xbox 360

[ashwaterfire]

quake 3 team arena had servers that allowed kids on dreamcasts to play others on Pc's, it was damn cool, the dreamcast even had keyboard and mouse support....

I remember when gates first announced xbox 1 he said there will be no kb/mouse support because he didnt want people to call the xbox a Pc....

I think he's wrong, he would gain alot more xbox users if they released games like counterstrike source for xbox360 with kb/mouse support being optional via usb... whats the big deal Bill, let us use our kb/m for the FPS's...

or even having steam release a counterstrike source for xbox360 that, like the dreamcast, allowed console players to connect on the pc servers that were setup for pc/console ... they'd make lots of money and we'd have lots of fun

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: Regs
There is not one logical thought in my head right now why anyone would want a 500-600 dollar video card over a 300 dollar video game console with those specs. I have never been so frustrated in my life over how poor game developers have been performing in the past few months. Just one crappy game after another. Im still playing Rome Total War and I'm relieved that they still are releasing an expansion even though they got bought out by a company who does nothing but want to make console games.

Since then, there has been nothing but delays, cancellations, and rumors. We should be at the point where their should be a game of HL2's magnitude released every month. Instead, you wait every 8-12 months. Which is funny since more than half the members on this site upgrade every 6-8 months just to play one or two games.

I have concluded that PC's are nothing more than giant money pit.

i totally agree

i was gonna buy a 7800Gt but instead I pre-ordered the 399 dollar xbox 360 bundle.

very wise choice, as i am getting MUCH more for my money

True, certainly why I went with the 360. Hi Def gaming on the 61in Sammy DLP is looking very nice for a relativly low cost in my mind, compared to pc gaming.

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: Regs
There is not one logical thought in my head right now why anyone would want a 500-600 dollar video card over a 300 dollar video game console with those specs. I have never been so frustrated in my life over how poor game developers have been performing in the past few months. Just one crappy game after another. Im still playing Rome Total War and I'm relieved that they still are releasing an expansion even though they got bought out by a company who does nothing but want to make console games.

Since then, there has been nothing but delays, cancellations, and rumors. We should be at the point where their should be a game of HL2's magnitude released every month. Instead, you wait every 8-12 months. Which is funny since more than half the members on this site upgrade every 6-8 months just to play one or two games.

I have concluded that PC's are nothing more than giant money pit.

Funny, I haven't upgraded for two years, and I didn't even start with top-of-the-line! But I'm still able to play most games at decent resolutions (we're talking about F.E.A.R. here, not doom2). I think the problem is that a PC user EXPECTS to play at at least 1280x960 (or 1280x1024, depending on the monitor), while console gamers are content at 640x480 (before the xbox 360, that is). Even now, the 360 is only required to run at 1280x768, which is still lower res than what PC gamers expect. But in all honesty, you can get the console's performance at the console's own price if you just accepted the console's own resolution of 640x480 (might be a year more to match the 360...but then the 360 has 4 years afterwards to "catch up" to the PC -- and I know, it can't, because it's a conole).

So, do you need to buy a $600 graphics card? No, not unless you want to compare with your buddies how large your penis is (or in the rarer case of female gamers, breasts). Can you game with a 2 year old machine (that wasn't even top of the line) and not need to upgrade every 6-8 months? Sure thing! I've done it, so I sure as hell think you could!

Originally posted by: supastar1568
i totally agree

i was gonna buy a 7800Gt but instead I pre-ordered the 399 dollar xbox 360 bundle.

very wise choice, as i am getting MUCH more for my money

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
True, certainly why I went with the 360. Hi Def gaming on the 61in Sammy DLP is looking very nice for a relativly low cost in my mind, compared to pc gaming.

Yes. And both of you never considered how much you have to pay for that new HDTV. Or all the accessories. Or the higher prices of games. Nope, none of that is even money...it's only MONOPOLY MONEY. Seriously, when will people look at the overall cost of gaming, rather than JUST the console. If the Xbox360 was just the CPU, GPU, and memory, and you have to buy everything else (like the case, DVD drive, etc), are you still going to say you're getting a bargain for getting the Xbox360? No. Then why would you think otherwise for having to buy all the accessories?

