madbassman39

Dean is right, What I meant was people don't want to learn the conversion of what they know now to what it means in metric, such as what does a meter= in feet.

While I see no reason to change the date system, but you can also say today is the 21st of October, so the other way is just as valid in my opinion. Going to metric in the US won't happen, too many people refuse to learn it, even thought it is simple and makes sense.

Yeah, but how are they going to keep it out of the $500 range? Certainly blu-ray drives are cheaper and that will really help. Low to mid range HDD's remain mostly static so that probably wont change. Maybe they won't put in cutting edge graphics and CPUs and that can retain some of the cost down. I personally think they're going to cut out the optical drives and go digital now because it'll save money on the console and they'll make tons of money on the digital sales. Anyway, You can't cram a GTX 580 and a Core i7 into a PS3 for $300 or probably even $400 and even if you tried it'd be huge and have a nice big power brick to go with it. Sony being the corporate giant they are, they will build the console at a loss, just as they did on the PS3. Optical drives are very expensive, but I think, especially now on the verge of DD, they have to be very careful with what they decide to do. People aren't against digital distribution, but if the Xbox comes out with a disc drive and the PS4 doesn't, then Sony lost right then and there. There are people out there who are against DD, and will need more time to adjust to it. As far as the CPU and GPU, I'm sure they won't use the top top end stuff, and knowing how some consoles have worked in the past, they'll work up some sort of deal with the creators of the CPUs and GPUs to make it some what cheaper. Johnny says they probably wont make a whole new architecture, like they did with the PS3, but I think they will have, who ever it is creating the gpu, come in and work a custom built GPU for the system. If the deal is good, they can get some engineers to throw in some custom firm ware if the box of the PS4 says "powered by Nvidia" on the back and that is on the back of every game. Honestly, we better get used to advertisements, because that is also a way to keep down prices. Just look at how many ads are on the Xbox dashboard and the new one coming out in november seems to have more!

Yantelope, you are comparing Price, instead of Cost. Those are two very different things. Lets say you have a bag of 50 cotton balls for $10, and a bag of 100 cotton balls for $12. The price of the 100 cotton balls is more, but the cost is less. To claim that graphics cards are getting more expensive is up for interpretation. If you are talking about Price, then yes, you are paying more, but if you are talking about Cost, then no, you are paying less. If technology never got any cheaper or more expensive, then you would say that to get twice the power, you pay twice the price, if you get 10 times the power, you pay 10 times the price. So if graphics technology is not changing in price, then price = performance upgrades. To say they are getting more expensive then you are saying that the price > performance upgrade, but that is not the case. We are doing the exact opposite Price < performance upgrade. Despite the fact that $200 is $200, you are still getting more for your $200. As said before though, that is another topic completely. There's no denying it that the PS4 will be more expensive than the PS3 today, but I think it will be within the $500 - $600 range again. As for cloud gaming/on demand, I don't think people are ready for that yet. The PS4 games will all be released on the PSN the same day as the store, I'm sure, but it won't be for another generation before we go 100% Digital Distribution (which I'm going to call DD from now on). My fear with DD, and this is only limited to consoles, is the fact that if Sony decides to sell their games digitally only on their store, there is no room for competition, and no room for buying the game cheap (Searching for games on Amazon comes to mind). The only thing that will drive prices down for the DD PS(x) will be the competitive prices on the Xbox and Nintendo of that generation. You won't buy the PS(x) knowing that the games are cheaper on the competitors machines. Now with DD you may not find that the games are exclusive to the PS Store/Xbox Marketplace, but you can buy codes at other retailers, and that is how it should be. You see the PC will never have the issue with DD because you have different options on the PC, even today we see that we have Steam, GoG, Windows games Live, Origin, and Onlive (I'm sure there are more, but I can't remember them), but with the PS(x) we will be faced with only one service to download the games from.

You also have to count in inflation. Its not enough to make all the difference, but the rate that the dollar dropped it makes the difference less. Then you have to count in how much more power are you getting out of a card vs how much more the card is worth. If a card today is twice as powerful as a card from 5 years ago, but only costs 25% more today than the other one, then the value of the power is 4 times cheaper today. 100% increase for a 25% price increase is 4/1 power per dollar ratio. These numbers aren't exact, but as you can see by P4's statement 3100/300= 1003% power increase vs. a negative increase in price. In pure math statistics, the price of technology is vastly decreasing, more than 4 times the price. That is P4's point. Sure as a whole the card may be more expensive, but when you calculate a performance rating versus a dollar rating, then you are getting more performance per dollar, ergo, technology is getting cheaper.

I don't mean the name is bad, just that the name is now associated (with the web savvy crowd) with terrible performance. And yes, many people still use it, mostly because its the web browser that comes with their computer. My parents never used chrome or FF, and stuck with IE, until I installed Chrome on their computer when I was computerless for a month. They now refuse to use IE because the performance on chrome was much better for them. This, of course, was during IE7's time, so it was only natural that anything and everything was better.

