@RockNRollz said:

These things are 20km in the sky, to shoot one down you would need some pretty expensive technology to aim and hit on target.

Until they have to come down, sure. Unless they make a system where they will always be able to come down somewhere safe and secure, they'll have to come down eventually, and it's more likely that they come down in a place with poor security than in a place where there aren't any guys running around in Toyotas with rifles looking to make some money.

I was just joking, of course, but these things don't just poof up into the air and then stay there.

@SSully said:

@MordeaniisChaos: Why wouldn't you want that many balloons in the sky if they are providing a good service for the world?

The same reason I don't want junk orbiting our planet?

@grorc said:

@MordeaniisChaos: @RockNRollz There is maybe 5 countries on the planet that would be able to shoot one of these balloons down, correct me if I am wrong but aren't there already thousands of balloons such as these floating around? Almost 1,000 weather and science stations around the world release balloons multiple times a day. You wouldnt be able to see them, and they are re-usable and they bring enlightenment to the world.

Jeez, I make one little joke and everyone takes me seriously.

I just want one of those on my desk or something, that's awesome.

The problem is that most places without a significant internet presence would probably shoot the things down and sell the gear inside or something. Also, I don't want thousands of balloons in the sky.

@will What was the latency like on the Kinect? That was the big thing they were emphasising at the announcement, but we haven't really seen any real world demonstrations (or at least I haven't) of that hardware.

@WrenchNinja said:

@MordeaniisChaos said:

I really cannot wait for E3 to pass. So much whining from people who before the Xbox's reveal were doing nothing but whining about discs and shit. As soon as anyone tries to move away from them and towards a digital future, out come the whiners. Oh well, at least I have a podcast to entertain me while I level in Neverwinter.

Something funny about people whining about whiners. People want ownership over the things they buy. They don't want to be restricted by online check ups from Big Brother. They don't want to be watched by a camera in their living room constantly. How is any of this anything anyone would want from "The Future"? How is removing options and imposing restrictions "the future"? It's pretty easy to see why someone would not want the xbone even if there is something as neat as discless gaming (which is already possible now), or download game sharing (which is also already possible now). But hey, continue to whine about whining, meanwhile...boy that PS4 and Wii U sure looks pretty cool.

Yeah, because those things totally suck on Steam. No wait, I still greatly prefer steam over current console markets. Even though I can't sell games (I like to support devs and publishers, big surprise, right?)

And I didn't say there weren't reasons not to want the Xbone. I just said I was fucking tired of people whining on the internet because those people have far fewer good reasons to be pissy about this stuff. The games looked awesome at the MS conference, much more often than they did at the Sony conference, so I'm going to go where the games are. But of course everyone that said "They need to show more games!" immediately switched from "I'm picking PS4 for the games! Because they care about me as a gamer!" to "eh, who cares about the games, I care about the extraneous elements of the console that obviously won't impact my experience because I have already spent the last week posting daily about how much I hate having to always have internet!"

I'm fine with people having criticism, my issue is that everyone is just shitting all over Microsoft because someone on the internet started whining and now it's just a circle jerk of "der, fuck MS they have shit games and shit policies and shit."

The only issue i have with the Xbone is how short the always online thing is. And the funny thing about it is that it only exists because they are letting you do some pretty crazy things like let family play your games and spreading XBL Gold features to the whole console instead of just the one account, etc. People ignore the fact that the always online thing only exists because of very positive features. Wanna let your friend borrow a game so he/she can know if they want to buy it for themselves? Not only will you be able to do that, but you won't have to give up your access while you do it. Want to show your brother how cool the new game you got is? He can totally play it. You think that kind of stuff comes for free? Fuck no. Just like Sony said about now requiring a fee for multiplayer: you need to invest in something to make it good. You have to give something up for other things. And not being able to basically get your money back on a game just because you feel entitled to free money is a small price to pay.

