Discussion:
Xbox360 CPU taking large performance hit? only 60-70% performance of what MS was expecting?
(too old to reply)
R500 Xenon
2005-05-09 04:01:23 UTC
Permalink
this is a rumor, but sounds like it could very possibly be true....
quote:
____________________________________________________________________________________
" I'm gonna bury this here to avoid too much attention, but Xbox360 CPU
performance is only 60-70% of what MS was expecting. Some early design
decisions to knock out some key CPU logic is biting them in the ass now.
That and IBM cannot yield as fast of cores at they thought they would be
able to. Some developers are scrambling to get their games back up to
playable in terms of FPS because of it.
That being said, I expect PS3 and Revolution to be easily more powerful than
Xbox360."
___________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22671
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?p=5233097&posted=1#post5233097
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=46301&page=1&pp=50&highlight=expecting
this may or may not effect the ATI graphics processor in Xenon / Xbox360.
actually it will, since in all systems, the graphics processor takes
commands from the CPU, but this is especially true in the new Xbox -- the
CPU and graphics processor are said to be VERY tightly coupled.
steamKILLER
2005-05-09 07:22:42 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
R500 Xenon wrote:
<snip crosspost crap console propaganda to our dear pc game group>
consoles are crap, always crap, the past ones, the present ones,
and future ones! all crap!
long live pc games!
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
summer somewherelse
2005-05-09 11:55:12 UTC
Permalink
-----Original Message-----
consoles are crap, always crap, the past ones, the
present ones,
and future ones! all crap!
long live pc games!
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
.
some people never learn, if the PC were made to play games
why you have to buy a graphic card each time that a new
game comes out?
David Parkes
2005-05-09 11:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Yessssssss that was a rather interesting coment from R500 Xenon. Long live
PC Games eh. Yeh that is true the pc does have some wicked games. But Long
live the pc for games?!?! that is the question and the answer is <and
everyone will agree is NO> Why i hear you ask?!? i thought that would stand
out a mile off. Especially when you take a trip down the bank and have to
remorgage your house so you can buy the latest graphics cards every two
months just so you can play that new game that you went out and brought and
still fail to read the minimum requirements.
Long live console Games seems like they tend to be around a lot longer than
PC's FACT, PERIOD, And DOH
MustangLX
2005-05-09 13:45:04 UTC
Permalink
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see. dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
Post by David Parkes
Yessssssss that was a rather interesting coment from R500 Xenon. Long live
PC Games eh. Yeh that is true the pc does have some wicked games. But Long
live the pc for games?!?! that is the question and the answer is <and
everyone will agree is NO> Why i hear you ask?!? i thought that would stand
out a mile off. Especially when you take a trip down the bank and have to
remorgage your house so you can buy the latest graphics cards every two
months just so you can play that new game that you went out and brought and
still fail to read the minimum requirements.
Long live console Games seems like they tend to be around a lot longer than
PC's FACT, PERIOD, And DOH
Grinder
2005-05-09 14:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by MustangLX
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the
thing but lets see. dump lets say $500.00 for a
console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep
your pc up to play all the good games out there.
It's surprising to me how often this complaint is made. Are you
speaking from experience? As for me, I bought a decent PC three years
ago, and have since spent $150 on a new video card, and have been able
to play the newer games. That is if Half-life 2 and Doom 3 qualify as
"newer games."
Post by MustangLX
In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the
hardware to match and excede PC's and that consoles
are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles have
online gaming which ive found to be more stable and
enjoyable.
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with PCs, but I do agree
that it appears to be the trend.
Pray for Mojo
2005-05-10 04:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with PCs, but I do agree
that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep up" with PC's because
PC's are constantly changing. That's why an old PC is no good for a new
game.
Grinder
2005-05-10 06:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Jeremy Reaban
2005-05-10 08:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Yeah, but bear in mind, some of the top of the line video cards now
cost close to $1000 (the 512 meg GF 6800 Ultra and the top of the line
ATI) and most the top of the line model (ie, the 6800 or 850 for ATI)
cost about $400.
I suppose if you wanted the latest video card, you could conceivably
spend $500-1000 every couple of months. You wouldn't need to by any
means. But you could.
