I'm guessing that Bill Gates went to meet with Rockstar to talk about exclusive content for GTA4 then $50 million dollars fell out of his pocket when he sat down and he didn't notice. They didn't want to give I back so...
Pure speculation ;)
Chances are good that, assuming it's like previous GTAs, the amount of time I want to spend playing GTA4 will be less than the amount of time it will take me to complete all the missions that are in the game in the first place so DLC doesn't even enter into my decision as to which console I want to get it for.
The fact that I'm used to playing them on Dual Shock controllers and I don't want to pay for possible online play, however, do.
EA making a console seems like a crazy stupid idea. Look at the time that software giant Microsoft has had getting into the hardware space - it took them what, around 7 years to see a quarter in the black? I think it would be even more difficult for EA.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically being way out in front of a market, i.e. releasing a year early, hasn't payed off in the long run - Sega learned this the hard way, repeatedly. At the moment it seems like the 360 has started to lose it's luster a bit and the PS3 is starting to come into it's own.
I don't think it looks real, or that it is an improvement over the current PS store from a visual or usability perspective.
I did buy Okami and I didn't really feel that, gameplay-wise, it lived up to all critical acclaim it got. It definitely has a unique style, particularly in the art-direction - I just didn't find the gameplay or story compelling enough to make me keep playing it. My wife loves Zelda games (I like them too) and she put a lot more time into Okami - she really likes games that let you explore interesting worlds, but ultimately she didn't finish it either.
Gameplay looks pretty impressive. Was it just me or was the enemy AI not so hot? Destructibility looks fun - like playing Mercenaries.
It's not out for the PS3 yet.
The 20 gig size makes me wary downloading anything that I have to pay for - I just can't help thinking that I'll run out of space.
Got the demo last night - I enjoyed it. Really short though. Played it through twice.
I'm not sure how to pronounce that asterisk.
Weird - I would have thought a Microsoft exec. would say that the PS3 is the best. Pshh..
;P
I gotta go set up a Japanese account.
What really bugs me is that they have promised to "not break the web" - and how they have decided to do this is to have IE8 render like IE7 does by default. Except that Beta 1 DOESN'T - it doesn't render like IE7 at all. So what they are doing is releasing this Beta to developers expecting us to recode our sites to work for IE8, then when the final version is released the default rendering will CHANGE back to IE7. Seems like that's more likely to cause problems than not.
Acid2 merely tests a browsers capability to render HTML and, more importantly, CSS correctly. I don't know what the problem is with Live Mail, but there is certainly a lot more to having a web app function properly than how it renders the page. If I had to guess at why Acid2 renders correctly and other pages do not I would say that it's most likely down to the fact that pretty much any site that wants IE6 and IE7 to render correctly includes various exceptions, hacks, and work-arounds - any ...
Yeah - Firefox has serious memory issues. But there's hope - they are actually focusing on improving specifically that for version 3. The thing that makes Firefox so cool is the same thing that holds it back technically - it's open-sourcey-ness. People would generally spend their time making occasionally cool, mostly useless extensions and themes than to actually fix major problems <cough>OS X font rendering</cough> like memory management.
Actually the new meta element is meant to be opt-IN so that existing sites needn't change their code in order to have their sites continue to render correctly. In the Beta 1 this is not the case - they have instead included the "Emulate IE7" switch (which should go away in the Release version) so that you can test for both IE7 and IE8 with one install (if only they'd let me test 6 as well without another computer, bastards).
Further reading - all from A List Apart:
If only that were true - IEs market share (sadly) is still well more than double that of Firefox. Firefox was able to get a foot in the door when Microsoft, after achieving more than 90% market share with IE6 decided that IE6 was the de facto gateway to the internet and ceased development on it. After Firefox ate 20% of the market directly from IE6 Microsoft decided they had better do something, and quick. This led to the travesty know as IE7. Basically the developers wanted to make what has ...
IE8 will be available for XP - it just won't be as shiny.
I think people use agree/disagree not necessarily to say whether or not your opinion is valid, but to state whether or not they feel the same way.
For example: If you said "I like Pizza" I might click agree. I don't mean that I believe that you like pizza - I mean that I too like pizza.
But that's just my opinion :)