I'm a PC gamer. I own a PS3. I pay for live.
I hate having to pay for the service, I wish it was free, but I do appreciate that of all 3 platforms, it is actually the best service (PC is sort of better in some respects, but doesn't have anything like cross-game chat or profiles, although there are ways around that). Does the best service mean it's worth even $30 a year? I dunno, I begrudge paying it but I definitely get my monies worth.
A SUBSCRIPTION usually implies that you've SUBSCRIBED to it, you know.
There IS actually a way to get DX10 and DX11 running under XP. It's called using the "reference" driver that comes with the SDK. It'll work and give you full support for everything DX11 does....at about 2FPS on a 16-core machine.
Complaining about Star Ocean? What about MGS4? IF I want to go back and play a certain area, I have to INSTALL that chapter again!
I'll take disk swapping over that, easily.
Microsoft doesn't make any money from Blu-ray sales, but for them to add support to windows "out of the box", they'd have to pay a license for every single copy of windows. Why would they do this for a format that only about 2% (at the most) of users are going to have on their computers?
Especially since chances are anyone with a BR drive already has a license for software to play it, either from the box the drive came in or the OEM they bought their computer from.
All t...
Why would it? THe only reason MS picked DVD as a format was because at the time both HD-DVD and Blu-ray hadn't got off the ground. The drive would have been slow and expensive, so at the time it was a valid toss up between the two.
The PS3 is still seen as being the "expensive" console, purely due to the BR drive and we all know the installs are a pain - and that came out a full year after the 360 did.
By the time the next console generation swoops over us, BR drives wil...
Developers aren't getting used to the CELL, they're getting used to Parallel programming.
Or maybe the market has changed a little? You know, economic recession and all that...
Darkseider, if there's one thing Microsoft is VERY good at, it's making money. Right now, the economy is in a bit of a mess and although I'd take this article with more than a pinch of salt (The site is a relative to the Inquirer - a site notorious for blatantly making stuff up), it does actually make a lot of sense to do a move like this and doesn't indicate a "dying" console, it just indicates that right now, there's no need to have 3 different versions of it.
Uhh guys, CELL isn't "exotic" because it's different than normal processors (it's based on PPC for a start), it's "exotic" because there's 7 SPUs. It doesn't matter if those SPUs are CELL or x86 or whatever, the complicatedness of them stems from the fact that there's 7 of them and that's hard to take advantage of IN A GAME.
The "in a game" is the key part there. Look at Folding@home, that takes full advantage of the CELL because it's easy to make those cal...
This is all rumour and speculation. Obviously Intel would love to get larrabe into a console, it pretty much means they can ramp up production and make them MUCH cheaper to produce - which gives them a nice way into the discreet GPU market for PC's.
However, although it's an interesting piece of kit, by the time the next console generation begins, both AMD and nVidia will have similar technology inside all their GPU's. In fact, you can already run programs on all of their cards r...
Yes they would. They complained when the PS2 was around and what competition did that have before the GC and Xbox came out? The Dreamcast? Pfft!
Developers are the most important people for a console's success. In the past, consoles have completely failed due to lack of developer support. I'm sorry, but it takes more than 1st party titles to make a console survive - just look at the Dreamcast, it had a great lineup of first-party titles, but EA practically single-handedly killed it by not supporting it.
Take a leaf from the 360 - sure, it might not be as powerful as the PS3, but it's got oodles of developer support. Treat...
Actually Call of Duty was both a patch and DLC and the next map pack is going to be the same (With the exception that the Map pack will cost you).
Montreafart, there's 3 times as many PS3s than 360s in Japan, if a major title didn't shift more units on the PS3 as another major title shifted units on the 360, something is TERRIBLY wrong.
The 360 is selling like 10x as much in Japan as it was a couple of years ago, it's still not beating the PS3 or the Wii, but it's a hell of an improvement.
It depends entirely what they do with it. Remember the early 90's? Nintendo had Mario and Sega had Sonic, at the time they were both company's trumph cards, but now look at it - Mario is bigger than ever, but Sonic is now synonymous with "bad game".
Halo Wars isn't made by Bungie and it seems to be doing fine. They'll just pass the torch on to someone else.
Nothing is stopping them releasing the additional content as a DLC pack as well as a patch. Look at Call of Duty: WaW - they released a new map for it and on PS3, it was part of the mandatory patch, but on the 360 it was an additional download. Other games have done similar things, I just can't remember which games off hand.
MS is definitely very arsey on "free" DLC, but enough games have it, so there's no reason why Epic couldn't do the same here.
No, size isn't an issue, MS doesn't have a size limit on DLC (Look at the lost and the damned). The issue is still with Microsoft, but it's because they don't allow mod support easily on the 360. It doesn't make sense for Epic to do the 360 patch since half of the content is on the 360 and the other half would have to be 360 specific, but since the PS3 and PC versions likely use a lot of the same data structures (After all, they're cross-platform play enabled), chances are Epic can just do th...
It'll be a great game no matter what console it comes out on.
Unless it's the Wii.