Zeromaru

In Newfoundland it's an all-day holiday. Nothing short of hospitals are open.

I finally got my hands on the Mirror's Edge demo last night (damn Live Silver restrictions). Put my pre-order on the game today (it doesn't come out in Canada until Wednesday due to tomorrow being Remembrance Day).

I can't remember the last time I wanted a game so badly.

I just played through a couple, and so far they're pretty good.

Sony actually did pay to keep Grand Theft Auto III/Vice City/San Andreas PS2-exclusive for 6 months minimum after release though.

Microsoft definitely didn't for FFXIII. Sure, some bucks may have been passed so they could announce it at their press conference, but it would've been stupid for Square to keep it PS3-only. Simply because they're putting a small country's GNP into it and the PS3 just doesn't have the user-base to justify the cost (which is why the 360 version won't see a release in Japan - it doesn't have the userbase to justify publishing there). And don't go bother mentioning MGS4 - Sony definitely paid for that one (evidenced by the MGS4 bundle).

Also don't bother arguing back, as you missed my point like... well, I can't even come up with an appropriate analogy. My point was that they ALL pay for exclusivity, and that some developers AREN'T doing it anymore. I didn't say anything about companies paying for non-exclusivity, which doesn't really make sense: bringing a product designed for a competitor's platform to your own in addition to theirs will only serve to bring increased sales from entirely new customers: a very small demographic for high-profile games in existing series. And even then it will only bring sales if your platform has some point to make it more worthwhile than the other (and in the case of FFXIII, any customer planning it but doesn't already have a PS3/360 is more likely to get a PS3 as Final Fantasy is a previously-Playstation-only franchise). Microsoft paying for FFXIII to be multiplatform makes no sense. Square making FFXIII multiplatform makes complete sense.

Microsoft definitely didn't for FFXIII. Sure, some bucks may have been passed so they could announce it at their press conference, but it would've been stupid for Square to keep it PS3-only. Simply because they're putting a small country's GNP into it and the PS3 just doesn't have the user-base to justify the cost (which is why the 360 version won't see a release in Japan - it doesn't have the userbase to justify publishing there). And don't go bother mentioning MGS4 - Sony definitely paid for that one (evidenced by the MGS4 bundle).

Also don't bother arguing back, as you missed my point like... well, I can't even come up with an appropriate analogy. My point was that they ALL pay for exclusivity, and that some developers AREN'T doing it anymore. I didn't say anything about companies paying for non-exclusivity, which doesn't really make sense: bringing a product designed for a competitor's platform to your own in addition to theirs will only serve to bring increased sales from entirely new customers: a very small demographic for high-profile games in existing series. And even then it will only bring sales if your platform has some point to make it more worthwhile than the other (and in the case of FFXIII, any customer planning it but doesn't already have a PS3/360 is more likely to get a PS3 as Final Fantasy is a previously-Playstation-only franchise). Microsoft paying for FFXIII to be multiplatform makes no sense. Square making FFXIII multiplatform makes complete sense.

Yeah, really though, Sony has never paid for exclusivity, not even for GTA.

... oh wait, they did.

Buying exclusivity is bad for the economy, but good for business. At least, good for business of the company buying the exclusivity. Which is why a number of developers are refusing it (look at Devil May Cry 4, Final Fantasy XIII), because they're more likely to get more money multi-platform than the cash a company will give them for bought exclusivity.

Oh that is bull... I can't download it because I'm no longer a Gold subscriber. I deactivated my paid account because I never played any games online, which was supposed to be the only feature Gold people get.

Windows in Boot Camp will probably pick this up as the "Hybrid SLI" tech and swap on the fly as Dweeby said.

As for the time required to log out/in again, considering one would be using the discrete card for heavier applications - gaming, 2D/3D graphics, video editing, etc - it's unlikely to be running multiple programs at once, save small-footprint programs like iChat or Mail, which take mere seconds to start up.

Oh, I wasn't referring to the screen size, just the touch. Touch-based interfaces, though more natural, aren't a replacement for a mouse and it's no small task appending a touch-based interface to a mouse-based system. Just go to any Best Buy or Futureshop and look at those touchscreen all-in-one Windows PCs and see just how badly they're done, but they also the best that can be done. Every time I try to use one, it takes me twenty tries just to close a program.

That being said, Apple's best bet to compete against netbooks is to load it with iPhone OS (perhaps with a little more Mac features, like a mouse driver, iWork, Terminal, and unsigned apps). It's actually #1 on my wishlist of non-existing Apple products.