Xbox 360 has 'a lot more than two years' left, MS boss says
267 replies, posted
[QUOTE=junker|154;36258184]I do not get why people always say that the pc doesn't get many games and that consoles do. PC has such a huge amount of constant good releases, there are only a few blockbuster games that are being delayed on pc.[/QUOTE]
it's not that we don't GET the games, it's that we get horrendous ports that are very unoptimized, resource hungry, and over a drain on the computer. We'll also get clunky controls and very buggy versions.
There are only a few really bad ports which stand out and then people generalize a lot. Like Saints Row. Actually there are a lot of decent releases that are ports. Assassins Creed, Splinter Cell or Skyrim are really decent on the pc.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36257717]
It's all about scaling, bro. So yeah, unless you are playing on a 720 screen, expect horrendous scaling. [B]Same applies for older pc games that weren't around when 1920x1080 was a norm.[/B][/QUOTE]
Umm no.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36256714]except no not really. if anything it's the stupid publishers/vultures who destroy any hope for new gameplay because they hope the next installment of Face-Killer with improved graphics will hit the top sales chart.[/QUOTE]
You're just thinking about the superficial aspects of a hardware upgrade, and even that has an advantage. The more power the system has, the easier it is for developers to realize their vision without compromising. Beyond that though, more power would FINALLY mean we can start programming some intelligent AI to vastly improve gameplay, and we'd also finally be able to get some better physics engines going. We'd also have less memory limits so we could have smoother and more detailed animations, and texture resolution would be less limited as well.
More advanced hardware goes far, far beyond "Oh look at the pretty shaders!"
I once read an article about Sid Meyer who claimed that the AI today that are being used in games, do not really differ from the very beginning. Yes, it got a bit more complext but there is much more possibilities that could be done, but developpers are to lazy to effectivly make somewhat incredible AIs. The possibilites are there, but it is just the fault of the programmers.
Although I am not sure if this applies to everything, was an interesting article. I wish I could post it.
I'm just imagining a chat show right now and people keep bursting in the room to argue about pointless things with the other people, while the audience clap after every opinion.
[QUOTE=killerjak7;36256807][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pI30C.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The PC version is using an advanced config.
Other than that, tis true.
[QUOTE=Warship;36258451]Umm no.[/QUOTE]
Ummm, yeah.
Go ahead and play a game made in 2003, one that doesn't offer the choice to play in 1920x1080, edit in in the config file, then run it. Then tell me textures aren't stretched, or not fully accurate.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=junker|154;36258311]There are only a few really bad ports which stand out and then people generalize a lot. Like Saints Row. Actually there are a lot of decent releases that are ports. Assassins Creed, Splinter Cell or Skyrim are really decent on the pc.[/QUOTE]
assassins creed and skyrim were developed on both the xbox and ps3, not on the xbox exclusively. Since that system isn't nearly as dated as the xbox is and is actually a very very capable machine, ps3 games will typically port more easily over to pc.
I think your theory of porting ps3 games to pc is complete bullshit. Never heard that before. Ps3 has also pretty similiar hardware to the 360, there is not a huge difference.
Also I fail to see your argument about AC being developped for ps3/xbox which makes it easier for pc?
the ps3 in general is more on par with pc's than xbox is.
[QUOTE=7331;36257812]Am I the only one who's happy with this? I don't want to hear about xbox anymore ps3/wii u and pc are the best "consoles" that you can have.[/QUOTE]
I never understood why one would say the PS3 is better than the Xbox (or the other way around). From what I know, the hardware is pretty much identical and most of the games are cross-platform.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36258841]the ps3 in general is more on par with pc's than xbox is.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. Or the gap between PS3 and Xbox 360 is insignificant because when I heard about games that don't look the same on both platforms, it's not always on the PS3 that it looks better.
Anyway, that's like saying the Gamecube is more on par with the Xbox 360 than the PS2 is. It's pointless.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;36258851]I never understood why one would say the PS3 is better than the Xbox (or the other way around). From what I know, the hardware is pretty much identical and most of the games are cross-platform.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
I don't think so. Or the gap between PS3 and Xbox 360 is insignificant because when I heard about games that don't look the same on both platforms, it's not always on the PS3 that it looks better.
