I don't like to think I'm a fanboy, but I'm waiting on the PS3 personally...
some good reasons you should wait?
clicky hear!
I'm waiting for the pure fact that my PS2 isn't overly tired just yet, and the xbox offers nothing I can't enjoy already..
Oscar The Grouch,Nov 23 2005, 09:30 AM Wrote:Bah... Consoles suck...
[right][snapback]157200[/snapback][/right]
yeah, they do what a computer 10 times the cost does, and don't need an upgrade for up to 6 years to play the latest and greatest.
And do it in front of your large screen TV, surrounded by a proper home theatre system...
yup... consoles suck :P
darkpuppet,Nov 23 2005, 10:34 AM Wrote:Oscar The Grouch,Nov 23 2005, 09:30 AM Wrote:Bah... Consoles suck...
[right][snapback]157200[/snapback][/right]
yeah, they do what a computer 10 times the cost does, and don't need an upgrade for up to 6 years to play the latest and greatest.
And do it in front of your large screen TV, surrounded by a proper home theatre system...
yup... consoles suck :P
[right][snapback]157201[/snapback][/right]
10 times the cost??? You out to lunch man?
$500.00 for a xbox360 x 10 = $5000.00
You can probably build a good system for around 1300.00 that would be the same if not better than an xbox360.
Stupid rich kids.
Yeah I can plug my computer into a large screen tv and get probably better resolution and graphics.
Audio, I got 7.1 channel that can go easily into any home theater system. I think the xbox360 only has 5.1 support?
Yeah consoles suck.
Oscar The Grouch,Nov 23 2005, 10:27 AM Wrote:10 times the cost??? You out to lunch man?
$500.00 for a xbox360 x 10 = $5000.00
You can probably build a good system for around 1300.00 that would be the same if not better than an xbox360.
Stupid rich kids.
Yeah I can plug my computer into a large screen tv and get probably better resolution and graphics.
Audio, I got 7.1 channel that can go easily into any home theater system. I think the xbox360 only has 5.1 support?
Yeah consoles suck.
[right][snapback]157207[/snapback][/right]
hmm... let me price out a computer that would be the equivalent of the xbox 360...
cheap case with 350W PSU: $70
CPU: Intel Pentium Extreme edition, 3.2Ghz Dual Core with HT (similar, but still short of what the xbox 360 CPU could do).. $1,359
Hdd: 20Gb 2" Hdd: $70
SoundCard (included to make up for intel missing a CPU core: $80
Motherboard: $90
Memmory: 512Mb : $80 - giving this the benefit of the doubt since the MB and Memory couldn't deliver half the total bandwidth of the xbox 360
VideoCards x 2: $740
bluetooth: $44
Controller: $20
DVD drive: $26
OS : $130
oh, I'm sorry, it only costs $2709 for a computer that
may be able to keep up with the xbox 360 today.
The xbox 360 doesn't have limited sound capabilities... it has optical out, and no dedicated sound card... one core could more than handle sound encoding with a single thread.
And, no, your computer probably wouldn't perform so well at HD resolutions as you think it would. The xbox360 would be able to anti-alias the sweet bejesus out of an HD signal, your graphics card would choke on it's own entrails.
To say that they're losing a lot of money on each xbox360 is no understatement... and when the PS3 comes out, with nearly a half dozen more cores, blu-ray, etc.. I don't think home computing will have caught up in terms of performance to dollar ratio.
And then you don't have to upgrade your console for 6 years.... it's one of the reasons I own a console.. great games for 6 years... and this is the 1st time the consoles look to kick the ass of home computers for performance in the 1st year of existence as well...
I agree with the fact that consoles don't normally require upgrades, and that they're a fraction of the cost of a standard computer, let alone one that can game respectably. I love that they can finally connect to my home theatre correctly without having to let Pro Logic II worry about the channel assignments for each sound field.
The main thing about a computer is that (and I obviously don't need to tell YOU this, Steve) there's next to nothing you CAN'T do with a computer. I can connect my computer to a wireless adapter and auto-control my lights while I am away. I can track my budget and access my retirement savings, adjust my investment mix. I can enjoy the goodness that is FC.net :D
The console, after more than 20 years, has advanced to the point where it is a very smart toaster. Computers, on the other hand, are used to design said toasters. I'd rather have a computer that can game and do lots more than have a smart toaster that makes pretty pictures.
With that said, I might break down and get a PS3. Until then, my PSX will keep me quite entertained should the need arise, and emulators will do just fine as well for any PS2 gaming I need to do.
Oh, I totally agree.. computers have many more uses, but I used to go through the 6 month upgrade cycles with my computer to play the latest games, but skip one upgrade cycle, and I get a console (or two) that'll do me for 6 years.
So I don't have to replace my 9700pro AIW, and that let's me buy another console :)..
