Godmars290: "THe only difference is depth", really? You managed to brush that one off pretty well, that's like saying the only difference between Doom and Halo is "Depth" because one is 2D and one is 3D. Depth, particularly in this instance, makes a HELL of a difference. And yes, it has been demonstrated, Burnout Paradise had players controlling acceleration by moving their foot forward and backward. Eyetoy couldn't do that. What's more, Natal tracks specific points in 3D ...
What are you on about? The titles are irrelevant, the technology behind them is what's completely different. Natal has TWO cameras and uses infrared to track targets, the eyetoy uses one camera and uses differential contrast to track "differences". Natal has completely different applications than the eyetoy ever had.
I remember playing (and loving) Mechwarrior 2 on the PS1. Haven't played any of the PC versions, but I might just jump on MW4 since it's going to be free soon. This excites me, I love big smashy robots and Armored Core has been boring lately.
It takes more than 6 months to build and release a decent game. Microsoft, if they have any sense, wont want to just release it whenever, they'll want to have stuff to show it off with. Unless Rare or Lionhead has some secret project that's near completion, I don't think we'll see it this year.
Calling Natal "Microsoft's eyetoy" is analogous to calling the Space Shuttle "NASA's Bottle Rocket". Completely different technologies.
Some countries use a . where we use a ,. If you look, the original article is in German.
I read an article in GamesTM about this a couple of weeks ago (It had screenshots of the new Alien Breed and everything, so I don't know why this is such big news) but if I recall correctly, they were 360/PC exclusive for the moment. Worms 2: Armageddon certainly was.
Since none of us have actually played the game, none of us really know if the game will be better or worse of for it. Alan wake was always meant to be about the story, so if the devs themselves believe it's better without a few sandbox elements, then so be it. I don't care what they change, I'll judge the game when it gets released and if its a good game, I wont be upset that it's not the same game they proposed a few years ago.
I spent weeks blasting Alien Breed on the Amiga. Great game, but s*** hard in places. Can't wait for this!
EDIT: For you younguns that haven't played this game, there's a pretty damn good remake for the PC here: http://www.alienbreed.co.uk...
Saves you having to deal with configuring Amiga emulators.
Jump in and play b3yond!
Shotguns have nothing to do with hillbillies. But shooting cats with them? Yeah, sounds pretty redneck to me.
Windows 7 hasn't shipped yet, so why are you so surprised that no facility is running it? And I don't know what Autodesk software you're using, but 3DSMax works fine on my Windows 7 machine. Maybe you have bad ram?
And what has IE got to do with anything? Because I happen to appreciate the benefits of Windows 7, that means I'm a MS fanboy and thus like all MS products? Is that so?
All you ever do is bash Microsoft, no matter what they say or do. Quite frankly, it's sad and you're...
I don't know if I'd call them "powerful". They may have a lot of experienced staff under their wings, but as a new startup, their effect on the industry is going to be fairly minimal until they make a name for themselves.
You've clearly not used 7 very much, it's a clear successor to XP in almost every way. If you have incompatible software, it's because the software wasn't written very well in the first place. If you have incompatible hardware, it's because the hardware vendor couldn't be bothered to write a Vista-based driver, but believe it or not, many XP based drivers work on 7 as well.
Everything I've thrown at 7 has worked flawlessly for me, sometimes even better than on XP.
Greywulf, those comments belong in the OpenZone.
Why would that be funny? Or even surprising? Microsoft, as all good companies do, have a roadmap that goes years ahead. Windows 8 and Windows 9 are likely already in development, or at the very least knee-deep in the design phase. Before Vista was even released, 7 was known about, except back then it was called Blackcomb/Vienna.
No company focuses every resource on one product right up until its release without having an idea of what the next version of that product will be.
A joke SINCE XP? I'll have you know, XP is possibly the finest OS to come out of Redmond, next only to Windows 2000. Everything before that, particularly the 9x series, was bug-ridden junk.
The thing is, with all of the things you listed there, Microsoft's versions are genuinely the better ones. Sure, when you throw the cost into it, you might argue that "Free" offers more bang for buck, but side-by-side, Microsoft's software tends to have an extra feature or two that the free versions don't.
And if it IS made by Microsoft, it will be overpriced and faulty. Seriously, there's no winning in this business.
"no games look even remotely good"
That's because they're not games, they're tech demos. They're not designed to LOOK good, they're designed to show off the technology. Sony's were the same and I believe the early Wii stuff wasn't much different. The technology depends on Developers making good use of it and although you might not be able to see it, I can see a lot of possibility with this technology. It's beyond anything the Wii can do, even with WM+.