• Xbox 360 has 'a lot more than two years' left, MS boss says
    267 replies, posted
[QUOTE]That's what LAN parties are for, I mean most of the good games are the old ones, so I can dump them on my laptop and do exactly the same thing with my friends.[/QUOTE] Compare inviting friends to play a game on a console to inviting friends to bring their computers over for a LAN party Local console multiplayer is much easier
Also, it's far more personal when all the players look at one screen being next to each other than a couple of guys sitting in front of their pc being seperated from the others.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36284549]Talk about ignorance.[/QUOTE] You say we are entrenched in our views yet you shoot down everything we have to say and spread your console gaming as a religion.
No I am not, several pages ago I aknowledged a lot of valid arguments about the pc. I generally agree that pc is superior in a lot of ways. It's a fact, but people don't seem to take different aspects into account. Especially considering the cost of both systems. I am no way a die hard console fan, but I just do not like how the xbox is considered as a piece of junk by the majority here. I try to find arguments against those that are stated, prove me some facts and I am fine with it. I am just trying to be fair. Rating dumb and simply claiming somthing isn't exactly arguing. Simply the fact that you say "we" makes you look like a superior arrogant pc masterrace elitist. I also doubt that a lot of people fully read this thread and the whole dicussion.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36284549]Talk about ignorance. By reading your post it looks like most games are only ports, sorry when I misinterpretationed that. Because there are still a tons of pc only developpers. The console market is more lucrative, there is really a trend towards consoles on the market today. But the pc market is not being neglected, sometimes you have those exclusives or bad ports yes. But not always. Saints Row 2 is really a prime example when it comes to this, still those who are responsible for the port screwed up. Not exactly the fault of consoles. Yes, you could argue that if there weren't any consoles, you wouldn't have this issue. But that might go to far. How exactly do you know that devs spent enourmous amounts of time on optimizing games for consoles, I have never read that anywhere. Look for instance at Max Payne 3, it had a good port and was nearly simultaniously released for all the plattforms. The whole thing is that the developpement process is really intransparent to us, we cannot simply say, they need a shitton of time optimizing a game. There are a lot of variables that come into play when developping a game. I just want to defend that consoles are not the main cause for technological advances that are being held back. Because every game that was released so far on pc was always superior to the console version in terms of graphics. I do not want to insult anybody, just make some points. Sorry if I might have misread your post.[/QUOTE] Talk about nonsense (this is a must now, I won't read your post if you don't put in a "talk about..." sentence at the start) Why do you bring up these unrelated points I never said anything about? I've never thought and never will think that the PC market is being neglected. It's neglected by AAA Publishers, but not by any decent developers, indie or not. I have not once implied the PC market is being neglected, but it's being treated badly by several developers that only send it to the PC for the extra cash, many which promise they will take lots of care and make it a true PC game but end up just straight out porting it. Also it's the fault of the consoles, not consoles in and by themselves, but consoles for the reason we have the discussion in the first place, because they are old and outdated as fuck and need to be renewed, that is the reason this shit happens. Dark Souls has more than well enough confirmed this, we've already been told it requires a lot of money and time to make a proper port from the developers themselves. We're not talking a shitload of months or anything, but a month or two. Simultaneous releases means that they were already working on the PC code from the start. It's also a fucking logical given, there are tens of thousands of codes that needs to be modified and written and tested with the current and older hardware that exists on the market. The issue comes down to whether or not they planned to release it for the PC or not (if they didn't a lot needs to be redone and fixed to fit the PC since it was never meant to work on the PC from the start) and whether they actually know what they're doing and can be bothered to do it. Consoles are the only possible cause for technological holdback. Developers have barely scratched any of the DX10 features and pretty much none of the DX11 features, reason being that they can't implement all that shit on the console versions of the games, meaning they would have to make two entirely separate games for the consoles and PC which is much more expensive than just making a game for the consoles and then throw it over to the PC with some more advanced graphical options, possibly some higher resolution textures and done with it. Consoles are factually holding back technological progress because they are simply too old to keep up. We have graphic cards on the PC's that's pretty much useless because no game so far actually takes use of their power. [QUOTE=junker|154;36284708]Also, it's far more personal when all the players look at one screen being next to each other than a couple of guys sitting in front of their pc being seperated from the others.[/QUOTE] Having been to a lot of LAN's with my friends and having played a lot of Guitar Hero, Halo III and whatever with my friends as well, I couldn't disagree more. If you purposefully just sit in front of the computer and don't say a single word, then you're making it unpersonal yourself, if you actually have fun, talk with the others, go over to them and have a blast, then it can't be beaten by a console session, by far. If you go to computer parties and arranged LAN events however, then it depends on what you make of it.