Selling used games? You go right ahead and say "I don't think developers have the right to prevent other's from profiting from the work they put into creating a property" and then you can talk about how used games are the savior of the free world, despite the fact that the PC gaming industry is growing strong without them. Otherwise, you just seem like a hypocrite to me. You can't have it both ways. Either you're supporting the industry, or not. The argument that "well it keeps the money in the industry!" or "Well it gets people to buy sequels new!" is total bullshit. First of all, all of that money goes into the profit dumpsters at GameStop. How many people do you really know in the real world selling their games to their buddies or on Ebay? Probably not many compared to the people that trade their games in for $5 at the local Gamestop. That's what the used market supports. A retail outlet that no one particularly likes for any reason other than "that's where I can buy games." Second of all, most people I know who buy used games, keep buying used games. They don't do it because they "might not like it" they do it because "they want to spend less money."

That's why Steam was so successful. That's why iTunes and the App Store are so successful. Because of the direct nature of those transactions, they have bigger margins, and can afford to lower the prices. This point was made very well during last night's Giant Bomb after hours podcast, where an indie was talking about the benefits of being digital, and how they were able to be much more efficient and sound as a business, which lets them be more "indie" about the games they want to make, because they don't have nearly as many shitty things eating into their profit margins.

This is why I think most of the people whining about the used games bullshit are doing it from a place of naive ignorance, rather than an actual position. They don't consider the business realities, they don't consider the other markets that have shown they are wrong about used games being "essential" and that in fact eliminating them gives developers the freedom to escape "the man" because of the margins. It's why those guys love PSN. Sony works really well with their indies in ways that make the business aspect of making a game much easier, and provide them with a means to go as directly as possible to the consumers, short of putting up their own website and releasing a little PC game (which will likely not get nearly as much exposure, which is why Steam opening up to smaller Indie games is so cool for those guys).

Mostly, I'm tired of all of the negativity, the incessant whining during what should be an awesome and exciting time, and a bunch of people blowing things completely out of proportion because they want to act enraged about things that won't even impact them. There were great games shown across all of the press conferences, and all anyone gives a flying fuck about right now seems to be in the "shit we whine about until we all pull a MW2 boycotter move and buy the fucker anyway because hey that Remedy game looks awesome and sounds like a perfect fit for their considerable talent."

If you care so much about selling someone else's work because you're a cheap bastard that you won't buy an Xbone, fine. That's okay. You're a cheap bastard, and you don't have to buy the thing. That doesn't mean it's a totally shitty platform. It just means it's catering to different people with different needs, expectations, and priorities. Just like the PS4 had very little to show other than multiplatform/Indie games at their conference, showing their focus. I'd be surprised if you could remember one big announcement that wasn't at the PS4 announcement event, multiplatform, or an existing franchise. All I can remember from Sony off of the top of my head was the spectacularly (and apparently real time!) "The Order."

So if the cost of not having the same level of DRM that the Xbone has is a lack of what Sony usually excels at: diverse exclusives, I'd say I'd rather get an Xbone. Because we care about the games, remember? Except when it's convenient to continue our shit throwing session. Then we care about not games.

I really cannot wait for E3 to pass. So much whining from people who before the Xbox's reveal were doing nothing but whining about discs and shit. As soon as anyone tries to move away from them and towards a digital future, out come the whiners. Oh well, at least I have a podcast to entertain me while I level in Neverwinter.

I really like the head on those sticks. Taking the best part of the PS3 sticks and adding the great lip that the 360 ones had. I really hate that the 360 and Xbone sticks are inset though, I feel like that introduces a lot of issues with long play sessions, especially when you're just holding the left stick forward for 99% of your playtime, because the only way to really do that is to press on the edge of the disc rather than the top of the disk. Not really sure how to put it, but I think these look really comfy and a good mixture of both worlds. Other than that, I think the Xbone is still going to have a better controller, but it's really nice to see this is feeling so much better than the PS3's controller.

Hopefully I don't need to tape weights to these ones v.v

@TheHBK: Christ, I just looked at some breakdown shots of that thing, that is kind of crazy.