Anyway, that's like saying the Gamecube is more on par with the Xbox 360 than the PS2 is. It's pointless.[/QUOTE]
It boils down to the devs and how they use the tech. But the ps3 does offer a superior cpu and offers dedicated gpu ram in addition to system ram. The xbox just has ram shared by both the gpu and cpu.
Also to clarify on what i said above: I don't mean the games port functionally as well to pc, i meant graphically.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36258693]Ummm, yeah.
Go ahead and play a game made in 2003, one that doesn't offer the choice to play in 1920x1080, edit in in the config file, then run it. Then tell me textures aren't stretched, or not fully accurate.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
assassins creed and skyrim were developed on both the xbox and ps3, not on the xbox exclusively. Since that system isn't nearly as dated as the xbox is and is actually a very very capable machine, ps3 games will typically port more easily over to pc.[/QUOTE]
PS3 games can't be ported over, it's impossible. They have to be developed for pc/xbox and ps3 seperately. If a game gets ported from console to pc, then it's the xbox version that gets ported over.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36258944]PS3 games can't be ported over, it's impossible. They have to be developed for pc/xbox and ps3 seperately. If a game gets ported from console to pc, then it's the xbox version that gets ported over.[/QUOTE]
I have never read anything like that. I'm not saying you're wrong though, i'm merely saying i never saw or read anything like that.
[QUOTE=Pikachu231;36255756]Related
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2eH3vYbdGo[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvR_3OTxs8A[/media]
Think of the Sega CD as how outdated the 360's hardware is, and how it's always reducing the frames per second of a game and its usage of a outdated processor, going at a steady 3.2 GHz powered by a Pentium III processor, and graphics card that is a custom made for it, ATI Xenos going at a steady 500 MHz, and 512 MB of RAM.
512 FREAKIN' MB OF RAM.
The 32X can be how they are still trying to keep it alive, like with Kinect.[/QUOTE]
Pentium 3... Sorry, what? You're getting confused with the original Xbox. The Xenon in the 360 is an original IBM design. Infinitely more powerful than a Pentium 3 and one of the most powerful commercial processors around it's release date. It's the least outdated piece of hardware in the 360. Still heavily outdated, however.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36258954]I have never read anything like that. I'm not saying you're wrong though, i'm merely saying i never saw or read anything like that.[/QUOTE]
Would make sense though, considering the OS of pc and the xbox are perhaps the same, only highly modified. Although I really doubt that they have to port it seperatly to the PS3.
I can already foresee 360 players crying a year from now because the Xbox version of Watch_Dog won't be nearly as impressive as the E3 demo was, because of hardware limitation. All I can see is MS lagging behind in terms of horsepower and eventually, in games.
Xbox hate everywhere :v:
Honestly, there are games on the 360 that look nearly as good as Watch Dogs. I do not see the problem right there. Although I do not know any examples right now :v:
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259052]Xbox hate everywhere :v:
Honestly, there are games on the 360 that look nearly as good as Watch Dogs. I do not see the problem right there. Although I do not know any examples right now :v:[/QUOTE]
There are games on the 360 that look nearly as good as Watch Dogs ?
Alright what games.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259052]Xbox hate everywhere :v:
Honestly, there are games on the 360 that look nearly as good as Watch Dogs. I do not see the problem right there. Although I do not know any examples right now :v:[/QUOTE]
Looking as good in terms of design, perhaps, but there would still be blurry textures and such more or less everywhere. I find it a bit ironic that current gen consoles were labelled "HD" even though they are often a bit behind in terms of texture resolution.
I mean, on this year's E3 every demo was run on PC. There's no way you could run such games fine on 360, with 512 MB of RAM, without making sacrifices in term of textures and AA.
Well, perhaps Gears. It looks terrific.
Battlefield 3, Resident Evil, Crysis?
I must admit that I do not know much games, but those are older anyway. I bet Watch Dogs will have it's downsides to.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;36259084]Looking as good in terms of design, perhaps, but there would still be blurry textures and such more or less everywhere. I find it a bit ironic that current gen consoles were labelled "HD" even though they are often a bit behind in terms of texture resolution.