Yeah, I got quite confused with some initial issue that was discussed a few pages ago, I just interpreted it like that. You are making a good point there, I apologize. I am still confused though if this is really the case that devs tend to hold back technological advances due to the lack of power in consoles. It's really irritating to me, seeing as a lot of games look graphically a lot better on the pc. It's also in the best interest for the devs of making a game visually more impressive. As I percieve this I think that generelly you have solid engines like UE3 or Cryengine which are already pretty advanced and all the pc use every function available, as long as the rig is capable enough. Consoles on the other hand have some graphical enhancements cut out in order to cope with the lack of power. Also I know some people which graphics cards hit the limit in more advanced games, but you have to take the into account that the cpu or ram might decrease the power of a graphics card, thus holding back the full potential. Initially I just wanted to share my view on the price/cost comparison of consoles and pcs, which differ greatly. I kind of got carried away though. [QUOTE=dgg;36286540]Having been to a lot of LAN's with my friends and having played a lot of Guitar Hero, Halo III and whatever with my friends as well, I couldn't disagree more. If you purposefully just sit in front of the computer and don't say a single word, then you're making it unpersonal yourself, if you actually have fun, talk with the others, go over to them and have a blast, then it can't be beaten by a console session, by far. If you go to computer parties and arranged LAN events however, then it depends on what you make of it.[/QUOTE] Well, you are right. It's rather subjective, I had tons of cool Lan parties where a couple of my buddies and I also went for BBQ, couple drinks, generelly just messing around and having all kinds of fun. But still in comparison with local splitscreen, that one was more fun. Might depend on the friends though. There also seems a lot of talk about technology being pushed back, I just wonder how much, because there is still a large amount of games with really terrific graphics that are coming out for this current generation of consoles. Some look absolutely gorgeous and have all kinds of cool asthetics. For instance The Last of Us, Gears, BioShock Infinite, Halo 4, Crysis, Watchdogs, Uncharted and so on. Perhaps it depends on personal standards. I find these games really impressive and really up to date. Graphics are still being improved a lot these days, even with the limited capabilities.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36281234]If you don't mind my asking, did you pay for all 9 of those systems or were most of them covered by warranty? I've had several people at my store buying an Xbox 360 who tell me it's their 3rd, 4th, 5th one and I can't help but think "So...by now you've spent more than $1000 on a system that has failed on you (x amount of times) in the 7 years the system has been out. Why do you stick with it if it's so unreliable?" Personally, I would have ditched the thing after the second failure.[/QUOTE] It was warrenty, and plus, Oblivion...
