Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
These look gorgeous IMO, but I have to cringe at the words "Test Drive," which in my experience have always been correlated with "lame arcade driving game with awful physics."
Lol, so you include the cost of a monitor for the PC, but not an HDTV for the shitbox360? Repeat after me, kiddies: "Bias". See this is what I mean, misinformation & bias are the only way you people can make an argument & justify the pos, but god forbid you rethink your stance on it :roll: On top of that oversight you have the fact that a $150 PC can outclass current consoles; it only takes a ti4x00 and a 2ghz or 2000+ with 256-512mb ram.
I honestly wouldn't give a crap if it didn't adversely affect me... but it does. Because of console idiocy there are games I can't play and others which could look & be so much better if they were developed for the PC instead of ported to it.
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,715
- 10,472
- 136
WTF are you talking about "weak willed"?? ATI and Nvidia are shoving new product down your throats every 6 months!!! Your argument is completely baseless and without any merit whatsoever--console makers don't make money on the hardware and its a hell of a lot cheaper for a console than a top-of-the-line video card.
Anyways, I think I just outgrew PC gaming. I set aside some money for a major upgrade and decided not to do it at the moment...still running an Athlon 1700+ (stock) on a crappy mobo with a Radeon 8500LE. Reason? I hardly ever use it for anything other than TV torrents/media PC stuff. Most of my PC time is on a 5 pound laptop now. Last game I bought was HL2 but its become such a pain on my rig...insane load times. And don't get me started on CS:Source--WHY do I have to sit and wait for 100 .wav files to download everytime i want to connect to a server? I could probably turn it off, but only after going into the 'console' and typing some arcane command. Sorry, its just not for me anymore. My idea of PC gaming is Yahoo! games and pokerroom.com, that's just the way it is.
I think consoles do a lot more for gaming than the PC will do in the future. Sure we had groundbreaking games like text adventures and King's Quest and Doom that brought about entire revolutions in gaming, but after the MMORPG I don't see how PCs are going to "push" new trends in gaming. Developers will learn to push the limits on consoles first, and then games will filter down to the PC. It wasn't always this way in the past, but that's the future my friend. Sure, PCs will be more powerful in the long run. A year after Xbox 360 launches PCs might be on the same level. Two years after they might be 2x faster. But I'd rather pay $300-$350 now and have a decent gaming rig that'll last 3 years.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Between this and your innumerable iPod posts, it's clear to me you really need to get outside once in a while . . . I didn't think it was possible for a human being to get so impassioned over something as trivial as personal preferences in small electronics.
raystorm
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 4,712
- 2
- 0
I'm not too impressed with that video. It doesnt look anything special or "next gen" at all but things could improve in the coming months. Of course the game has the name "test drive" on it which usually means garbage but we'll see. Maybe it looks better when you see it in person rather than a low res video though.
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,715
- 10,472
- 136
Misinformation? Bias? Be careful not to choke on your own bile. We're not talking about current consoles, we're talking about XBox 360. Rumors say the whole thing will be $360, but lets say it costs $500. Top of the line 512MB Geforce G70 will be $549. So its $50 cheaper, includes sound, HD, DVD player, and a tricked out CPU more powerful than anything Intel or AMD will have in Fall 2005. PWNED.
I understand why you're so opposed to consoles--we'd all like the best games available on a PC. But what you don't realize is that its easier and cheaper to accept it and buy a console. Developers must have a hard time developing games for the PC because there are so many more variables--CPU, chipset, RAM, operating environment (what other programs is Billy running that'll crash the game?) that it just takes longer I'd bet.
James3shin
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2004
- 4,426
- 0
- 76
nice find...i agree that it looks good and that the lack of "wow" factor is probably due to the vid quality.
just want to point out that you include the cost of a monitor for the PC but not the cost of a TV for the console
They are? Where's my 6800 / x800?
