Final Fantasy 11 on the 360 is, as far as I know, the only exception when it comes to requiring a hard drive. It was also the only [North American] PS2 game that required a hard drive - I remember because I was in the PS2 HD beta program.
Some 360 games do ship with "downloadable content" on disc (such as "game of the year" editions such as Fallout 3/New Vegas or Red Dead Redemption, and I've read that Forza Motorsport 3 is an example) that can't be installed without a hard drive but otherwise the base games are always playable without being installed to the hard drive.
I have no doubt that there will be more people playing tablet games than console games into the future, just like there are more people playing Facebook games than Civilization V. That does not mean, however, that home game consoles are going away, any more than "big-box" PC gaming is going away. It's not so much a shift of the gaming market as it is an expansion.
In fact, I think Mass Effect 3 could be an example of the good that could come of publisher pressure. Give a good development team a new objective and they might make something that turns out to be a pleasant surprise.
The sad thing is that it didn't really require any foresight on Sony's part to anticipate greater memory needs. PC games at the time of the PS3's design were already able to take advantage of more system RAM than they ended up putting into the PS3. It was a no-brainer that if they weren't going to allow RAM to be shared, they should have added more. Unfortunately, they were already in so deep financially that they felt they couldn't afford the increased unit cost - and in that sense they were right given how much they charged for the PS3 at launch.
I don't know if the suit can be won, but writing this off as sincere flattery is a mistake.
apple seems really bad at coming up with dpi agnostic solutions so this is what you get. of course it's a selling point on some level, even if it means more pixels to push. of course at some version they're going to have to address this, but not this year(it's rather ridiculous that you can't configure osx to be at all usable on a screen like on the ipad though!).
I think the more important factor is maintaining aspect ratio and size, at least within product lines (iPhone/Touch and iPad).
When designing an application, being able to standardize your UI elements to a fixed display size makes things easier and is friendlier to the consumer. For example, if Apple increases the size of the iPhone display at some point, then it's possible that UI elements designed for the new display could be too small for comfort on an older one.
This was a problem for my dad when he started using a home PC with Windows and he had to reduce the display resolution so that applications operating in a fixed resolution smaller than the size of the screen would be easier to see. This applied mainly to specific shareware programs he liked but it complicated his user experience in that he had to learn to adjust properties of the OS about which he should never have had to learn. In an OS with few customization options, those adjustments might not even be available to the end user.
Of course, an assault can still be a misdemeanor but there would seem to be the potential for multiple charges arising from the incident.
One final note: Can you really be called "paparazzi" if you're doing the job with an iPhone? Yeah, the cameras in them are okay but wouldn't their quality be beaten handily by even a relatively cheap, dedicated camera?
Fingerprinting is old and mature tech.
So are acupuncture, astrology, and polygraph interpretation. I wouldn't put a lot of stock into age as a measure of reliability.
Agreed, there's not much out there in Android-land as good as Skyrim or Civilization or the obscure hex-based military strategy games I like. However the PSVita games aren't that good and cost just as much.
Well played. It's good that you're not rushing to judgment on a system that's only been available (in limited quantities) in this country for a week. Wait, you are, aren't you?
Seriously, I'd never recommend buying a game system at launch. I went against my usual grain and did so with the 3DS and it was a huge mistake. Of the systems launched in this century, none of them have had great launch lineups. Even the Nintendo DS - a system with a multitude of great (and awful) games today - had a terrible lineup of games at launch.
Don't get me wrong. There are some really good reasons to hate on the Vita as it exists today, from battery life to expensive proprietary memory cards. But the game lineup, judged against other launch lineups, is either average or better given that Game Rankings has 6 Vita games listed at 80+%.
Sony doesn't own every game released for the PSP. They were involved in the licensing and production processes, but in the absence of a contract to the contrary, they don't get to unilaterally determine alternate methods of distributing those games.
This is all a tempest in a teapot anyway. The PSP has never been significantly popular in the US and the issue of backwards compatibility will recede into the background as new games are released for the Vita (assuming it does well and generates publisher interest). In the meantime, getting a used PSP - or a new one, for that matter - is easy and cheap. Nobody with these mythical huge collections of UMD games is losing the ability to play their games, either now or in the foreseeable future. I don't understand why they'd have any interest in the Vita anyway if they're still playing the old games so much...oh wait, I do understand: It's fun to bitch about big companies in general, and Sony in particular.