[QUOTE=junker|154;36286673]I am still confused though if this is really the case that devs tend to hold back technological advances due to the lack of power in consoles. It's really irritating to me, seeing as a lot of games look graphically a lot better on the pc. It's also in the best interest for the devs of making a game visually more impressive. As I percieve this I think that generelly you have solid engines like UE3 or Cryengine which are already pretty advanced and all the pc use every function available, as long as the rig is capable enough. Consoles on the other hand have some graphical enhancements cut out in order to cope with the lack of power. Also I know some people which graphics cards hit the limit in more advanced games, but you have to take the into account that the cpu or ram might decrease the power of a graphics card, thus holding back the full potential. Initially I just wanted to share my view on the price/cost comparison of consoles and pcs, which differ greatly. I kind of got carried away though. There also seems a lot of talk about technology being pushed back, I just wonder how much, because there is still a large amount of games with really terrific graphics that are coming out for this current generation of consoles. Some look absolutely gorgeous and have all kinds of cool asthetics. For instance The Last of Us, Gears, BioShock Infinite, Halo 4, Crysis, Watchdogs, Uncharted and so on. Perhaps it depends on personal standards. I find these games really impressive and really up to date. Graphics are still being improved a lot these days, even with the limited capabilities.[/QUOTE] We have yet to see any games take use of all the features of UE and CE as far as I'm aware of, but I don't really know, but I highly doubt it. Well I'm thinking about The highest Nvidia cards, the 80 and 90 series for this and the previous generation. Dunno what the equivalent is for AMD. And yeah, probably bottlenecked. It also depends on what you've defined as the limit. :v: Not pushed back, but held back. That means they just don't use what we have available. We have lots of features available, but a lot of them are left unused because the consoles can't handle it all because of their limits. Also you can come a long way with properly set lightning and good texture work when it comes to how good a game looks, after all it's the aesthetics that is the most important, not the technology. But technology will help the aesthetics way more and push it even further.
[QUOTE=Civil;36284963]everything we have to say[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Civil;36284963]spread your console gaming as a religion.[/QUOTE] is posting on a forum considered spreading a religion now? because with your group-think you're doing exactly the same thing lol
[QUOTE=thisispain;36292420]is posting on a forum considered spreading a religion now? because with your group-think you're doing exactly the same thing lol[/QUOTE] this. i find it funny you guys are complaining 'OHH HE'S SHOVING CONSOLES IN OUR FACES" when you guys go "GLORIOUS PC GAMING MASTER RACE! IF YOU BUY A CONSOLE YOU'RE A DIRTY PEASANT LOL"
[QUOTE=Woovie;36253916]Your customers disagree sir. As does your shitty hardware.[/QUOTE] The new consoles hardware is hardly better than the current one. My PC has a better graphics card than the 720.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36292420]is posting on a forum considered spreading a religion now? because with your group-think you're doing exactly the same thing lol[/QUOTE] I cannot describe how glad I am that you mention this, group-thinking is an enemy of free speach and versatile arguments and opinions. It's like whenever you are considerate to consoles, everyone bashes you.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36286673]Initially I just wanted to share my view on the price/cost comparison of consoles and pcs, which differ greatly. I kind of got carried away though. [/QUOTE] I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this argument yet. I don't know anybody doesn't own own a PC, and I go to school with some dirt poor kids. And as mentioned before, even CUSTOM build entry level PCs cost $300~. So why not just save the money you could spend on a shitty best-buy $800 "Movie editing" rig, and that $200 for your Xbox 360, and spend $1,000 on a nice rig and windows ?
Yeah, I think you also have to consider the performance/cost ratio in this equation. Ultimately it is all about money and what you get for your investement. When you compare the best car to some old russian Lada, it makes no sense and is not really a valid comparison.
[QUOTE=McGii;36284383]Tvs upscale[/QUOTE] Like already mentioned, when a console is set to 1080p, the console itself does the scaling. (At least that's the case on most 360 games)
Some of you say $300 for console and 300 for a PC. nearly EVERYONE has a PC, that 300 could go towards a decent GPU, gaming PCs can do much more than just games.
So, I'm just going to say this right now: My ex spent upwards of $2000 on a "gaming" pc and can't even run LA Noire. My $300 xbox gave me the gaming experience I was willing to pay for. This is what a lot of people on this thread have failed to keep in mind: not everyone is willing to pay for a high-powered rig just so the images on the screen look like a picture. Sorry, but I'm playing a fucking video game, not looking at a Monet. Should Microsoft upgrade their hardware? Sure. Absolutely. It may cost me money, but I'd be willing to pay another $300 (after waiting a couple years past release) for another solid 7 years of playing whatever game I want with no worries, split screening with my brother and live chatting with my friends 'till 6 in the morning. But for now, so what if a few edges are a bit aliased? This is the difference between most console and PC gamers. By and large, console gamers just want to game, while PC gamers bother over whether or not they can run a game at optimal levels. This is where the expensive cycle of hardware swapping takes over the PC (and why I elected the console.) But, I'm weird anyway because I mostly play for story. When I'm watching Ezio or Batman jump around on my 720p TV with my 4 yr old xbox in full jet engine mode, I'm too busy engrossed in the story to notice an aliased edge or a foggy graphic. And this is why console gaming won't die any time soon. The same can be said for Mobile games or facebook games or even websites like Addictinggames. They attract different [i]kinds[/i] of gamers and each kind is a huge chunk of a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no competition between PCs and consoles. People are comfortable where they are. This isn't like the HD DVD and the Blu-Ray or the VHS and Betamax. They're completely different experiences that appeal to a completely different demographic.