I think a fair comparison is to evaluate the overall cost, and see what's better for you. What we really need to focus on is how much the entire setup costs, rather than just the individual parts.

XBox 360:
- the console - $400
- games - $60
- accessories ~ $100
- HDTV - >$2000 for a decent one
total: $2500+

PC:
- the system ~ $2000 for a really decent one?
- monitor - $500 for the 2001/2005FP
total: $2500+

Oh, guess what? Both systems aren't that far off from each other! Sure, one might argue that one already has an HDTV or 2405FP...but so? I can counter-argue that I'm going to get a kickass system with dual GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB for development purposes...then my gaming comes for FREE. So you see how bad it is not talking about what you already have or that you amortize your costs to other activities?

I think the good way of evaluating how much you're spending on a PC specifically for gaming then has to be taken as the difference between a "stardard" system and the "gaming" system. Say, you want a a "standard" system to do web browsing, a little bit of photoshop, some homework, and compile a few programs. You're probably looking at a decent PC somewhere in the range of $1000 (hey, we're not trying to get a PC with like 256MB of RAM here). Now, instead of getting that Sempron, you want to get a decent Athlon64 instead. So when you build your system, instead of getting the Sempron for $90, you get the A64 3000+ for $120 (and then OC the hell out of that sucker). A marginal $30 difference (or upwards to $230 difference if you want dual core and don't like to overclock). Then you apply the same thing to that OK 6600 and get the 7800 GT...a difference of $150. Then you double your RAM to 2GB for a modest $120. BAM, all of a sudden, you have a gaming PC. For how much more? Just $300, which is less than the Xbox 360 (and then someone will inevitably argue that this "upgraded" system isn't as powerful as the 360...then I'll argue that wait a year, do the same thing, and you'll have a machine as powerful as, if not more than, the 360...and it'll be that way for the next 4 years). So ok, maybe I overestimated the overall cost of a PC, afterall...but then that just helps my argument.

Oh, and did I mention that pretty much all your parts have a 3-year warrantee, not just measly 3 months? Right.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: Regs
There is not one logical thought in my head right now why anyone would want a 500-600 dollar video card over a 300 dollar video game console with those specs. I have never been so frustrated in my life over how poor game developers have been performing in the past few months. Just one crappy game after another. Im still playing Rome Total War and I'm relieved that they still are releasing an expansion even though they got bought out by a company who does nothing but want to make console games.

Since then, there has been nothing but delays, cancellations, and rumors. We should be at the point where their should be a game of HL2's magnitude released every month. Instead, you wait every 8-12 months. Which is funny since more than half the members on this site upgrade every 6-8 months just to play one or two games.

I have concluded that PC's are nothing more than giant money pit.

Funny, I haven't upgraded for two years, and I didn't even start with top-of-the-line! But I'm still able to play most games at decent resolutions (we're talking about F.E.A.R. here, not doom2). I think the problem is that a PC user EXPECTS to play at at least 1280x960 (or 1280x1024, depending on the monitor), while console gamers are content at 640x480 (before the xbox 360, that is). Even now, the 360 is only required to run at 1280x768, which is still lower res than what PC gamers expect. But in all honesty, you can get the console's performance at the console's own price if you just accepted the console's own resolution of 640x480 (might be a year more to match the 360...but then the 360 has 4 years afterwards to "catch up" to the PC -- and I know, it can't, because it's a conole).

So, do you need to buy a $600 graphics card? No, not unless you want to compare with your buddies how large your penis is (or in the rarer case of female gamers, breasts). Can you game with a 2 year old machine (that wasn't even top of the line) and not need to upgrade every 6-8 months? Sure thing! I've done it, so I sure as hell think you could!

Originally posted by: supastar1568
i totally agree

i was gonna buy a 7800Gt but instead I pre-ordered the 399 dollar xbox 360 bundle.

very wise choice, as i am getting MUCH more for my money

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
True, certainly why I went with the 360. Hi Def gaming on the 61in Sammy DLP is looking very nice for a relativly low cost in my mind, compared to pc gaming.

