I wonder if this was spurred on by the fact that 360 backwards compatibility hamstrung their ability to profit from a lazy port of RDR being sold at a full $60 on other platforms. Best just remove people’s ability to buy anything from that generation in case it happens again.
It will cost 3 times as much, make the entire old library of games obsolete, only allow you to buy games from Apple, and have a strange controller that their marketing tells you is better but everyone knows is objectively worse.
I hope they find a way to make my SSD replaceable, because based on what I know it's not possible because of how it's married to the CPU and motherboard with a security key you can't copy to a new drive.
What grinds my gears with all the people (whether Denuvo officials or elsewhere) that claim that it has no effect on performance: they only focus on average FPS. Never a consideration for FPS lows or FPS time spent on frames that took more than N milliseconds. Definitely not any look at loading times.
I’m willing to believe a good implementation of Denuvo has a negligible impact on average FPS. I think every time I saw anyone test loading times though, it had a clear and consistent negative impact. I’ve never seen anyone check FPS lows (or similar) but with the way Denuvo works I expect it’s similar.
Performance is more than average framerate and they hide behind a veil of pretending that it is the totality of all performance metrics.
Sega had a chance to hold on to enough market dominance to remain as the third console player even after this, but then their fate was sealed at the very instant they decided to put a CD-ROM drive in the Dreamcast instead of a DVD drive.
Dreamcast was released at a bad time, DVD components were still expensive so if they’d included a DVD drive it would have provided some future-proofing, but the console would have been even more expensive than it already was
The lack of a DVD drive isn’t what killed the Dreamcast. I’d argue that the nail in the Dreamcast’s coffin was when software piracy on the platform became trivial.
There is no way they could have put a DVD drive and the necessary playback hardware in the Dreamcast and still sold it for a price people would pay in 1998. Standalone DVD players still cost $600-$1,000 back then. The argument should be that Sega launched the Dreamcast too early, but they were in dire straits and needed to replace the Saturn sooner than later. I’m not convinced they had much choice.
I think the PS2’s success is a lot more complex than “it was a DVD player and a game console in one”. The PS2 also benefitted from the massive amount of momentum built on the PS1, backwards compatibility, a better controller, and much faster hardware.
I was in my early 20s when the Dreamcast came out. The discussions online and amongst people I knew had a lot to say about the DC and PS2. Storage never once came up that often
It was always polygons. Sega was saying 3M (highly detailed and textured ones) and Sony was saying 66 or some ridiculous shit.
People were just waiting on it
Yes, by the time the PS2 came out DVDs were getting bigger and that definitely pushed a ton of people to get one as their first DVD player, since most were still over $200 so the ps2 was nearly free (fun point, that’s how I convinced the lady I needed a ps3 in 2012)
But really it’s about the marketing and PS2 hype. No one knew the Saturn existed, and it’s largely due to everyone forgetting about them after the complete disaster that the Saturn was in the US
That’s how alot of these discoveries seem like. Partly it’s just science reporting hyping up anything that happens, but then for many of these astronomical discoveries, it’s just a couple of pixels on a screen. And then somehow they can infer all sorts of things about it based on that. It’s just mind-blowing to think of all the data they can get from that about stars that are millions of light years away.
I would like to understand how they infer these things without becoming a science major. Is it just math equations based on what they think is the distance to the planet and then more math based on what they think the atmosphere is, and so on? Because they can’t actually see the planet.
I can’t explain this one, but I’d like to offer some other identifiers used. When searching for likely planets, they observe stars for wobble in their position. Large planets like jupiter and Saturn have some hefty pull on our own star. The common orbital point between them, called the barycenter, is still inside the sun, but their great distance apart pulls that barycenter closer to the edge of the sun. Our sun has a pretty notable wobble as a result. That’s the kind of thing they look for elsewhere. If there’s no other star causing the wobble in a binary system, then it must be a planet pulling it.
By estimating the mass of the star by various observations of color, brightness, and brightness variation, they can do some “easy” algebra to calculate the size of the affecting planet. From there, they can scan for radiation frequencies in the darkness where they think a planet is sitting. Water has a frequency, hydrogen has a frequency, oxygen has a frequency, helium, etc. By stuffing objects close to home, we can extrapolate that info and apply it to further objects with some confidence. This is how organic compounds were discovered in Venus’ atmosphere.
A lot of it is based on what we have at home, meaning we’re largely looking for what we have and then identifying it as the same. There is uncertainty about some details, but that’s how it always goes with science. It’s always being updated. It’s takes a lot of creativity to imagine what else might be out there and to devise how to look for it. Black holes are a pretty notable example. Since they’re not observable directly, what do you look for? Well, you look for other things being eaten and hope the matter is hot enough to throw a lot of radiation. 80 years ago, they were just an idea. Now we have images of a few galactic-center black holes. Some have been observed free floating through space by distorting the apparent position of stars behind it. Do we absolutely know it was a black hole? No, but that’s what solid theories can identify it as given the darkness and huge mass required to cause that kind of effect. But, as a result, estimates for dark and cold objects vary greatly because they’re the hardest to observe. There’s talk of finding more “hot jupiters” than expected, but it’s totally valid that maybe wevre just missing the cold Jupiter’s because they’re hard to see.
Really hoped that Fermi Paradox would realize that “flare clicking” is stupid and would switch to deckbuilding mechanism, but the dev is not a fan of deckbuilders.
arstechnica.com
Ważne