[QUOTE=sdwise;36310028]So, I'm just going to say this right now: My ex spent upwards of $2000 on a "gaming" pc and can't even run LA Noire. My $300 xbox gave me the gaming experience I was willing to pay for. This is what a lot of people on this thread have failed to keep in mind: not everyone is willing to pay for a high-powered rig just so the images on the screen look like a picture. Sorry, but I'm playing a fucking video game, not looking at a Monet. Should Microsoft upgrade their hardware? Sure. Absolutely. It may cost me money, but I'd be willing to pay another $300 (after waiting a couple years past release) for another solid 7 years of playing whatever game I want with no worries, split screening with my brother and live chatting with my friends 'till 6 in the morning. But for now, so what if a few edges are a bit aliased? This is the difference between most console and PC gamers. By and large, console gamers just want to game, while PC gamers bother over whether or not they can run a game at optimal levels. This is where the expensive cycle of hardware swapping takes over the PC (and why I elected the console.) But, I'm weird anyway because I mostly play for story. When I'm watching Ezio or Batman jump around on my 720p TV with my 4 yr old xbox in full jet engine mode, I'm too busy engrossed in the story to notice an aliased edge or a foggy graphic. And this is why console gaming won't die any time soon. The same can be said for Mobile games or facebook games or even websites like Addictinggames. They attract different [i]kinds[/i] of gamers and each kind is a huge chunk of a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no competition between PCs and consoles. People are comfortable where they are. This isn't like the HD DVD and the Blu-Ray or the VHS and Betamax. They're completely different experiences that appeal to a completely different demographic.[/QUOTE] I agree with this, however, I'm saddened very few will agree with this at all.
[QUOTE=sdwise;36310028]So, I'm just going to say this right now: My ex spent upwards of $2000 on a "gaming" pc and can't even run LA Noire. My $300 xbox gave me the gaming experience I was willing to pay for. This is what a lot of people on this thread have failed to keep in mind: not everyone is willing to pay for a high-powered rig just so the images on the screen look like a picture. Sorry, but I'm playing a fucking video game, not looking at a Monet. Should Microsoft upgrade their hardware? Sure. Absolutely. It may cost me money, but I'd be willing to pay another $300 (after waiting a couple years past release) for another solid 7 years of playing whatever game I want with no worries, split screening with my brother and live chatting with my friends 'till 6 in the morning. But for now, so what if a few edges are a bit aliased? This is the difference between most console and PC gamers. By and large, console gamers just want to game, while PC gamers bother over whether or not they can run a game at optimal levels. This is where the expensive cycle of hardware swapping takes over the PC (and why I elected the console.) But, I'm weird anyway because I mostly play for story. When I'm watching Ezio or Batman jump around on my 720p TV with my 4 yr old xbox in full jet engine mode, I'm too busy engrossed in the story to notice an aliased edge or a foggy graphic. And this is why console gaming won't die any time soon. The same can be said for Mobile games or facebook games or even websites like Addictinggames. They attract different [i]kinds[/i] of gamers and each kind is a huge chunk of a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no competition between PCs and consoles. People are comfortable where they are. This isn't like the HD DVD and the Blu-Ray or the VHS and Betamax. They're completely different experiences that appeal to a completely different demographic.[/QUOTE] That is the pointthat I am trying to state. You deserve a medal sir. [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;36308614']Some of you say $300 for console and 300 for a PC. nearly EVERYONE has a PC, that 300 could go towards a decent GPU, gaming PCs can do much more than just games.[/QUOTE] I do not think that you can play Battlefield 3, Napoleon Total War, Skyrim, Supreme Commander or such on a 300 $.
the pc vs. console "debate" is sillier than the android vs. apple debate, but only by a tiny margin
You guys know you don't have to buy an unused PC right ? Bought mine from a connoisseur who was upgrading from a pretty decent PC, for no more than 450€, screen, case, keyboard and mouse included. To me it seems like a sound investment, especially when I'm pretty sure I'd use my PC a lot more often than I would use a console. Apart from playing console-exclusive games, I really don't see the point in buying a console. [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] Also, keep in mind that some types of games don't adapt well on consoles. I'm thinking mainly about RTS, gestion games and that kind of thing. Also, the F2P model don't really apply to consoles, especially the 360.
Well, you are right. Just it is so much easier to get a console and have no hassle installing games or fix any issues that might pop up. I keep my consoles for my third person action games, rpgs and some shooters. I mainly use my pc to play strategy/tactical/4X games. So I get the best out of both.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36311933]I do not think that you can play Battlefield 3, Napoleon Total War, Skyrim, Supreme Commander or such on a 300 $.[/QUOTE] Battlefield 3 on $300? It still runs at a higher frame-rate, better graphics and resolution than the x360 and ps3. Ask my friend from India which plays with such a pc on lowest graphics which is superior to ps3 and x360. You also have to count how expensive it is to maintain the x360 because of its game-play and game costs, making it more expensive than a mid range pc after a year.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36312361]Well, you are right. Just it is so much easier to get a console and have no hassle installing games or fix any issues that might pop up. I keep my consoles for my third person action games, rpgs and some shooters. I mainly use my pc to play strategy/tactical/4X games. So I get the best out of both.[/QUOTE] I kind of see what you mean by having hassle installing games, but I haven't really got such issues since about 5 years or so. Besides, thanks to Steam, I haven't bought a physical game for a while and steam just install those games automatically.
[QUOTE=Civil;36312446]Battlefield 3 on $300? It still runs at a higher frame-rate, better graphics and resolution than the x360 and ps3. Ask my friend from India which plays with such a pc on lowest graphics which is superior to ps3 and x360. You also have to count how expensive it is to maintain the x360 because of its game-play and game costs, making it more expensive than a mid range pc after a year.[/QUOTE] Especially with live being (isn't it?) $15/mo, ONTOP of your existing internet bill. You can buy a fairly cheap graphics card and play most games on ultra / high (E.X the 6850 which is $150 and plays BF3 on ultra ~45 FPS avg )
[QUOTE=glitchvid;36312884]Especially with live being (isn't it?) $15/mo, ONTOP of your existing internet bill. You can buy a fairly cheap graphics card and play most games on ultra / high (E.X the 6850 which is $150 and plays BF3 on ultra ~45 FPS avg )[/QUOTE] I thought live is 8 bucks a month or something like that? Or maybe its that because I pay yearly. Basically what you said, reuse case, monitor etc., And then load yourself with an I3, 6 GB ram, and a 6850 or whatever you can afford and you'll have a reasonable PC.