Les Steel
2005-05-10 13:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeremy Reaban
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Yeah, but bear in mind, some of the top of the line video cards now
cost close to $1000 (the 512 meg GF 6800 Ultra and the top of the line
ATI) and most the top of the line model (ie, the 6800 or 850 for ATI)
cost about $400.
I suppose if you wanted the latest video card, you could conceivably
spend $500-1000 every couple of months. You wouldn't need to by any
means. But you could.
Which type of dollar are you referring to? Is it US, Canadian, Australian or
some other? We don't all live in the same bloody country.
In the UK the top spec cards are around £360 ( 677.127 USD , 837.416 CAD ,
874.167 AUD and 526.604 EUR - source www.xe.com)
Mattinglyfan
2005-05-10 23:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Steel
Post by Jeremy Reaban
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Yeah, but bear in mind, some of the top of the line video cards now
cost close to $1000 (the 512 meg GF 6800 Ultra and the top of the line
ATI) and most the top of the line model (ie, the 6800 or 850 for ATI)
cost about $400.
I suppose if you wanted the latest video card, you could conceivably
spend $500-1000 every couple of months. You wouldn't need to by any
means. But you could.
Which type of dollar are you referring to? Is it US, Canadian, Australian
or some other? We don't all live in the same bloody country.
Well he didn't make a pound symbol so it was quite clear that he meant
dollars. You then proceeded to list a bunch of damned amounts that ALL fall
within the $500-$1000 figure that he gave so the point is applicable in ALL
of those places. Were you trying to be an idiot when you made this post or
did it just happen during the course of your typing? We don't all live in
the same bloody country but that comment was dumb in any country.
Post by Les Steel
In the UK the top spec cards are around £360 ( 677.127 USD , 837.416 CAD
, 874.167 AUD and 526.604 EUR - source www.xe.com)
Les Steel
2005-05-11 16:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
Post by Jeremy Reaban
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Yeah, but bear in mind, some of the top of the line video cards now
cost close to $1000 (the 512 meg GF 6800 Ultra and the top of the line
ATI) and most the top of the line model (ie, the 6800 or 850 for ATI)
cost about $400.
I suppose if you wanted the latest video card, you could conceivably
spend $500-1000 every couple of months. You wouldn't need to by any
means. But you could.
Which type of dollar are you referring to? Is it US, Canadian, Australian
or some other? We don't all live in the same bloody country.
Well he didn't make a pound symbol so it was quite clear that he meant
dollars.
I'm pretty sure I mention dollars, not pounds.
You then proceeded to list a bunch of damned amounts that ALL fall
Post by Mattinglyfan
within the $500-$1000 figure that he gave so the point is applicable in
ALL of those places.
Think about it.
Were you trying to be an idiot when you made this post or
Post by Mattinglyfan
did it just happen during the course of your typing?
Did you type this in front of a shiny monitor?
We don't all live in
Post by Mattinglyfan
the same bloody country but that comment was dumb in any country.
Was it? So all the countries that use the name "dollars" for their money,
the dollar is the same value?
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
In the UK the top spec cards are around £360 ( 677.127 USD , 837.416 CAD
, 874.167 AUD and 526.604 EUR - source www.xe.com)
You obviously didn't read either post properly did you smart arse?
You realised there is more than one type of dollar, well done.
You realise $1000USD is overall a different value to $1000CAD, which in fact
is different to $1000HKD?
That is the point that wooshed over your head, $500USD to $1000USD is not
the same as saying $500CAD to $1000CAD
Mattinglyfan
2005-05-11 23:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Steel
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
Post by Jeremy Reaban
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Yeah, but bear in mind, some of the top of the line video cards now
cost close to $1000 (the 512 meg GF 6800 Ultra and the top of the line
ATI) and most the top of the line model (ie, the 6800 or 850 for ATI)
cost about $400.
I suppose if you wanted the latest video card, you could conceivably
spend $500-1000 every couple of months. You wouldn't need to by any
means. But you could.
Which type of dollar are you referring to? Is it US, Canadian,
Australian or some other? We don't all live in the same bloody country.
Well he didn't make a pound symbol so it was quite clear that he meant
dollars.