@h37s3m said:

im extremely skeptical of this new mac pro. it puts people completely at the mercy of apple for any kind of upgrade/expansion. but then again thunderbolt can do great things

i also have a hard time believing that heat and noise wont be an issue with everything that powerful crammed into such a tiny body. i saw nothing wrong with the form factor of the mac pros as much as i saw a genuine need for a significant refresh

I dunno, remember that PC build with Lloyd they did? That tiny case ran a top of the line Titan build no problem.

That seems like a lot of power (and therefore money) to spend on video editing, christ.

$500 is, when you adjust for inflation, actually a better value than the launch price for the 360, isn't it? And that's with a Kinect. $500 isn't that much. Now, the overseas price is a bit rough, but that's not the market they focus on so it's not a huge surprise. But here in the states? $500 to get away from my shitty Comcast cable box to get a gaming console that seems to have a more interesting lineup of game and features that set it apart in multiplatform games, and has what will hopefully be very sharp kinect features for the UI? Yeah, that's worth an extra day and a half of work for me.

Anyone else surprised that people are sucking up to Sony for not showing games but having a slightly lower price point? Seriously, the only game that was PS4 exclusive that they showed at the conference that interested me was The Order. Which was little more than a teaser. And it took them how long to get to the PS4 games being shown? And they spent how much time on, oh right, TV movies and music... but the idiots of the internet will always go for the "fuck a creator's right to protect their creation!" route when it's available. Ah well, I'm sure this thing will do quite well despite the internet. Had a hell of alot more interesting games at the conference to be sure. And from the publisher shows, it looks like they might be taking Xbox's side (especially EA) or at least getting a little cozier.

Hell, the Xbox conference was great and had very few hitches. It'll still be called total shit, while the Sony one, which was boring for half of it, then slightly more interesting for the rest of it, having many, many technical issues (including significant performance and freezing in gameplay demos across multiple games), and all of this means that, right, it's a way better console, and conference, yadda yadda. Man, I was all ready for Sony to come out fighting, but they've already got their head swollen from not having DRM than they forgot about THE BLOODY GAMES. Oh and they failed to prove how PS+ would stay competitive with XBLG, which is getting some pretty interesting, gaming relevant features. Like more free games per month than + and all of that global matchmaking stuff which is really smart. And the Xbone actually gave me a few reasons to believe in Smartglass, especially the Battlefield commander stuff.

@Falcon said:

I'm surprised there's no headset bundled in. And there's some weird proprietary connection on the bottom now, right? Ugh.

There's the Kinect mic, which worked fine in the past and I believe has been significantly improved when it comes to reducing room noise, so they don't really need it, do they?

But man, EA and Ubisoft really had the good stuff, so I guess everyone'll be happy no matter what, assuming you don't want to play The Directive on the PC (which I VERY much suspect I will, sadly :( oh well).

@RustySpoon said:

The idea that somehow, a game is something to be bought, traded, sold, etc is a bit bizarre to me.

The idea that you equate games as something transcendent to nearly every other consumer good ever produced is bizarre to me. What makes a game any different than the car I purchased last year? I didn't have a hand in it's creation, either. Am I scumbag if I sell it? If not, why is it any different?

There are a number of differences. For one, cars aren't exactly easy to just keep around or get rid of. For another, they are hugely expensive. And, many people sell and buy cars with dealerships. A car is an investment and a necessity for many, and having a car means maintaining it, repairing it, caring for it, and just generally spending money on it. A car will continue to be serviced by people who know what they are doing, continue to receive replacement parts, etc. It continues to feed that industry as it is used and even passed on.

It's also the difference between $15-60 and $5-20,000 (or more!). Almost anyone in this country can afford a video game occasionally. Most only buy cars ever several years. Hell, until recently, my parents only had cars older than me in the driveway.

On top of that, a car isn't entertainment content, and comparing them as the same is pretty silly. As silly as you think I'm being. I'm willing to accept my perspective is different from other, but I want to see if anyone can really convince me why you deserve money for something you put nothing into but money. A car, you care for, or you pay someone else to care for. Speaking of my parents' cars, they recently sold their old Honda, which was something like 20 years old, and had to be maintained that whole time, for $500 to go towards a new car. That's a paltry sum for something they put thousands of dollars into just feeding gas, let alone maintaining, repairing, licensing, insuring, etc.