I've bought three video cards in the past decade, one of them only because I built a second PC. Using the fastest, a 9800pro, I can play the latest games in 10x7 - 12x10, 4aa8af with the highest in-game detail settings. You're comparing consoles to the highest end video cards, which is a bust as the average person doesn't buy them. Even the average ATer doesn't, and ATers are for the most part far more interested in performance & willing to pay for it. More bias.
Good thing you post in every one of them to set me straight then. Honorable pursuit, bud
Likewise we're not talking about current PCs... what's that sound you're making? Almost sounds like you're choking on something
PC is far cheaper over the course of time, as you buy second-fastest gear (which is plenty capable of playing the newest games, btw) every 3-5 years and carry over peripherals as you upgrade rather than building anew.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Originally posted by: Gurck
Good thing you post in every thread to sete me straight. Honorable pursuit, bud
I don't ever remember doing it before. It seems to me you're the one crapping in a thread clearly captioned as an XBox 360 thread. You are one strange ranger, sir.
This is just not true, or even close to true. If we use the original XBox as an example, it cost $300 new, and has had a shelf life of 4 years. I have never had a video card or CPU make it nearly that long before an upgrade, and the amounts of money that requires is far more than $75/year. Hell, I remember spending $560 on my two Voodoo 2s, in 1998 dollars! I am not a console afficionado - the last one I owned before my Xbox was an NES - but you can't seriously argue there's a cost advantage to PC gaming.
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,715
- 10,472
- 136
I'm not following you. I was addressing your argument that console buyers are weak-willed, and that Sony and MS force dumb consumers to buy "overpriced" hardware. If anything, I would argue that Nvidia and ATI sell overpriced hardware (or try to, if they can get it on the shelves!) because they have new product every 6 months and their $500 card will be $300 in 6 months. You're saying your 9800pro has longevity--great! That argument is much stronger on the console side, where you can be guaranteed that every new Xbox/PS2 game being demoed at E3 next week will work on your 4-yr old machine (as long as you don't have a Thomson drive :coolOriginally posted by: Gurck
They are? Where's my 6800 / x800?
I've bought three video cards in the past decade, one of them only because I built a second PC. Using the fastest, a 9800pro, I can play the latest games in 10x7 - 12x10, 4aa8af with the highest in-game detail settings. You're comparing consoles to the highest end video cards, which is a bust as the average person doesn't buy them. Even the average ATer doesn't, and ATers are for the most part far more interested in performance & willing to pay for it. More bias.
Likewise we're not talking about current PCs... what's that sound you're making? Almost sounds like you're choking on something
PC is far cheaper over the course of time, as you buy second-fastest gear (which is plenty capable of playing the newest games, btw) every 3-5 years and carry over peripherals as you upgrade rather than building anew.[/quote]Again, I'm not understanding you. I just compared an XBox 360 on store shelves in November 2005 with what I predict will be the most powerful (and hence most comparable) video card available that same month. G70 is not "current", its considered a next-gen Fall 2005 part 2x faster than 6800 Ultra. No bias, I'm comparing apples to apples and the MS one is sweeter.
Selective memory you've got there, you spend as much time telling me to stop posting about ipods as I do posting about them. More, now that I've let up a bit on it.Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Gurck
Good thing you post in every thread to sete me straight. Honorable pursuit, bud
I don't ever remember doing it before. It seems to me you're the one crapping in a thread clearly captioned as an XBox 360 thread. You are one strange ranger, sir.
This is just not true, or even close to true. If we use the original XBox as an example, it cost $300 new, and has had a shelf life of 4 years. I have never had a video card or CPU make it nearly that long before an upgrade, and the amounts of money that requires is far more than $75/year. Hell, I remember spending $560 on my two Voodoo 2s, in 1998 dollars! I am not a console afficionado - the last one I owned before my Xbox was an NES - but you can't seriously argue there's a cost advantage to PC gaming.