I'm pretty sure I mention dollars, not pounds.
You then proceeded to list a bunch of damned amounts that ALL fall
Post by Mattinglyfan
within the $500-$1000 figure that he gave so the point is applicable in
ALL of those places.
Think about it.
Were you trying to be an idiot when you made this post or
Post by Mattinglyfan
did it just happen during the course of your typing?
Did you type this in front of a shiny monitor?
We don't all live in
Post by Mattinglyfan
the same bloody country but that comment was dumb in any country.
Was it? So all the countries that use the name "dollars" for their money,
the dollar is the same value?
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
In the UK the top spec cards are around £360 ( 677.127 USD , 837.416
CAD , 874.167 AUD and 526.604 EUR - source www.xe.com)
You obviously didn't read either post properly did you smart arse?
I am pretty sure I did. The sad part is that you don't realize where you
slipped up and are somehow trying to make it my error.
Post by Les Steel
You realised there is more than one type of dollar, well done.
Do you always resort to sarcasm when you look dumb.
Post by Les Steel
You realise $1000USD is overall a different value to $1000CAD, which in
fact is different to $1000HKD?
That is the point that wooshed over your head, $500USD to $1000USD is not
the same as saying $500CAD to $1000CAD
The point that is STILL whooshing over your head is that you have listed
amounts in USD, CAD and AUD that all fall within a $500-$1000 range in each
of those places. Your comment didn't deal with the VALUE of those amounts
but rather the fact that he didn't specify what type of dollar he was
referring to. The fact of the matter is that it wouldn't matter in terms of
the accuracy of his point because it holds true in EVERY case you have
listed. Do you need me to type slower or do you get it now?
Les Steel
2005-05-12 07:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
Post by Jeremy Reaban
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with
PCs, but I do agree that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Yeah, but bear in mind, some of the top of the line video cards now
cost close to $1000 (the 512 meg GF 6800 Ultra and the top of the line
ATI) and most the top of the line model (ie, the 6800 or 850 for ATI)
cost about $400.
I suppose if you wanted the latest video card, you could conceivably
spend $500-1000 every couple of months. You wouldn't need to by any
means. But you could.
Which type of dollar are you referring to? Is it US, Canadian,
Australian or some other? We don't all live in the same bloody country.
Well he didn't make a pound symbol so it was quite clear that he meant
dollars.
I'm pretty sure I mention dollars, not pounds.
You then proceeded to list a bunch of damned amounts that ALL fall
Post by Mattinglyfan
within the $500-$1000 figure that he gave so the point is applicable in
ALL of those places.
Think about it.
Were you trying to be an idiot when you made this post or
Post by Mattinglyfan
did it just happen during the course of your typing?
Did you type this in front of a shiny monitor?
We don't all live in
Post by Mattinglyfan
the same bloody country but that comment was dumb in any country.
Was it? So all the countries that use the name "dollars" for their money,
the dollar is the same value?
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
In the UK the top spec cards are around £360 ( 677.127 USD , 837.416
CAD , 874.167 AUD and 526.604 EUR - source www.xe.com)
You obviously didn't read either post properly did you smart arse?
I am pretty sure I did. The sad part is that you don't realize where you
slipped up and are somehow trying to make it my error.
I haven't slipped up anywhere, my point is still valid.
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
You realised there is more than one type of dollar, well done.
Do you always resort to sarcasm when you look dumb.
Do you?
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Les Steel
You realise $1000USD is overall a different value to $1000CAD, which in
fact is different to $1000HKD?
That is the point that wooshed over your head, $500USD to $1000USD is not
the same as saying $500CAD to $1000CAD
The point that is STILL whooshing over your head is that you have listed
amounts in USD, CAD and AUD that all fall within a $500-$1000 range in
each of those places. Your comment didn't deal with the VALUE of those
amounts but rather the fact that he didn't specify what type of dollar he
was referring to. The fact of the matter is that it wouldn't matter in
terms of the accuracy of his point because it holds true in EVERY case you
have listed. Do you need me to type slower or do you get it now?
You still don't get it do you? Never mind.
Boody Bandit
2005-05-12 12:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Steel
You still don't get it do you? Never mind.
