/11... Don't give me that shit about keeping the attacks from happening for 4 years. He didn't keep 9/11 from happening. Strangely enough, after the one attack that did happen, we invade Iraq, the one country in the area without connections to Al Qaeda.
I can grow tomatoes, carrots, strawberries, etc in my backyard, but I don't.
Well said. The idea that IBM is trying to help Indian workers is ludicrous. But even if that was its intent, that's no excuse to lay off Western workers.
Haha. Run out of arguments, huh? I just can't believe I wasted my time with you.
Yes, it takes me about 5 minutes. Yes, I'm assuming I know exactly what extension I'm looking for. Uh, I did say, "the 5 minutes it takes for me to install the 15 or so extensions I use."
The average end-user doesn't need the extra functionality of Opera (or the extensions of Firefox to provide that functionality). Internet Explorer's continuing popularity is proof of that. The fact that you say "first they must look for a feature that they desire, if they even know" is proof of that.
Would average users probably prefer some of Opera's in-built features? Yeah. But to the average person, $40 isn't worth it. I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of Opera's users are "new" computer/internet users. I'd bet they're the ones still content with IE.
That's a weak analogy, and over-exaggerations are just stupid. Firefox works and in many cases works better than Opera.
His argument was that it was easier to just download and install one program that had every feature rather than downloading Firefox and installing extensions to support them.
My point was it's also $40, which isn't worth the 5 minutes it takes for me to install the 15 or so extensions I use. $40 is a decent chunk of change for software that I can find a free alternative for.
I never claimed otherwise
/. alternative without ads. There is an Opera alternative without ads. That was the point from the beginning. Who's the "cluephone" ringing for now?
Well you called him a child for not wanting ads in his browser or while he's browsing, as if there was no other way for it to be.
Neither of us had a 'big moral issue' with it. You went on about how he's a child and didn't understand 'how things work in the real world'. After that you basically said why Opera isn't free. His point was that he could browse for free without ads, so he does it. I still don't see how that makes him a child.
audacity of Opera forcing ads upon you unless you pay to get rid of them... while posting on Slashdot... which has the exact same policy and model... hahahaha the cluephone rings for thee...
I run Adblock in conjunction with Firefox. I don't see the ads, which was our point from the beginning. Pretty much makes your point moot. Either way, though, there's no
I'm a child and don't understand how things work in the real world!
Yes, you certainly are. The fact of the matter is that Firefox is free and doesn't have built-in ads.
Or too cheap to pay somebody for their hard work.
Huh? He said he wasn't going to pirate the software. So he's still supposed to pay for it even though he doesn't think it's worth it?
Nobody who wasn't working for free could afford that trick.
Cry me a river... "We're charging for our product, so we can't make it better!"
Yeah now that I've read that, I think I'll go out and buy Opera. Good point.
The thing is, though, the people that don't read slashdot don't want most of these features.
all you need to do is download and install ONE program, ONCE.
Yeah, and pay for it ONCE.
Yeah, I don't know why I don't spend hours racking my brain at super tough mind teasers like those that Final Fantasy and Zelda present. Did you know they're actually considered good for the mind? Start your kids playing Zelda at birth, and they'll be geniuses! Sports games just turn them into zombies!
I've got to say, if you consider any videogame anything but mindless, I feel rather sorry for you. Do you really fall that far into the fantasy Mario or Metroid worlds? Yes, many games require more thought than others, but to consider them anything more than games is a little ridiculous.
As far as sports go, I did play them when I was in high school and I do so now with friends, but I'm a big enough fan of sports that I still like to 'play' them when I'm not out on the field. Nope, not all of us are good enough to make it at the college level, especially when you're going to a Big 10 school. No, I didn't have a good chance at making the Illinois bball team this year, but I did have season tickets. And when I went home after the games, I'd play a couple games of ESPN College Hoops.
I do also admit that FPSs are better suited for PC, but all my friends can't necessarily afford a video card to run Doom 3 (or what have you) when it costs more than the price of an Xbox and Halo 2 combined.