4 years is a fine average, if you're trying to stay a good measure above consoles. I built my current PC 3 years back, and only upgraded the video card to put the old one in my HTPC. With the old video card, a ti4600 (which wasn't new when I bought it btw; they'd been out for over six months), my PC could still be handling new games at image quality settings far higher than consoles, and will for a while yet; 10x7 high settings on average. I played through Far Cry on it the first time around in 10x7 with very high detail. Compare that to an xbox or ps2, which displays most games at 640x480 in low detail. Keep in mind that games on the PC are cheaper, have more accessible controls and are patchable/upgradeable/moddable.
Then, obviously, is the fact that PCs are so much more versatile. While you can claim that not everyone wants that versatility (or to pay for it), everyone posting here has a PC, so that's an invalid argument.
The main argument console proponents continue to make despite having it refuted previously in the very thread they're making it in is the "need" to upgrade every 6-12 months, which is simply untrue. The people who upgrade that often are enthusiasts with no regard for budget, and often do it simply to 'keep up with the Joneses', ie. make sure they can compete in the e-penis contest.
I'm not comparing the hardware so much as pointing out how unnecessary it is if you already own a PC. I consider consoles cheaper but less versatile and non-upgradeable PCs. Imagine you own one car. Your city/town divides into four sections and requires you to own a different car to go in each section. They sign deals with Toyota, Nissan, Ford, GM, etc. for a cut of each new car sale. Would you buy three more cars?Originally posted by: UNCjigga
I'm not following you. I was addressing your argument that console buyers are weak-willed, and that Sony and MS force dumb consumers to buy "overpriced" hardware. If anything, I would argue that Nvidia and ATI sell overpriced hardware (or try to, if they can get it on the shelves!) because they have new product every 6 months and their $500 card will be $300 in 6 months. You're saying your 9800pro has longevity--great! That argument is much stronger on the console side, where you can be guaranteed that every new Xbox/PS2 game being demoed at E3 next week will work on your 4-yr old machine (as long as you don't have a Thomson drive :cool
Again, I'm not understanding you. I just compared an XBox 360 on store shelves in November 2005 with what I predict will be the most powerful (and hence most comparable) video card available that same month. G70 is not "current", its considered a next-gen Fall 2005 part 2x faster than 6800 Ultra. No bias, I'm comparing apples to apples and the MS one is sweeter.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
150 dollars? ti4x00? you are a tad optimistic.
well more like completely unreasonable. first of all you are comparing to consoles years old. essentially obsolete to obsolete. when they just came out the pc's they went up against would have cost massive amounts if they could even touch them. not to mention these "obsolete" consoles still hold their own when games take advantageof every last bit of their hardware. while the best pc hardware tends to have to wait for the majority of software to slowly catch up to its abilities over a long time.
and you can't play the lastest fighting games and such on pc's for any amount of money. so really, stop being so childish..each type of system has its own place.
So we should only make the comparison for the first year of the 5 year cycle, when consoles can compete? And ignore it for the next 4, when they can't?
New games can push any hardware to its limits, I don't know what you're talking about there. Neither, by the sound of it, do you. You can't play certain games on the PC because the money's in making console games, which in turn is because the majority of people think a gaming PC costs more than a car and must be upgraded every 2 months and so buys consoles instead. It's upsetting to see people on a tech board jumping in the same boat, you should know better.
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,715
- 10,472
- 136
Originally posted by: Gurck
So we should only make the comparison for the first year of the 5 year cycle, when consoles can compete? And ignore it for the next 4, when they can't?
Gurck, I think we all get your argument that its frustrating that so many good games are console-only or take up to a year to port over and end up running like crap next to games that were PC-made from the ground-up. What you said makes absolute sense--the money *IS* in making console games because they sell better and development costs are lower. But its not because people don't know their PCs can play games, its because a LOT of people *prefer* the console gaming experience to that on PCs.
Going back to your hardware comparison--consider this scenario. The Xbox was launched in late 2001. The Radeon 8500 was launched at the same time at the same price of $299 and provided comparable graphics power. Back then a top-of-the-line, brand-new system would have a 1.6GHz Athlon XP CPU, Radeon 8500, 256MB of RAM and would cost $1000-$1200 if you built it yourself (excluding the monitor just for you!)