Another point: a disc can easily be recycled. A car can not. The easiest way to get rid of a car is to drop it in the woods and beat it with bats until you've satisfied your inner child. A car isn't a quarter of an ounce, it's a very large and complex item. Comparing them is a bit silly.

@darkdragonsoul99 said:

I don't know why does everyone think they can sell things that they own ?

I don't sell my games I've never sold my games I've got shelves full of them for a reason but games are no different then anything else you buy once you buy them they are yours to do with as you please period.

I understand that legally, that is how it is. But just because a law exists doesn't make it right. Gays used to be unable to serve openly in the military, doesn't mean that was right.

I think the idea of treating any purchase of an item as exactly the same is a bit odd, I guess. I believe in supporting ecosystems, rather than consumers, because ultimately that's the true road to pro-consumer measures. The more we put into the industry, the more they have to return. And by return I mean they can produce higher quality items and content for us, they can produce more niche items and content, and they get more direct feedback on what they should NOT do (ie those silly online passes).

My point is this: why should someone else be paid for your hard work, just because they bought access to it? You may own the disc, but that disc does not give you ownership of the code. It is, in a roundabout sort of way, like a movie ticket. Yes, you have a physical item, but the physical item is not the thing you paid for, really. You paid for the content. Selling access to that content after you've used it seems odd to me. The idea that that is a right that all people should have just seems off. I'd be pretty pissed off if I did a bunch of work, and then some other guy got paid for that work without doing any of his own.

My issue is pretty simple: What is is about that content that you believe you deserve basically a rebate for? And why are people complaining about the failure of little games and putting it entirely on the shoulders of advertising being lacking (which is absolutely a fair point, but it's only a part of the equation), rather than looking at the number of people who buy games, especially mid tier games, used from scummy businesses like Gamestop?

@Firethorne said:

@Artso: I saw this quote from Microsoft on Neowin today:

In our role as a game publisher, Microsoft Studios will enable you to give your games to friends or trade in your Xbox One games at participating retailers. Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up businessterms or transfer fees with retailers. Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this. In addition, third party publishers can enable you to give games to friends. Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners.

So, that sounds like it will be entirely up to the publisher on if the game supports it or if there will be a fee. Microsoft, as a game publisher, will support it. It is unclear what fees Microsoft will have for their own games. It says they don't make money off third party fees, but it appears this language still gives them plenty of room to put fees on the things they publish.

I think that is a good middle ground. I do believe that used games could have a place in the world: look at older games that aren't available any other way. And people like Jeff who are crazy and have huge game collections. I wouldn't mind too much if, in the process of getting a couple bucks from gamestop, Gamestop had to give half of the profits to the people who actually made the damned game. That helps support the industry directly (none of this "I bought this game used, and liked it so I bought the sequel new!" crap. You could have bought them both new, but instead you fed the jerks over at Gamestop), and allows people to have the option to sell off their old games.

@Firethorne said:

You end by saying you don't want a legal arguments, but that is exactly what this is. They do have a right to do so, as upheld by the Supreme Court. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Do you feel the same way about books? Someone who owns a copy book can sell it, burn it, or give it away for free.

The same supreme court that has yet to give me the full rights of a straight man? Hah. Sorry if I have a bit of trouble seeing that as a reason something is entirely right.

There's more to the issue than pure legality. I'm not asking if people have the right, I'm asking why the hell they should.

And I do believe people should buy books new, so long as that money goes to the original author, at least in some part. Beyond that, I could care less. It's not easy to be a successful writer, and I bet stuff like the Self publication on Kindle has been awesome for small writers because it makes it much easier to get direct contributions and cuts down on people passing your books around, etc.

Books are a bit weird though because I do support libraries, but I think comparing video games to books is a bit tricky. Generally I think they should follow the same rules, and I always look for new copies of books and games before I seek out used ones, unless it's something like Tolstoy, then I usually look for a used book just because the pages tend to feel better and it gives a bit of character to the book. It's not like he cares anymore. Even so, I like to support publishers so they can have more capital to spread lower down the rungs. Trickle down economics may not work in the entire economy, but within an ecosystem and within this context I believe it absolutely does. I'm not saying that me buying all new is going to bring new writers onto the market, but I bet if everyone did it things would change an appreciable amount.

@YoThatLimp said:

Man, I wish cobblers were still a thing. I have size 16 EEEE feet and I can't find any decent casual shoe. I either have to go dress shoes or gym shoes (specifically only New Balance). I have heard their are people in China who will send materials to cast your foot for a few hundred dollars and then you can use that template to get custom shoes made for you but it is just an extreme bummer. If I just had one extreme or the other it would be cool, but giant wide feet are the worst.

I can sell you a really sharp knife for like, $300 that would fix that right up.

Okay, first of all, mattresses are NOT that expensive Will, and second of all of course things are more expensive. Everything is!

@gunslinger said:

This was actually a very cool feature, the most interesting part for me was the optimal surface for a mousepad. I'd always assumed something with a regular pattern was the best.

A regular pattern makes movement more difficult to see, because if you have a 1cm by 1cm grid, and then shift it 1cm in any particular direction, you end up with the exact same image. With an irregular surface, you can actually make out details moving and you'll theoretically never end up with the same image in different places.

Similar to how focusing on chain link fence can occasionally end up with you crossing your eyes in weird ways, thinking you're looking at it normally but in fact you're seeing two separate parts of the pattern overlaid, without being able to tell until some movement reveals it.

@Falcon said:

@Fish_Face_McGee: Ah. So like it needs to be re-synced with your account before giving it to another person? That makes sense.

No, like, you give it to them and it can never be transferred to anyone else. It's you giving it, not lending it. You're transferring ownership permanently.

Honestly, I would rather not have the trading and lending and family stuff, and just have used games go away entirely. I'd take Steam over retail any day. No more discs.

I feel really bad for MS. They are being torn like 4 ways. On the one hand, they have to have all of the digital distribution stuff to keep competitive with modern systems. On the other, they need to keep discs around because there are still cave people out there. On the one hand, they have to make publishers happy and help them ensure that what is basically taking advantage of lax rules can be controlled or prevented. On the other hand, gamers are whiny little brats that hate to pay full price to the people who bring them the game they like, and MS has to keep them happy too. If only they could just go all digital, and avoid all of the confusion. As nice as it is to have all of the pro-consumer features that come with the online requirement, I'd prefer to just go to a Steam-esque model. I'd gladly flag my account to not allow trading or giving or whatever, and not have discs, and just enjoy some minor benefits from that instead. Because no way am I going to let some lazy sod take my games! Glad to hear that all games will be accessible on the console as long as the account is on there. That was always annoying with XBLA games, so I assume that means that's a change we'll be seeing. Just a pain because sometimes games were weird about the order of login and stuff, and how you had to launch the game even with the right account being one of the ones logged in. I remember playing local coop Spelunky and it took us like 5 tried to get it to launch with it unlocked v.v So I assume that'll not be an issue anymore.

Generally I'm pretty against the "entitled gamer" thing that the industry likes to throw around. But all of this Xbone stuff has reminded me of the one place that I think most gamers excel in being entitled punks: used games.

Personally, I think used games are, until all new copies are spent and cannot be acquired legitimately, kind of scummy. Not just when you sell your game to Gamestop for $3.00 and they sell it for ten times that, but even when you sell or give your games to your buddies. See, I believe that respectable people pay for the things they want, and that they buy them from the source. Or as close as they can get. If possible, this means I think people should buy games directly from developers. If not that, they should buy them new from publishers. Either way, the money goes directly to the people to work on and/or fund the games we play. Which is good.

But for some reason some large part of the gaming audience has decided that, for no reason other than "whine bitch complain" that they have a right god damnit to sell their games to other people. My issue with this is that people are treating games like tables, or cars. For one, recycling a game disc is pretty easy. For another, a game isn't a physical commodity, no matter how disc based it is. I don't care if it came from a time when "DLC was "Disc-Loaded Content," you aren't paying for the physical bit, you're paying for the content. And the disc allows you infinite access to the content so long as it is cared for.

