Originally posted by: UNCjigga
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?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.
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?
yeah, cause an xbox will do UT 2k4 at 1024x768 everything on high (an 8500 will do this, even if its not the fastest card at the time, Ti 500s were obviously superior, abd 4600s destroy them. Still though. you were talking about comparable graphics?
I don't get why you guys are creaming your jeans over this anyways. Remember back in '00 when the xbox was supsosed to have a 1ghz+ CPU and all this other crap? Ended up with a PIII 733 and a GF2. Same thing with the PS2. The first released specs were alot more impressive than the shipped specs.
Facebook
Twitter