As far as many Xbox games being on PC, it's true. That's one of the benefits (for the developers) of Xbox games.. The architecture is so similar to a typical PC (hell, it's name is from the words DirectX and box..) that, yeah, it's easy to port them.
but they also created a new market toward older gamers
I guess admitting the GameCube is targeted at a younger market pretty much strengthens my belief that I made the right choice. No, I'm not 12 years old.
why would you want to use a console controller to play a game like that?
Primarily because I like the idea of starting up the box and being able to instantly jump into a 16-player game with players of similar skill who all have good, broadband connections and voice technology. I don't know, I guess that's silly of me.
In the end the Xbox outsold the GameCube in the US. I guess that's pretty sad considering it's an alternative to the PC, an already established and dominant market compared to the Xbox. From what you're saying, the GameCube didn't really even have any competition. You'd think they'd have sold a few more units under those circumstances, especially since they had more 3rd party support.
(Obviously Japan is a different story, but even Microsoft knows they shot themselves in the foot with the size of the Xbox and its controller and by not attracting Japanese developers. My point is still relevant about the US, though.)
I actually have to agree with the idea that Microsoft is going to have a lot of work to do. Like you said, the fact that the Xbox was powerful pushed a lot of consoles.
I do disagree with a few things you said, though. First, I don't think Microsoft's market rests on those numbers alone. They had decent lineup of exclusive games, themselves. Halo, PGR, Ninja Gaiden, Splinter Cell (originally exlusive; similar to GTA), Morrowind, KoTOR, Jade Empire, Forza, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, etc. That's not to say the PS2 or NGC couldn't counter those examples, but the fact remains that those games do exist.
Also, I find it hard to believe that you think Halo 3 would not be looked at as much of a killer app. I think the reviews speak for themselves. Halo 2's campaign was a disappointment, but it's clear it was designed as a multiplayer game to begin with, and it was very successful as one.
You also can't just dismiss Live. Sure, 2 million users really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but having an established technology and community is nothing to blow off--especially with some of the upgrades Microsoft is planning.
Lastly, I definitely disagree that the GameCube is superior in quality, much less 'extremely' superior. Being as sports, FPS, and '3rd person action' (think Ninja Gaiden) are my preferred console genres, I found the GameCube to be extremely lacking (if for no other reason than that the controller was not suited for them). Of course, I've also played and loved every one of the games I listed earlier on my box, with the exception of HL2 (own it for PC and it's great. who act like it's not major that it's exclusive for Xbox?). While yes, GameCube does have its own line of exclusive games, I prefer those listed to Zelda (the new one looks hot as shit, but the last one just wasn't my style), Mario, etc.
It really all comes down to a matter of personal preference, and in the current generation I prefer the Xbox. I honestly feel unconfortable playing with a GameCube controller. It feels too small for me--I actually prefer the original Xbox controller to the controller s, and I realize that puts me in the minority. Like I said, it's a matter of preference. I think the Xbox is a great console, from the power to the inclusion of ethernet and a hard drive. From everything I'm seeing, though, it looks like the PS3 will likely be my choice for the next generation. I only hope that controller feels better than it looks like it does..
"Blu-ray technology guarantees the highest graphic quality"
Yeah, because that makes a lot of sense. What does higher capacity discs have to do with quality? Sure, if current games were using all 9.5 gigs of a dual-layered DVD, that might be true. They're not, however, so it doesn't make much sense.
Haha, if only the Xbox controllers could have been treated the same way... Those were judged harshly the moment the public saw them.
I don't understand why you have to exaggerate when the PS3's merits stand on their own. 2x+? No. They had a nice shiny graph in their presentation that said 2.18 to 1.15 teraflops. I'm not denying it's impressive. The numbers definitely speak for themselves. But it's less that twice as powerful (albeit very close), not more than.
Also, I don't understand why everybody takes the numbers so seriously. Yes, granted, it does say something when you're almost twice as powerful. But the original Xbox is the most powerful of the current-gen consoles, and it didn't really matter.