The idea that somehow, a game is something to be bought, traded, sold, etc is a bit bizarre to me. The only understandable excuse is a lack of money, and I'm of the opinion if you can't afford to support the industry directly, you shouldn't be enjoying the cool shit the industry has to offer, because if you can't afford $60 here and there, or $15 here and there, you need to work on other aspects of your life. My first job paid enough to get my own place, pay for internet, vittles, and games. And I was a bloody high school dropout. Obviously having a family, etc changes things, but you also shouldn't be buying 20 games a month at that point. You have other shit in your life, and if you can barely support your family and also afford occasional games, you should probably focus more on your income than your entertainment.

So I'm curious if anyone has an actual argument about why they have the right to sell these games, despite having no part in making them. If you've consumed the content, why do you think you have the right to sell that, get some amount of your money back, or allow someone else to not even pay for it? Why should you get money back rather than having that money go directly into the industry? Why should Gamestop (which many enthusiasts love to hate on, rightfully so, up until this issue, when they seem all too happy to defend their practices or at the very least stop condemning them) make most of their profit on the backs of gamers AND publishers/developers?

And I'm not looking for legal arguments, that's not the place I'm coming from on this.

@Falcon said:

@MordeaniisChaos: Seriously, that's what I want too.

I don't get people's attachment to the button on the taskbar. That's what I have my keyboard for. Oh and also the start menu is generally useless for me anyway, and always has been. The few things I do with it are always faster with a keystroke to go to the menu than clicking on the side of my screen (especially as I hide my taskbar). I would much rather have an extra spot for icons (especially as I keep my taskbar on the left hand side of the screen instead of the bottom).

What if I don't want a start button? Is there going to be a "no more start button" program I can use? lol.

@Bourbon_Warrior: So you still haven't said why you're entitled to not paying the people who make games for your games. If you don't want to pay full price because you're cheap or just poor, fine. Wait until the prices come down. It happens with pretty much any game that isn't released by Blizzard. There should be a trade-off for you paying less for it, and there's just no fair way to say that you deserve to save money for wanting something more than developers deserve to make money for actually doing work. Seriously, if you're that selfish that you can't bring yourself to either wait or spend an extra $10-20, it's hard not to see you as a bit of a prick. People need to be paid for their work. No matter how cheap you are, someone had to make that game. And they probably worked longer hours than 80% of the people playing their games, they probably spent weekends during crunch working constantly, and you think, that just for absolutely no reason other than "Why not" or "cause I wanna," you should have the option to just not pay for things or to provide others with a means to not pay for things? Or worse in my opinion, pay some middle man all of the fucking money for doing nothing more than exploiting a loophole. This is the industry closing that loophole. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the "games are physical and should be tradeable, sellable, and edible!" That's bullshit. It's content you consume. In the future, that'll be even more true when physical media becomes a thing of the past. Like it or not, this is where things are going, and for anyone who actually makes a job working on these things?

@eloj said:

There is currenty no good way to off-load game computation to the cloud for performance, unless you're talking about a turn-based game. Sorry, it's just marketing hype.

Not true at all. It depends on the structure of the system. Plenty of games do server side calculations for things like physics or AI when using dedicated servers. You won't be rendering the graphics or anything, but there are certainly ways to do stuff with cloud computing. If you're making this assumption just because something like OnLive doesn't work super well, you should remember that video and audio are a lot more intensive than just simple data. Harder to move quite as quickly. When you consider that something like a saved film from Halo is smaller than probably a couple of seconds of onlive gameplay, it's not hard to imagine something like that happening. Pathfinding would be a good system for it, because it's not a very latency reliant process. Generating stuff like lightmaps is another one. So yeah, there are definitely things that could be offloaded. Will it be some huge revolutionary thing? Probably not. Will it probably mostly be more in depth stat tracking or saved film style stuff? Probably. But there's no reason that things couldn't be offloaded to some extent.