Fred, that you?
jussi
2005-06-07 06:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
Then again, as console games cost much more than similar PC games due
to license fees and whatever, it kinda evens up. Not completely of
course, as it shouldn't, as PCs are much more of multipurpose machines
than consoles.
The demise of PC gaming has been claimed to happen ever since Atari
Jaguar and 3DO consoles were released. Time after time that just
doesn't happen, and the console-only players claim "Oh, but the NEXT
generation will surely surpass PCs and kill PC gaming for good,
because who would buy a new video card for a PC when you can buy a
Playstation5 or XBox720 to play Tekken10 or Halo 13?".
PC gaming has shrinked due to more consoles on the market, true. But
it most probably will not die in the foreseeable future because PCs
will be around, and as long as they are, many people will want to play
games on them as well. Consoles are unable to replace PCs because
consoles are not compatible with each others or each others'
accessories, many times they are not even compatible with their
predecessors from the same company, people are hardly ever willing to
buy expansions or lots of accessories for their proprietary consoles
as they do for their PCs (printers, scanners, you name it) because it
is probable those accessories will not work on the next gen console,
etc.
Proprietary console hardware is one thing. The other is that the
console gaming market is not free and open to everyone either. You
have to pay license fees, and the console manufacturers get to decide
who makes games for their system, and what kind of games. PC has no
such restrictions, thus there is no real shortage of new fresh game
developers for PC.
One trend seems to be that there are much less "big hits" for PC, at
least PC-only games, but for many gamers that may just be a good
thing. It would be going back to the very early 90s where PC games
concentrated on content and not high paying voice actors and other
fluff, like console games nowadays do so often. I have a Playstation2,
and I must say it still seems to offer very few games I really want to
play. XBox even less, the only reason I am thinking of buying a XBox
is for a cheap (modded) media player. Did the outrageous budget make
Halo 2 the greatest game ever? Not in my opinion, I'm rather suprised
how mediocre game it still is.
Raymond Martineau
2005-06-07 11:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jussi
Post by Grinder
Post by Pray for Mojo
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep
up" with PC's because PC's are constantly changing.
That's why an old PC is no good for a new game.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that point, but I do
believe it has been radically overstated. $500 every
couple of months to keep up? Hyperbole like that just
makes the argument sound goofy.
[...]
Post by jussi
PC gaming has shrinked due to more consoles on the market, true. But
it most probably will not die in the foreseeable future because PCs
will be around, and as long as they are, many people will want to play
games on them as well.
PC gaming will never die as long as independant developers can write quick
distractions without the need to insert any hardware dongle or disk.
While it is true that there's a new program by Nintendo to allow more
independant games, most amateur programmers find it easier to write for the
PC as it is the most common system and has the easiest coverage. It
doesn't have to have fancy graphics - usually, it only needs a few weeks to
write, such as Birdris.
Post by jussi
Consoles are unable to replace PCs because
consoles are not compatible with each others or each others'
accessories, many times they are not even compatible with their
predecessors from the same company, people are hardly ever willing to
buy expansions or lots of accessories for their proprietary consoles
as they do for their PCs (printers, scanners, you name it) because it
is probable those accessories will not work on the next gen console,
That is true, but the XBox 360 did list USB ports in the technical specs.
This implies that it can support the basic human-interface devices, and
that it should be standard enough to be used elsewhere (right up until USB
is rendered obsolete by something else.)
The Qurqirish Dragon
2005-06-07 14:07:40 UTC
Permalink
The PS2 has USB and firewire ports (I would guess the PS3 will also; I
don't think we've yet to see the final design of it). It didn't use
them much, however. Just having the capability doesn't mean it will be
used.
Joe62
2005-06-08 01:38:47 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Jun 2005 07:07:40 -0700, "The Qurqirish Dragon"
Post by The Qurqirish Dragon
them much, however. Just having the capability doesn't mean it will be
used.
On the other hand, the PS2 is actually compatible with some PC
steering wheels and many USB mice.
Andrew
2005-06-08 06:14:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:38:47 -0700, Joe62
Post by Joe62
On the other hand, the PS2 is actually compatible with some PC
steering wheels and many USB mice.
I know some wheels are supported, but how many games support proper
mouse control?
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
jussi
2005-06-08 04:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Martineau
Post by jussi
Consoles are unable to replace PCs because
consoles are not compatible with each others or each others'
accessories, many times they are not even compatible with their
predecessors from the same company, people are hardly ever willing to
buy expansions or lots of accessories for their proprietary consoles
as they do for their PCs (printers, scanners, you name it) because it
is probable those accessories will not work on the next gen console,
That is true, but the XBox 360 did list USB ports in the technical specs.
So did earlier consoles like PS2. However, a standard port (USB) alone
does not make any USB devices magically work on the machine (console).
The console has to support it first, both in the driver level and by
the applications. Connect a PC USB laser printer to your PS2... and it
does absolutely nothing.
Accessories and expansions have never done that well on consoles.
People don't want to expand their consoles due to their proprietary
and integrated nature, thus the idea of replacing PC behemoth with
proprietary consoleS is a pipedream.
consoleKILLER
2005-06-08 09:23:58 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by jussi
So did earlier consoles like PS2. However, a standard port (USB) alone
does not make any USB devices magically work on the machine (console).
The console has to support it first, both in the driver level and by
the applications. Connect a PC USB laser printer to your PS2... and it
does absolutely nothing.
Accessories and expansions have never done that well on consoles.
People don't want to expand their consoles due to their proprietary
and integrated nature, thus the idea of replacing PC behemoth with
proprietary consoleS is a pipedream.
exactly!
perfectly said!
long live the pc!
down to crap proprietary consoles!
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
to check authenticity of the real "steamKILLER" reassure that
the post came from a google server and that the email address
is "***@yahoo.com"
i've temporarily change alias to "consoleKILLER" so no imposter
could try and make believe myself is not 100% committed to the
fight against crap consoles and the disgusting campaign microsoft
has been doing against pc games
JMoney
2005-06-15 15:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Troll
Post by steamKILLER
x-no-archive: yes
Post by jussi
So did earlier consoles like PS2. However, a standard port (USB) alone
does not make any USB devices magically work on the machine (console).
The console has to support it first, both in the driver level and by
the applications. Connect a PC USB laser printer to your PS2... and it
does absolutely nothing.
Accessories and expansions have never done that well on consoles.
People don't want to expand their consoles due to their proprietary
and integrated nature, thus the idea of replacing PC behemoth with
proprietary consoleS is a pipedream.
exactly!
perfectly said!
long live the pc!
down to crap proprietary consoles!
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
to check authenticity of the real "steamKILLER" reassure that
the post came from a google server and that the email address
i've temporarily change alias to "consoleKILLER" so no imposter
could try and make believe myself is not 100% committed to the
fight against crap consoles and the disgusting campaign microsoft
has been doing against pc games
"" <>
2005-06-08 14:31:50 UTC
Permalink
I made the mistake of buying Pariah for the PC. What an unfinished,
bug-ridden joke. It marked the last PC game I will buy.
Alex
2005-06-15 21:32:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:31:50 GMT,
Post by "" <>
I made the mistake of buying Pariah for the PC. What an unfinished,
bug-ridden joke. It marked the last PC game I will buy.
With the emergence of online gaming for consoles, so expect to start
buying bug-ridden games for consoles (actually the already exist but
their prevalence will surely increase in the future).
--
Alex
atheist #2007
John Lewis
2005-05-10 06:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with PCs, but I do agree
that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep up" with PC's because
PC's are constantly changing. That's why an old PC is no good for a new
game.
Ah, but a new PC is frequently good for an old classic PC
game...............which can't be said for the XBox360, which sure
won't emulate a current Xbox. Yet another pile of expensive obsolete
software once the owner's Xbox dies and used Xboxes on Ebay become
expensive/scarce...joining the half-dozen other obsolete consoles
and software in a dusty corner of the garage or on the $1 table at the
local garage sale.
Remember, console are always sold as hardware loss-leaders;
sales of games at $50 a pop make the money.
John Lewis
Cryofax
2005-05-10 17:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pray for Mojo
Post by Grinder
Consoles would never really be able to keep up with PCs, but I do agree
that it appears to be the trend.
That comment proves their point. Consoles can't "keep up" with PC's
because PC's are constantly changing. That's why an old PC is no good for
a new game.
Not true. A PC that was built in the same year the X-Box was released could
play current games with details cranked down to "X-Box Levels". You aren't
REQUIRED to spend tons to keep your PC playing everything on maximum
settings, but you do have that choice with the PC. With the X-Box you're
stuck with the same hardware for 4 years regardless. But again you COULD
keep the same PC for 4 years (I upgrade mine about every 2-3) and play
everything fine.
- Cryo
Cryofax
2005-05-09 17:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MustangLX
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see.
dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
Uhhh... $500 every two months? So $6,000/year to keep my PC running all the
latest games? Sorry no. I upgrade my whole system about every 2-3 years and
spend about $1,000-$1,500 each time. I just spent $1,200 (my first upgrade
since 2002) and can run everything in high detail/resolution with 60+ FPS.
(in fact my old system could too but with detailed turned down to "X-Box
levels".)
I also have a significant investment in my X-Box. Let's see...
Basic System $179
Logitech Wireless controllers x 4 = $160
250gb Hard Drive x 2 (one in the box, one for backup) + 133IDE Cable = $350
Xecuter2 Solderless Mod Chip = $60
Cooling upgrade (80mm fan, heatsink) = $20
MS Hi-Def Pack = $30
24" Sony Color TV Set = $200
So I've spent close to the same thing on my X-Box as I did my PC in the last
3 years. I would wager I am the exception there though :)
I love my X-Box, but after playing Half-Life 2/Doom 3/FarCry on my PC, going
back to playing Halo 2 feels empty. So I boot up Super Monkey Ball Deluxe
and all is well.
- Cryo
Cryofax
2005-05-09 23:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryofax
Post by MustangLX
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see.
dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
Uhhh... $500 every two months? So $6,000/year to keep my PC running all
the latest games?
Uhhh... Whoops... That'd be $3,000/year. Duh. I imagine there are some
people who go this nuts with their PCs. Still 6 times what I spend to keep
mine running pretty much everything fine, though.
- Cryo
Post by Cryofax
Sorry no. I upgrade my whole system about every 2-3 years and spend about
$1,000-$1,500 each time. I just spent $1,200 (my first upgrade since 2002)
and can run everything in high detail/resolution with 60+ FPS. (in fact my
old system could too but with detailed turned down to "X-Box levels".)
I also have a significant investment in my X-Box. Let's see...
Basic System $179
Logitech Wireless controllers x 4 = $160
250gb Hard Drive x 2 (one in the box, one for backup) + 133IDE Cable = $350
Xecuter2 Solderless Mod Chip = $60
Cooling upgrade (80mm fan, heatsink) = $20
MS Hi-Def Pack = $30
24" Sony Color TV Set = $200
So I've spent close to the same thing on my X-Box as I did my PC in the
last 3 years. I would wager I am the exception there though :)
I love my X-Box, but after playing Half-Life 2/Doom 3/FarCry on my PC,
going back to playing Halo 2 feels empty. So I boot up Super Monkey Ball
Deluxe and all is well.
- Cryo
Knight37
2005-05-10 00:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MustangLX
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay
that much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to
play all the good games out there.
I want some of what you're smokin'.
If you meant "two years" instead of 2 months, I would at least consider
arguing with you.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Dr. Pepper
2005-05-13 04:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MustangLX
Post by David Parkes
Yessssssss that was a rather interesting coment from R500 Xenon. Long live
PC Games eh. Yeh that is true the pc does have some wicked games. But Long
live the pc for games?!?! that is the question and the answer is <and
everyone will agree is NO> Why i hear you ask?!? i thought that would
stand
Post by David Parkes
out a mile off. Especially when you take a trip down the bank and have to
remorgage your house so you can buy the latest graphics cards every two
months just so you can play that new game that you went out and brought
and
Post by David Parkes
still fail to read the minimum requirements.