Yes. And both of you never considered how much you have to pay for that new HDTV. Or all the accessories. Or the higher prices of games. Nope, none of that is even money...it's only MONOPOLY MONEY. Seriously, when will people look at the overall cost of gaming, rather than JUST the console. If the Xbox360 was just the CPU, GPU, and memory, and you have to buy everything else (like the case, DVD drive, etc), are you still going to say you're getting a bargain for getting the Xbox360? No. Then why would you think otherwise for having to buy all the accessories?

I think a fair comparison is to evaluate the overall cost, and see what's better for you. What we really need to focus on is how much the entire setup costs, rather than just the individual parts.

XBox 360:
- the console - $400
- games - $60
- accessories ~ $100
- HDTV - >$2000 for a decent one
total: $2500+

PC:
- the system ~ $2000 for a really decent one?
- monitor - $500 for the 2001/2005FP
total: $2500+

Oh, guess what? Both systems aren't that far off from each other! Sure, one might argue that one already has an HDTV or 2405FP...but so? I can counter-argue that I'm going to get a kickass system with dual GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB for development purposes...then my gaming comes for FREE. So you see how bad it is not talking about what you already have or that you amortize your costs to other activities?

I think the good way of evaluating how much you're spending on a PC specifically for gaming then has to be taken as the difference between a "stardard" system and the "gaming" system. Say, you want a a "standard" system to do web browsing, a little bit of photoshop, some homework, and compile a few programs. You're probably looking at a decent PC somewhere in the range of $1000 (hey, we're not trying to get a PC with like 256MB of RAM here). Now, instead of getting that Sempron, you want to get a decent Athlon64 instead. So when you build your system, instead of getting the Sempron for $90, you get the A64 3000+ for $120 (and then OC the hell out of that sucker). A marginal $30 difference (or upwards to $230 difference if you want dual core and don't like to overclock). Then you apply the same thing to that OK 6600 and get the 7800 GT...a difference of $150. Then you double your RAM to 2GB for a modest $120. BAM, all of a sudden, you have a gaming PC. For how much more? Just $300, which is less than the Xbox 360 (and then someone will inevitably argue that this "upgraded" system isn't as powerful as the 360...then I'll argue that wait a year, do the same thing, and you'll have a machine as powerful as, if not more than, the 360...and it'll be that way for the next 4 years). So ok, maybe I overestimated the overall cost of a PC, afterall...but then that just helps my argument.

Oh, and did I mention that pretty much all your parts have a 3-year warrantee, not just measly 3 months? Right.

Heh, don't even try counting the TV bro. That in itself was family purchase which provides movies satalite, TV, and a whole plethora of other things and now includes streaming from a great deal of entertainment from my PC to the 360. I will not have to upgrade the TV in my living room for good 5-10 years possibly even more. So you can scratch the whole TV/monitor argument.

So that leaves what I spent on the xbox 360 premium and 2 games. Right about 475 dollars with my previous xbox traded in as it was an investment for 4 years. Now lets say I have the 360 for 4 years as well which cost out of 475, 450 of it. That is right about 113 dollar per year investment. That is chump change as to what it would cost me to upgrade my computer over four possibly even five years. Don't even count the games because if we're talking games they all cost about the same PC, 360 so thats irrelevant.

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, don't even try counting the TV bro. That in itself was family purchase which provides movies satalite, TV, and a whole plethora of other things and now includes streaming from a great deal of entertainment from my PC to the 360. I will not have to upgrade the TV in my living room for good 5-10 years possibly even more. So you can scratch the whole TV/monitor argument.

So that leaves what I spent on the xbox 360 premium and 2 games. Right about 475 dollars with my previous xbox traded in as it was an investment for 4 years. Now lets say I have the 360 for 4 years as well which cost out of 475, 450 of it. That is right about 113 dollar per year investment. That is chump change as to what it would cost me to upgrade my computer over four possibly even five years. Don't even count the games because if we're talking games they all cost about the same PC, 360 so thats irrelevant.

1. My monitors are "family investments" too, as people in my "family" (my gf and I, LOL) don't watch TV. And I don't have to upgrade my monitors for a good 5-10 years either. As a matter of fact, my monitors provide me with movies and TV programming, and a whole plethroa of of other things from my satellite too. So, your point being? And why should I scratch the TV/monitor argument? So, if you read my post instead of blindly replying, you would've noticed my preemptive counter-argument to your argument (there are always a bunch on the forums who respond in similar ways):

Oh, guess what? Both systems aren't that far off from each other! Sure, one might argue that one already has an HDTV or 2405FP...but so? I can counter-argue that I'm going to get a kickass system with dual GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB for development purposes...then my gaming comes for FREE. So you see how bad it is not talking about what you already have or that you amortize your costs to other activities?

2. PC games are $10 cheaper than XBox 360 games. $50 vs $60.

3. My PC amortized over 5 years is chump change too. And why exactly are you upgrading your comp for? So that you can run at 1600x1200@60fps? Well, then you're not assuming a common basis of comparison (because 360 games will most likely only run at 1280x720 for the foreseeable future...I know, I know, one can run at 1080i with the 360...but that's akin to saying running PC games at 1600x1200 with all quality turned to lowest settings -- you won't want to play it that way, and the devs won't make many games to run at that res, either), and hence your argument is irrelevant and totally biased. As always, you can compare a system running a game at 60fps but at 640x480 and a system running a game at 30fps, but at 1600x1200...but it doesn't make the comparison meaningful.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Heh, don't even try counting the TV bro. That in itself was family purchase which provides movies satalite, TV, and a whole plethora of other things and now includes streaming from a great deal of entertainment from my PC to the 360. I will not have to upgrade the TV in my living room for good 5-10 years possibly even more. So you can scratch the whole TV/monitor argument.

So that leaves what I spent on the xbox 360 premium and 2 games. Right about 475 dollars with my previous xbox traded in as it was an investment for 4 years. Now lets say I have the 360 for 4 years as well which cost out of 475, 450 of it. That is right about 113 dollar per year investment. That is chump change as to what it would cost me to upgrade my computer over four possibly even five years. Don't even count the games because if we're talking games they all cost about the same PC, 360 so thats irrelevant.

1. My monitors are "family investments" too, as people in my "family" (my gf and I, LOL) don't watch TV. And I don't have to upgrade my monitors for a good 5-10 years either. As a matter of fact, my monitors provide me with movies and TV programming, and a whole plethroa of of other things from my satellite too. So, your point being? And why should I scratch the TV/monitor argument? So, if you read my post instead of blindly replying, you would've noticed my preemptive counter-argument to your argument (there are always a bunch on the forums who respond in similar ways):

Oh, guess what? Both systems aren't that far off from each other! Sure, one might argue that one already has an HDTV or 2405FP...but so? I can counter-argue that I'm going to get a kickass system with dual GeForce 7800 GTX 512MB for development purposes...then my gaming comes for FREE. So you see how bad it is not talking about what you already have or that you amortize your costs to other activities?

2. PC games are $10 cheaper than XBox 360 games. $50 vs $60.

3. My PC amortized over 5 years is chump change too. And why exactly are you upgrading your comp for? So that you can run at 1600x1200@60fps? Well, then you're not assuming a common basis of comparison (because 360 games will most likely only run at 1280x720 for the foreseeable future...I know, I know, one can run at 1080i with the 360...but that's akin to saying running PC games at 1600x1200 with all quality turned to lowest settings -- you won't want to play it that way, and the devs won't make many games to run at that res, either), and hence your argument is irrelevant and totally biased. As always, you can compare a system running a game at 60fps but at 640x480 and a system running a game at 30fps, but at 1600x1200...but it doesn't make the comparison meaningful.

1. Yea what a great argument dude. Lol everyone is getting free 7800s, lmao.

2. Wrong some games are 50 and some are 60 so not much difference still.

3. 60fps at 720p or 1080i at 30 both look superb.

4th and finally investing 1000 in PC versus 450ish out of box for gaming, pretty simple math. Plus the fact that one does not have to upgrade ram nor graphics card or cpu over this time with the xbox and would argue to keep up with pc gaming each year one would have to at least invest in a new card after 2-3 and a new pc in 5-7.

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
1. Yea what a great argument dude. Lol everyone is getting free 7800s, lmao.