^^Agreed. Video card upgrades are the biggest pain in the ass of late. Second is Battlefield 2's Godzilla-like appetite for RAM. I've never paged and unloaded so much crap from RAM with 1GB in the system before :puke:
Can someone please explain to me the following:
If a computer has many different types of configurations and consoles have one type, why do console versions of games cost more than their PC counterparts?
Wouldn't there be more R&D put into compatability with PC games and therefore an increased cost?
Maybe its the standard crap car concept. Cheap car, expensive parts/maintenance/operation.
Also, from your post on costs, a P4EE dual core is not even necessary. We can make due with a 3200+ AMD 64 or a 3800+ AMD 64 dual core.
Oscar The Grouch,Nov 23 2005, 10:32 AM Wrote:Can someone please explain to me the following:
If a computer has many different types of configurations and consoles have one type, why do console versions of games cost more than their PC counterparts?
Wouldn't there be more R&D put into compatability with PC games and therefore an increased cost?
Maybe its the standard crap car concept. Cheap car, expensive parts/maintenance/operation.
Also, from your post on costs, a P4EE dual core is not even necessary. We can make due with a 3200+ AMD 64 or a 3800+ AMD 64 dual core.
[right][snapback]157231[/snapback][/right]
Question 1: Because they can sell for that much, people will pay that. I never understood this cause until recently, console games had shitty graphics and 'content' (utilization from the controller vs. what you can do on a computer game)
Question 2: I would assume so but as I mentioned above somewhat, it's the hype of consoles therefore they can sell them for as much as they want.
Personally I'll always stick with a computer when it comes to gaming. I've played the majority of the systems over the past 15 years (with exception to the new ones, 360, PS3 "obviously") and they don't hold anything compared to a computer system when it comes to graphics, game play, detail of the game including user input, etc.
Oh another thing, for $500 you can buy a Dell 3.something setup with 512 ram right now (monitor extra) but that is only a couple hundred bucks. So for $800, you get a computer that can and does do a hell of a lot more then any console can do including the new ones coming out.
Oscar The Grouch,Nov 23 2005, 11:32 AM Wrote:Can someone please explain to me the following:
If a computer has many different types of configurations and consoles have one type, why do console versions of games cost more than their PC counterparts?
Wouldn't there be more R&D put into compatability with PC games and therefore an increased cost?
Maybe its the standard crap car concept. Cheap car, expensive parts/maintenance/operation.
Also, from your post on costs, a P4EE dual core is not even necessary. We can make due with a 3200+ AMD 64 or a 3800+ AMD 64 dual core.
[right][snapback]157231[/snapback][/right]
you can make do with a lot less computer, but then you wouldn't be able to compare it to the xbox360. If you want to pull off what the 360 is capable of, you're going to need all the cores running at speed. A powerPC core at 3.2GHz embarrasses your AMD setup.
It's not about getting by, it's about matching the performance, which you can't do any better for performance than the 1/4 cost equivalent of the 360.
And developers are still 3 years away from being able to take full advantage of the 360.. Luckily, in 3 years, we should be able to buy a computer that is AS powerful for about the same cost as you can buy an xbox 360 today.
And games I see for the consoles costs the same as the PC versions (if not less). I don't know where you're seeing the games costing less on the PC, and more on the console (apples to apples comparison). Game costs are only going to rise too as more complicated games and longer development cycles take hold.
Nothing will replace PCs for their flexibility... But right now, if you want the most powerful hardware available on the market, the xbox360 has it.
It's ridiculous how powerful it is... and being a purpose built gaming machines, just means you're going to get that much more out of it for gaming than you will out of a computer that you'll spend thousands on.
people who are stuck on the keyboard and mouse and the latest and greatest graphics afforded by buying a $500 graphics card every 6 months are really missing the point behind a console.
how many times have you had 4 buddies over to play a game on your massive 15" computer monitor? I can have people over for a party, toss in a game, and everyone can jump in. Eye toy, Guitar Heros, even FPS shooters.. it's more social gaming.
And challenge anyone to build a PC as powerful as the 360 for the same amount of money. It can't be done... the 360 has better graphics, more processing power than any PC out there. Anyone who says they'd rather play a PC version of the game vs the xbox360 version are contradicting their belief that they rather play games that have better graphics.
Just about to head to lunch but i found one at least.
Star Wars Battlefront 2
PC 49.99
Xbox and PS2 59.99
I know that some of the new games are around par on cost with each other, but in the past, they were more expensive on consoles.
Ususally, from what I've heard, console makers usually sell their units at or below cost and upcharge their games.
Oscar The Grouch,Nov 23 2005, 11:59 AM Wrote:Just about to head to lunch but i found one at least.
Star Wars Battlefront 2
PC 49.99
Xbox and PS2 59.99
I know that some of the new games are around par on cost with each other, but in the past, they were more expensive on consoles.