Long live console Games seems like they tend to be around a lot longer
than
Post by David Parkes
PC's FACT, PERIOD, And DOH
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see.
dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
You guys are full of it. The only people who complain about how much money
they have to spend upgrading their PC to play games are the ones who got
suckered into buying the $499 Dell and Gateway office PC sh*tcans with
"integrated Intel video" on the motherboard, 256MB of RAM and a 40GB hard
disk. If you buy a good PC to start with, you shouldn't have to upgrade
anything for at least 2.5-3 years. Most upgrades I do are more of a choice
than a necessity (e.g. I want more hard disk space so I don't have to
uninstall anything, or I want a better video card so I can turn on all the
new visual effects). Most games are very good about providing varying
levels of video speed/quality so that games can run on older PCs.
Mattinglyfan
2005-05-14 15:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Pepper
Post by MustangLX
Post by David Parkes
Yessssssss that was a rather interesting coment from R500 Xenon. Long live
PC Games eh. Yeh that is true the pc does have some wicked games. But Long
live the pc for games?!?! that is the question and the answer is <and
everyone will agree is NO> Why i hear you ask?!? i thought that would
stand
Post by David Parkes
out a mile off. Especially when you take a trip down the bank and have to
remorgage your house so you can buy the latest graphics cards every two
months just so you can play that new game that you went out and brought
and
Post by David Parkes
still fail to read the minimum requirements.
Long live console Games seems like they tend to be around a lot longer
than
Post by David Parkes
PC's FACT, PERIOD, And DOH
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see.
dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
You guys are full of it. The only people who complain about how much
money they have to spend upgrading their PC to play games are the ones who
got suckered into buying the $499 Dell and Gateway office PC sh*tcans with
"integrated Intel video" on the motherboard, 256MB of RAM and a 40GB hard
disk. If you buy a good PC to start with, you shouldn't have to upgrade
anything for at least 2.5-3 years.
How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half Life 2 remotely
well without an upgrade? Stop talking out of your ass trying to insult
people.
_Carpmaster_
2005-05-15 06:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattinglyfan
How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half Life 2 remotely
well without an upgrade? Stop talking out of your ass trying to insult
people.
I don't think he was talking out of his "ass". He made some quite valid
points.
Mattinglyfan
2005-05-15 15:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by _Carpmaster_
Post by Mattinglyfan
How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half Life 2 remotely
well without an upgrade? Stop talking out of your ass trying to insult
people.
I don't think he was talking out of his "ass". He made some quite valid
points.
Well the point he tried to make while insulting the other poster wasn't
VALID or you would have been able to answer my question for him. What
percentage would you say since his point is so VALID? And maybe you can
answer it without insulting people the way that he did.
Hank the Rapper
2005-05-15 16:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Dr. Pepper
You guys are full of it. The only people who complain about how much
money they have to spend upgrading their PC to play games are the
ones who got suckered into buying the $499 Dell and Gateway office
PC sh*tcans with "integrated Intel video" on the motherboard, 256MB
of RAM and a 40GB hard disk. If you buy a good PC to start with,
you shouldn't have to upgrade anything for at least 2.5-3 years.
How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half Life 2
remotely well without an upgrade? Stop talking out of your ass
trying to insult people.
Read his last line: "If you buy a good PC to start with, you shouldn't have
to upgrade anything for at least 2.5-3 years."
Read your line: "How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half
Life 2 remotely well without an upgrade?"
The way I see it, you are both agreeing. He said you can go 2.5 to 3 years
until upgrading and you said you need to updgrade a 2.5 year old computer to
play those games. If you bought PC 3 years ago then you need to upgrade it
to play the lastest games. If you bought one last year then you don't. That
is wht Dr. Pepper is saying, and he is correct. I went three years without
upgrading one performance enhancing thing on my PC until I decided to
upgrade once D3 went gold.
Mattinglyfan
2005-05-16 03:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank the Rapper
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Dr. Pepper
You guys are full of it. The only people who complain about how much
money they have to spend upgrading their PC to play games are the
ones who got suckered into buying the $499 Dell and Gateway office
PC sh*tcans with "integrated Intel video" on the motherboard, 256MB
of RAM and a 40GB hard disk. If you buy a good PC to start with,
you shouldn't have to upgrade anything for at least 2.5-3 years.
How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half Life 2
remotely well without an upgrade? Stop talking out of your ass
trying to insult people.