I mean, on this year's E3 every demo was run on PC. There's no way you could run such games fine on 360, with 512 MB of RAM, without making sacrifices in term of textures and AA.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I think the limits are pretty much reached by now. But when I think now about how much you have to spend for a pc to play the game and then how much you have to spend for a console to be ably to play a game, there is a difference. Just saying.
Although that is a different aspect.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259088]Well, perhaps Gears. It looks terrific.
Battlefield 3, Resident Evil, Crysis?
I must admit that I do not know much games, but those are older anyway. I bet Watch Dogs will have it's downsides to.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uotuP7QLGoM/Tn_N7UK6IVI/AAAAAAAAKwc/PIIQv2b_i_Q/s1600/gears-of-war-3-hd-3.jpg[/img]
vs.
[img]http://images.gamersyde.com/image_watch_dogs-19381-2527_0001.jpg[/img]
besides unlike gears of war, watch dogs is an open world game so really comparing a linear shooter with an open world game is not too fair, and watch dogs still looks better.
Well, that certainly looks sexy :v:
Although Watch Dogs isn't even out yet, do not make any judgements by a trailer and a few shots.
Seems like I am the only one defending the 360 :v:
Perhaps it will also have downsides, but at the time being, assuming the level of quality showcased in the demo will be the same on release day, the particles used in the demo probably won't be able to be rendered correctly on 360 with as much detail. (The wind effect, rain, focus change over [B]raindrops[/B] during the bullet time) And even assuming the 360 would be able to do such thing, you have to keep in mind NPC interaction, pathfinding, animations, AI, procedural map loading also takes up resources.
In the end, if you want your game to be more complex, more diverse, and more alive, you have to upgrade your hardware.
I don't want upcoming games to be technically limited and I don't want innovative projects to be abandoned on all platforms because that Phil Spencer arsehole prefers to keep selling his outdated hardware to gullible customers to milk them to death for two more years.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259150]Well, that certainly looks sexy :v:
Although Watch Dogs isn't even out yet, do not make any judgements by a trailer and a few shots.
Seems like I am the only one defending the 360 :v:[/QUOTE]
This may have been a trailer, but it was a gameplay one rendered live at E3, so it's not like it was just a CGI presentation. Graphical content that was shown will most certainly be in the PC version of the game. Of course, I suppose this was run on a high-end PC on high-end settings, but at least it's something you can have once you've got the adequate hardware.
Yeah, you're right.
There is to much evidence shoved in my face to deny that. Guess it's a personal issue of mine because I think I will have to leave out a few games because I lack the necessary rig to even run such a game. I do not like the visual advancements as much as like other advancements in terms of AI, gamemechanics and other features.
The Watchdogs demo uses quite a bit of DX11 features, they will be severely downgraded on current gen consoles.
Well they could still keep up with upcoming games by pulling their fingers out of their ass and releasing a next-gen console with decent, up-to-date hardware.
Yeah, I do not get why they can't simply put some effort in the newer consoles. It is certainly not a matter of financial troubles.
XBOX 360 is considered too old for games of today. Why Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 looks like it's in medium setting when played on the XBOX 360 compare to the PC. Why isn't Microsoft worry? The Game developers can use a newer hardware for their games.
If they still wish to continue XBOX 360, at least make XBOX live cheaper or free. $15 a month is a bit too much. I wish they just make XBOX Live free
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259150]Well, that certainly looks sexy :v:
Although Watch Dogs isn't even out yet, do not make any judgements by a trailer and a few shots.
Seems like I am the only one defending the 360 :v:[/QUOTE]
The 360 is a nice system but it's definitely limited. I remember having my mind blown by how good Gears of War 2 looked with its superb textures and lighting, but then Gears 3 comes along a couple years later and I realize that they've simply reached the limit. There really is only so much you can do with 7 year old hardware and I'm genuinely impressed that they've achieved as much as they have. Same goes for the PS3, but I think that one has a little life left in it; a few of their developers continue to flummox me with the visuals in games like Beyond: Two Souls or The Last of Us; how they do it, I'll never know.
But even with all that, there comes a time to move on. Though a few dedicated developers may surprise me, Xbox 360 appears to have hit the limits of its capabilities a couple of years ago and has gotten to the point where I can say, objectively, that the limitations of the system are holding back progress, especially on PC.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.