Ususally, from what I've heard, console makers usually sell their units at or below cost and upcharge their games.
[right][snapback]157238[/snapback][/right]
interesting...
but licensing fees, extended testing cycles (less patches on consoles) would add to the costs. I'll pay $5-$10 more for a game, but I also own only 3 games out of 80 that were released simultaneously on the PC and PS2..
PC gaming bores the sweet bejesus out of me. there's only so many ways to make an FPS..
What the price of PS3 when it comes out?
its just too expensive to be a PC gamer.. also, drivers, and quirks with this card, and not this one... changing settings everywhere to get this or that ..
just easier to get a game machine that will never have compatibility issues with its games, you put it in.. your done..
I've been a playstation fan for ever.. bought 2 ps2.. the first one when it came out.. and pstwo when it came out.. always been modded and they worked great and i loved them but sony pissed me off a few times.. PSTwo scrapped after 29days of purchase date.. good thing I could exchange it at the store.. then my original multitap didn't work with the pstwo.. that was stupid too.. even if i undid all the plastic cover and put the memory and controller plugs in, it wouldn't work. Just loved the Gran turismo series... then with Gran turismo 4, they literaly screwed it up by removing Online play (there was what.. like 5 other already released racing games you could play on the net?), then said they would have it in another version later (more $), also had cars you can't race with, traction control and active stability are disabled in Arcade (meaning you can't compare your car to your friends car if you have more than 3hp), still no damage to cars for a simulator.. And THEN, I saw all the nice things you could do and how easy it was to mod a Xbox without even opening it up.. (although pstwo wasn't "too" bad)
Also last reason why i got an xbox 360.. its out... PS3 is not out.. and we have yet to get a date...yes microsoft sucks and are money hungry.. but sonys is just the same now... everything from sony is more expensive.. and microsoft have it out and have done pretty well with the original xbox..I'll probably have a ps3 when its out too ;)
http://pc.ign.com/articles/668/668631p1.html
Enough said. The article is geared more towards not buying into the "must have now hype" but also brings up good points about why PC's pwn consoles, both in graphic technology and gameplay.
And yes the 360 looks awesome, however, you need an HDTV to take full advantage, and that my friend is expensive as well. Unless you have a HDTV, there is no "pop in-play with great graphics" option. So at this point in time, its potentially cheaper to get a beefy pc which looks just as good as the 360.
It frightens me to no end that PC gaming bores you...do you only play one genre?
Please, dont get me wrong. I am buying a ps3 as well, and I will be building a new gaming rig when the next set of cards go mainstream (hopefully post x1800). I love the sony lineup of games that will *hopefully* ship on launch, especially MGS4. But to say that console gaming is superior to pc gaming is, nuts.
HD gaming on the original XBox was disgusting... 480p if you were lucky. I honestly can't recall if the PS2 offers HD gaming.
A valid point is raised about HDTVs being required for HD gaming. That's a no-brainer as far as ANY geek goes. It's like me saying that my video card can play Battlefront 2 @ 2048x1536 (I wish) at 60 FPS. I'll never know or enjoy such a feat as my monitor only displays 1280x1024. However, I see a BIG upswing in HDTVs being bought in the very near future as our "Elitist Geek" brethren realize that something is horribly, horribly wrong in FSAA land.
3.2GHz PPC Processor? :blink: What type of water-cooling is involved in keeping that bad boy tame? I've seen reasonably-aircooled FX57s @ 3GHz and up, but that's still ultra high-end cooling with quick 80mms or medium-speed 120mm fans. And, dual-core is a waste on gaming right now anyways - 99.99% of all games are still single-threaded. And if you're constantly editing and rendering while gaming, gaming will still suffer (AMD or Intel, and more Intel than AMD) because both cores share a common memory bus and controller.
But I digress, we're talking about consoles. I think a LOT of 360 owners will shat themselves when they realize it's not all THAT sexy, and nothing like they've seen at the very fancy (and expensive) demo booths all over.
NOS2Go4Me,Nov 23 2005, 02:31 PM Wrote:I think a LOT of 360 owners will shat themselves when they realize it's not all THAT sexy, and nothing like they've seen at the very fancy (and expensive) demo booths all over.
[right][snapback]157268[/snapback][/right]
I do not regret it one bit and am plesantly surprised with my 360.. I'm not overwhelmed with it.. but now its more like a Media Center than just a gaming console.. and also, playing games on the computer is nice and you dont need an HDTV that costs alot... but you are playing on a 17-21 inch monitor on the pc so is it really any better? yes quality and resolution.. but in a tiny screen. Unless you have a bigger monitor than that, but then the bigger one, you are in the same price range as small lcd hdtv tvs and monitors.. and you can play on a regular TV
But you haven't answered the question... or rather retorted the postulation. Is it as nice as on a HDTV set?
If you answer yes, we know you're lying. 500 interlaced lines does not HDTV make.