Read his last line: "If you buy a good PC to start with, you shouldn't
have to upgrade anything for at least 2.5-3 years."
Read your line: "How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half
Life 2 remotely well without an upgrade?"
The way I see it, you are both agreeing. He said you can go 2.5 to 3 years
until upgrading and you said you need to updgrade a 2.5 year old computer
to play those games. If you bought PC 3 years ago then you need to upgrade
it to play the lastest games. If you bought one last year then you don't.
That is wht Dr. Pepper is saying, and he is correct. I went three years
without upgrading one performance enhancing thing on my PC until I decided
to upgrade once D3 went gold.
I understand what you are saying but "turning the settings all the way down"
kind of detracts from the uniqueness of those titles as new games. Many
times, the "hot" new releases require something within a year or even sooner
of release to be able to run the way it is supposed to be.
Cryofax
2005-05-15 19:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattinglyfan
Post by Dr. Pepper
Post by MustangLX
Post by David Parkes
Yessssssss that was a rather interesting coment from R500 Xenon. Long live
PC Games eh. Yeh that is true the pc does have some wicked games. But Long
live the pc for games?!?! that is the question and the answer is <and
everyone will agree is NO> Why i hear you ask?!? i thought that would
stand
Post by David Parkes
out a mile off. Especially when you take a trip down the bank and have to
remorgage your house so you can buy the latest graphics cards every two
months just so you can play that new game that you went out and brought
and
Post by David Parkes
still fail to read the minimum requirements.
Long live console Games seems like they tend to be around a lot longer
than
Post by David Parkes
PC's FACT, PERIOD, And DOH
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see.
dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
You guys are full of it. The only people who complain about how much
money they have to spend upgrading their PC to play games are the ones
who got suckered into buying the $499 Dell and Gateway office PC sh*tcans
with "integrated Intel video" on the motherboard, 256MB of RAM and a 40GB
hard disk. If you buy a good PC to start with, you shouldn't have to
upgrade anything for at least 2.5-3 years.
How many systems from 2.5 years ago can run Doom3 or Half Life 2 remotely
well without an upgrade? Stop talking out of your ass trying to insult
people.
A 2.5 year old system can run those games. Admittedly with the settings down
low, but even on low settings it would look as good as a console from the
same "era". But there's no question if you want to run the latest PC games
on high detail all the time you're looking at more frequent and expensive
upgrades than a console. But you can wait longer and still play the games
if you don't mind lower res etc. Its really the same thing on the console,
the games can't look any better for 4-5 years since the hardware doesn't
change (excluding of course better programming that squeezes out more power,
which would apply to PCs as well).
What exactly is being argued here again? That PCs are more expensive? That a
top of the line PC is better than a console? I guess PC people are
threatened by the vastly larger number of console users and console users
are threatened by "elitest" PC snobs. I guess I'm just a guy in both camps
who loves games. My X-Box will never blow my mind like Half-life 2 on my PC,
but then again I can't play NCAA 2005 on my PC either, nor is it as
"convenient" for me to veg on my couch with a gamepad and play PC games
(though yes it can be done). I just upgraded my PC, so my next big purchase
will likely be about 1.5 years when the X-Box 360 is fully moddable :)
- Cryo
JAB
2005-05-14 15:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by MustangLX
I have to agree. I use to think PC games were the thing but lets see. dump
lets say $500.00 for a console and all the accesories. You will pay that
much in hardware every two months or so to keep your pc up to play all the
good games out there. In a few years PC gaming will likely be a thing of
the past now with HD tvs and consoles that use the hardware to match and
excede PC's and that consoles are a lot cheaper than PC's and now consoles
have online gaming which ive found to be more stable and enjoyable.
So you think that you need to spend $3000 a year to play the latest games?
Michel Thiffault
2005-05-09 20:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Hmmm... Talk about an open-minded guy! Each platform has its advantages.
To
me the console wins because of the low-mantenance, instant-gaming (pop-in
a
CD and it works). Also, I didn't see a store that rented PC games in
years.
It doesn't mean that my preferences have to be the only solution
available.
To each is own and if someone prefers PC games, good for him! Can't blame
him.