[QUOTE=sdwise;36310028]So, I'm just going to say this right now: My ex spent upwards of $2000 on a "gaming" pc and can't even run LA Noire. My $300 xbox gave me the gaming experience I was willing to pay for. This is what a lot of people on this thread have failed to keep in mind: not everyone is willing to pay for a high-powered rig just so the images on the screen look like a picture. Sorry, but I'm playing a fucking video game, not looking at a Monet. Should Microsoft upgrade their hardware? Sure. Absolutely. It may cost me money, but I'd be willing to pay another $300 (after waiting a couple years past release) for another solid 7 years of playing whatever game I want with no worries, split screening with my brother and live chatting with my friends 'till 6 in the morning. But for now, so what if a few edges are a bit aliased? This is the difference between most console and PC gamers. By and large, console gamers just want to game, while PC gamers bother over whether or not they can run a game at optimal levels. This is where the expensive cycle of hardware swapping takes over the PC (and why I elected the console.) But, I'm weird anyway because I mostly play for story. When I'm watching Ezio or Batman jump around on my 720p TV with my 4 yr old xbox in full jet engine mode, I'm too busy engrossed in the story to notice an aliased edge or a foggy graphic. And this is why console gaming won't die any time soon. The same can be said for Mobile games or facebook games or even websites like Addictinggames. They attract different [i]kinds[/i] of gamers and each kind is a huge chunk of a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no competition between PCs and consoles. People are comfortable where they are. This isn't like the HD DVD and the Blu-Ray or the VHS and Betamax. They're completely different experiences that appeal to a completely different demographic.[/QUOTE] You make some good points and I mostly agree with you, though I will say that if your ex spent $2000 on a PC and it wasn't capable of running literally EVERYTHING at max, then something went drastically wrong.
[QUOTE=Civil;36312446]Battlefield 3 on $300? It still runs at a higher frame-rate, better graphics and resolution than the x360 and ps3. Ask my friend from India which plays with such a pc on lowest graphics which is superior to ps3 and x360. You also have to count how expensive it is to maintain the x360 because of its game-play and game costs, making it more expensive than a mid range pc after a year.[/QUOTE] No way you can play BF3 on a pc for 300 $, not at fucking all. Perhaps with the minimum and huge lag, fps drops and such. Xbox 360 does not need any maintaince, not as far as I know. [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;36312519]I kind of see what you mean by having hassle installing games, but I haven't really got such issues since about 5 years or so. Besides, thanks to Steam, I haven't bought a physical game for a while and steam just install those games automatically.[/QUOTE] Well, I play a lot of various games, also older ones. Sometimes it is an hassle to optimize your pc or tweak it for a particular game. Besides you have to keep track of overheating and that your pc is cooled. All those things are really annoying to me. You can also buy non-physical copies on the Xbox Live market. [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=glitchvid;36312884]Especially with live being (isn't it?) $15/mo, ONTOP of your existing internet bill. You can buy a fairly cheap graphics card and play most games on ultra / high (E.X the 6850 which is $150 and plays BF3 on ultra ~45 FPS avg )[/QUOTE] At least you get stable servers, Xbox Live costs but it is really stable. I cannot complain about that. Also PC isn't merely defined by graphics card. A card alone might not be that expensive, depending on what you get. You can have a topnotch graphic card but if your system sucks, it won't help at all.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36313361]No way you can play BF3 on a pc for 300 $, not at fucking all. Perhaps with the minimum and huge lag, fps drops and such. Xbox 360 does not need any maintaince, not as far as I know. Well, I play a lot of various games, also older ones. Sometimes it is an hassle to optimize your pc or tweak it for a particular game. Besides you have to keep track of overheating and that your pc is cooled. All those things are really annoying to me. You can also buy non-physical copies on the Xbox Live market. [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] At least you get stable servers, Xbox Live costs but it is really stable. I cannot complain about that. Also PC isn't merely defined by graphics card. A card alone might not be that expensive, depending on what you get. You can have a topnotch graphic card but if your system sucks, it won't help at all.[/QUOTE] With the same quality you get on the Xbox360, myeah I actually believe you can. Also I don't know what he means by maintenance, but the games costs more on consoles than PC, so the price you pay extra for the games will accumulate over time and end up being quite a lot of money. I've never once tweaked my PC for any games. Keep track of overheating? What? Either it overheats on the first game you ever played or it doesn't and you never have to worry about it again, end of story. You can complain about having to pay for it in the first place. Playing online on PS3 is completely free, like it should be. There is no justification for paying for online gaming on the Xbox360. Of course it's absolutely no money, but it's money you shouldn't have to spend at all. Add that price to the extra price of games and you can hear the money ticking in.
I am pretty sure Microsoft intends to reconvert the xbox 360 into a media center device kind of thing, which doesn't seem too bad of a decision
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.