Not to mention the fact that AI will be tremendously improved, each with the ability to have their own set of animations, the ability to have boost performance, not just graphics but also frame-rate, physics will be improved, the number of characters on screen, the ability to have worlds as realized as skyrim is, but with multiple players on screen with no drop in graphics/performance. The change will be pretty large between new games and current games. I am willing to bet the difference in performance (not graphics, but just ingame performance) will be equal or maybe even greater than what we saw from last gen to this gen.

I just upgraded my IE to 9 just to see how it is. Its... bitter. I love chrome because of how quick it launches and loads up my home page, IE still takes a long time to load up, and not to mention how long it takes for the browser open a new tab. Sure its not the longest and is reasonably quicker than what it used to be, but not as quick as Chrome. Still a lot of improvements and a lot of good ideas. I think even if Microsoft makes a competent browser, people will still not use it if it has the Internet Explorer name. I'm surprised Microsoft has stuck with the name as its now a browser you avoid even if it improves vastly.

Not defending Warner in no way, BUT the proper way to fix this fuck up, would be to give it away to everybody. Chalk it up as a loss and just let everybody get the new copy download, until they can confirm that they no longer have games without the codes on store shelves. It was stupid to begin with, but now, its just gotten from stupid to downright "WTF!"

I only care because I like to see games do well, and this marketing seems to be hurting battlefield.

My boss at work uses the new internet explorer (what ever number its on now) and I gotta say, I was impressed. Not enough to leave chrome, but enough to say "hey, maybe i'll update my IE on my computer"

I read a comment on that article which I agreed with 100%. The reviewers are reviewing the game as new, not as a used game. Should they make a mention of it in the review? Absolutely, but it in no way affects the new game, as it only affects the used game. If the DLC is included in the new game, then it is to be reviewed as part of the game as a whole. The writer (what ever the commentor's name is) then says it affects the owners of new games, and I have no idea how it affects owners of new games. This whole used game thing has me sitting on the fence. Buying a used game is unlike a used vehicle, because, even with a used car, the maker of the car still has a chance you will buy parts that are necessary to run the vehicle from them if they go bad (and every car needs parts replaced, its part of maintenance). Having said that, the online pass/new game codes/whatever are stupid, and shouldn't be in there, what these developers need to do is make DLC that is worth having, and sell that to all users, allowing used gamers to buy something from the creators allowing them to make good money. Expansion packs come to mind. I chose not to buy used games because frankly buying a game used is worth more than saving $5, and around me, that's all you'll save. I wait a little longer, search for deals and end up buying a game a few weeks (or in some cases pre-order the game) cheaper than I can buy it used. Alas, thats another discussion for another topic, just a rant.

I can't wait!

the questionnaire, to me, doesn't scream "manipulating reviews" as much as "We want to make sure you don't automatically hate battlefield when you review it." Still, I guess that is manipulating reviews, just a different level of manipulation, and its still very un-ethical. I feel really bad for Dice, they are great developers, and are only being hurt by EA's aggressive, and stupid, marketing machine. Why can't they make a good game, and a bunch of non-anti-CoD advertisements and sell it as a Battlefield game, and not a Call of Duty killer. But, if they did that, they wouldn't be able to sell as many copies as they want because there are people (and trust me, being in college I know a lot of them) who will buy the CoD game blindly and wont even look at what Battlefield has to offer, because its NOT Call of Duty.

Well then, it seems that, from my understanding, that I am a bit wrong about the facts. Thanks for clearing that up Also, my bad for copyright instead of trademark. It seems that Zenimax wanted something more out of it than what I had originally understood

From what I understand is that Bethesda didn't go after notch because they didn't like his name, they did it because they needed to protect the name leaving legal grounds because in the US if they chose not to do it, and someone makes a game called "The Older Scrolls" and Bethesda takes them to court they will bring up the Notch game "Scrolls" and say "you did not pursue them, so there fore you are picking and choosing which games to take to court." Its such BS, but its how our legal system works, you have to lay down the grounds of protecting your name at any moment, even if you lose, which we all hoped and figured it would, because if you don't you are setting a legal precedent saying that you don't care as much. That is why the legal system in America is... so loopy. You have to protect every copyright you own at all times, even if it is just silly.

I guess this is continuity, but I hate that they changed Link to be right handed instead of left handed. I know the reasons why, because of the wii, but I still don't like it. Having not played any major Zelda titles (Season on the GBC was the only game I played), I don't know much about link, but being left handed was one of his very notice-able traits that made him unique

I had Oblivion on my old gaming PC, years ago, and the mods were really awesome. After that computer died and I switched over to laptops for school, I got it on the PS3, and I didn't miss the mods as much as I thought I would. When they are available, there is no other way to play, but when they aren't its actually a pretty good game on its own.

I won't be playing with the mods... Xbox version.

gee thanks Dean, now I pre-ordered it from amazon and am playing oblivion!