Now freeze that configuration. How many brand-new games (released late 2004 - all of 2005) will run at full-speed on that PC? Compare that to the staggering number of titles released for the Xbox and still being announced at E3! How can you say consoles aren't competing for the full 4 year product lifecycle? Competing isn't just about bragging rights to the best graphics, its about how many titles your platform can claim. Nevermind the fact that the even older PS2 kills the Xbox in this regard.
So your argument is that you can upgrade the PC incrementally? How much will that cost? Lets say you bought the PC new at $1000, then you spend $100 on a RAM upgrade and $200 on a "not-so-new" but better video card. $1300 vs. $299 for the original Xbox and lets pretend $500 for Xbox 360--$800 vs. $1300. How is a console more expensive again?
The only two reasons people prefer consoles are 1) They're victims of FUD about PCs and 2) they want to play games or have a style of gameplay that aren't/isn't available on the PC. 1 is just a testament to how frightened and unknowledgeable most people are concerning PCs. From claiming a gaming system is $3k to claiming it must be upgraded every 3 months, to seeing updating drivers as an insurmountably difficult task, they're flat-out wrong and it's an extremely weak argument. 2 is an excellent example of the herd instinct; people flock to the one everyone else is flocking to, making it even more appealing to other people prone to flocking, and it just snowballs. There's no reason a PC with a pair or two of wireless gamepads can't play games like madden and such. The vast majority of video cards come with everything you need to output to a TV, and PCs can be as small as consoles - as a matter of fact I own one. So the "backpack it to a friend's place and chill with them on the couch playing multiplayer" is a weak argument as well; the only reason you can't do this is the lack of development of multiplayer & sports games for the PC, which is a result of he aforementioned herd instinct.
Let's replace that 8500 with a 4600, since it too came out in late '01 and I own one, so am familiar with what it can do - which play the latest games at settings far higher than the 640x480 which consoles boast. Were you trying to make a point?
What's this have to do with anything? You're saying that something is better because more people like it? Baaa?
My argument is that after 5 years, when you need a new console, you can upgrade your PC to "match" for a lot less than buying a new one. Most of you (ie. ATers) do anyway. Why buy such a crappy PC (a console) in addition to that?
I'm not even trying to compare them so much as questioning their existence. Computers capable of gaming have always existed. Why buy a second one just to play games? Got to hand it to Sony & MS though, next they'll be selling ice to eskimoes and you'll be telling me about how it's different and better than the ice they can get for themselves :laugh:
raystorm
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 4,712
- 2
- 0
PC vs Console arguments.. as usual it amounts to nothing.
People play games on a console because they prefer the games available for the console. People play games on a pc because they prefer the games available for the pc.
Whats all this talk about herding or sheep or BAAAAA stuff??? Is it so hard to grasp? People play what they like and thats it....yeesh.
People play games on a console because they prefer the games available for the console. People play games on a pc because they prefer the games available for the pc.
Whats all this talk about herding or sheep or BAAAAA stuff??? Is it so hard to grasp? People play what they like and thats it....yeesh.
It's a frigging video game system, why are people getting their panties in a bunch arguing over it? Buy, play it, have fun. Or, don't buy it. It's simple really. No reason to look like a bunch of retards arguing about video game systems. I have an XBOX, a PS2, and a PC. They are fun, I enjoy them. Different strokes for different folks, that's pretty much all that needs to be said.
Not buying a console if you don't like it 1) won't enable you to play console-only games on the PC and 2) won't make games like GTAs Vice City & San Andreas as good as they could have been if they weren't developed for 5 year old hardware. It also won't make them available any sooner, as Rockstar's contract with Sony requires their games be exclusive to the ps2 for one year before being ported.
you know this wont die. its like the age old arguments, "what came first the egg or the chicken" or "coke vs pepsi" "1337 linux vs. windows" its something you'll have to live with. as long as there's more than choice, there will be fanboys and there will always be arguments.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter