bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
Sydde
Mar 14, 08:39 PM
As for the divine wind bit...
It was a historical allusion.
It was a historical allusion.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
Black94TSi
Jun 19, 05:54 PM
Well with all my dropped calls on 3g I just decided to switch over to EDGE. Ever since I clicked 3g off, I have yet to drop a call. I do however get the random pauses/cut outs but never a dropped call.
This works for me at my house because I have wifi here. But it gets annoying having to always switch it over when I'm outside of my area. Wish there was an app that would work like a widget and you can just click it for 3g or EDGE without opening up 3 different windows.
This works for me at my house because I have wifi here. But it gets annoying having to always switch it over when I'm outside of my area. Wish there was an app that would work like a widget and you can just click it for 3g or EDGE without opening up 3 different windows.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base....People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
Eraserhead
Mar 26, 03:05 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:47 PM
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 03:31 PM
Just like Mac OS X would gain market share if you could install it on any PC.
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
AppliedVisual
Oct 11, 06:22 PM
Hmph... I haven't been to the Dell forums in a while or I probably wouldv'e seen that. Oh, well. Already ordered my other 30" display the other day, I'm not going to complain. :cool:
Shasterball
May 5, 10:45 AM
Eh, who needs voice? Who uses their phone as a "phone" anyway? ;)
elbirth
Oct 25, 04:08 PM
Just noticed Apple has added 750GB HDs to the Mac Pro configure page recently. Only a few weeks left 'til the Dual Clovertown Mac Pros ship.
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Yeah, I saw someone talking earlier about the addition of the 750GB drives... this gives me a new dilemma of deciding between 2 drives. I suppose price will be my deciding factor overall... I just want my 8 cores!
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Yeah, I saw someone talking earlier about the addition of the 750GB drives... this gives me a new dilemma of deciding between 2 drives. I suppose price will be my deciding factor overall... I just want my 8 cores!
Gelfin
Mar 26, 12:59 AM
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 06:46 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 10:57 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
rasmasyean
Apr 23, 02:11 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I depends on where you are at and what company you are in. Your "immediate culture" plays a large factor in how you are "accepted into society". It's no different from nerds vs jocks in adolescence. People are people. For example,
It's hard to "admit being an atheist" in the rural areas.
It's easier to admit it being an atheist in the big cities.
It's hard to admit being an atheist among working class folk.
It's easy to admit being an atheist among college students and higher class folk.
It's hard to admit being atheist among white and latino ppl.
It's easy to admit being atheist among Asian ppl.
When you're always surrounded by ppl of a particular culture that is majority religious, you will think that "atheists" are closet freaks. Just like how "gays" are stereotyped to be. But that's not true everywhere. And there are many ppl who say "there is no god", but personally I find that it's usually younger ppl. A lot of ppl with higher education also would say this, but they are very careful, because when you are "mature", you are also wary about respecting other ppl's beliefs around you so they are careful not to say it to a religious person. Because it might insult them...as many religous ppl are also implicitly taught to HATE others who are not like them.
vniow
Jul 14, 02:13 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:28 PM
SO-DIMM, yes. FB-DIMM, no.
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
That's a pricey chip. You're not going to see killer single thread performance but multitasking would be insane.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 07:58 PM
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
Yahweh uses stone tablets.
Allah uses an abacus.
Buddha uses food.
Yes, and leaders, not followers, use Macs.
:p
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
Yahweh uses stone tablets.
Allah uses an abacus.
Buddha uses food.
Yes, and leaders, not followers, use Macs.
:p
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
slu
Oct 7, 04:06 PM
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:24 AM
danielwsmithee is right.
At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.
At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.
mixel
Apr 10, 10:36 AM
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
mojohanna
Apr 14, 05:32 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
cmd ~ gets you the cycle between windows.
cmd ~ gets you the cycle between windows.
No comments:
Post a Comment