Huh? My argument was to illustrate your ignorant belief that you consider your TV to be "free." If you do, then I can, by your argument, consider my dual 7800GTX 512MB to be "free" too. I don't think you'd need an IQ of over 100 to see the point.

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
2. Wrong some games are 50 and some are 60 so not much difference still.

Wrong? Which part? I haven't seen a newly released PC game to be $60. On the other hand, with the exception of 3 games (PGR3, PDZ, and one other, IIRC...MS deliberately lowered the price of these three games), the standard price of 360 games IS $60. And yes, it's a big difference. (of course, one can always consider the bargain bin...then again, one can always consider warez and ISOs too then...in which case, the 360 doesn't even HAVE a mod, so you'd have to pay full price...and of course, I'm not condoning the use of warez other than for the sole purpose of backing up).

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
3. 60fps at 720p or 1080i at 30 both look superb.

Exactly. Any half decent PC can do 720p resolution at 60fps. And guess what? They're cheap too!

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
4th and finally investing 1000 in PC versus 450ish out of box for gaming, pretty simple math. Plus the fact that one does not have to upgrade ram nor graphics card or cpu over this time with the xbox and would argue to keep up with pc gaming each year one would have to at least invest in a new card after 2-3 and a new pc in 5-7.

No, your XBox 360 won't be keeping up with PC gaming (unless you want to argue that prior to the release of the 360, the original XBox was keeping up with the PC in the last few months? HAH!). Don't take the lack of choice to be a Good Thing. Neither should you take progressive refinement of PC games to fit with PC hardware (as opposed to the consoles' successive optimization to get the last bit of juice out of the systems) as a Bad Thing, either.

Overall, if you were to present the argument that PC games aren't suitable for some genre or another, or that PC games don't offer the consistency compared to consoles, then I'd buy those.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson


1. Yea what a great argument dude. Lol everyone is getting free 7800s, lmao.

2. Wrong some games are 50 and some are 60 so not much difference still.

3. 60fps at 720p or 1080i at 30 both look superb.

4th and finally investing 1000 in PC versus 450ish out of box for gaming, pretty simple math. Plus the fact that one does not have to upgrade ram nor graphics card or cpu over this time with the xbox and would argue to keep up with pc gaming each year one would have to at least invest in a new card after 2-3 and a new pc in 5-7.

1-I think the main point he was trying to convey is that PC's are becoming what TV's have been for a while now... Everyone has one. So if you're not going to count the TV price you can't count the price of a decent (~$1000) 'standard' PC - only the cost of a gaming system over such a system.

And, yea, you don't have to upgrade a console, but most likely within the year it'll be out of date compared to PC's - at which point you can build a superior PC and not touch it for 3 years (or an equivalent for even less).

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
1-I think the main point he was trying to convey is that PC's are becoming what TV's have been for a while now... Everyone has one. So if you're not going to count the TV price you can't count the price of a decent (~$1000) 'standard' PC - only the cost of a gaming system over such a system.

Thank you. At least one person gets it.

 

[supastar1568]

im not gonna lie. I have been gaming with consoles for soo long, and just started getting into PC's last winter. I have an xbox 360 right now on pre-order.

I saw Call of Duty 2 in best buy over the weekend and it didnt look too impressive at all.

My Battlefield 2 almost looks just as good. And the AA on my BF2 looked better than that of Call of Duty 2.

Im still gonna buy the system, but I know now that PC's seem to be ahead of the game

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
1. Yea what a great argument dude. Lol everyone is getting free 7800s, lmao.

Huh? My argument was to illustrate your ignorant belief that you consider your TV to be "free." If you do, then I can, by your argument, consider my dual 7800GTX 512MB to be "free" too. I don't think you'd need an IQ of over 100 to see the point.

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
2. Wrong some games are 50 and some are 60 so not much difference still.

Wrong? Which part? I haven't seen a newly released PC game to be $60. On the other hand, with the exception of 3 games (PGR3, PDZ, and one other, IIRC...MS deliberately lowered the price of these three games), the standard price of 360 games IS $60. And yes, it's a big difference. (of course, one can always consider the bargain bin...then again, one can always consider warez and ISOs too then...in which case, the 360 doesn't even HAVE a mod, so you'd have to pay full price...and of course, I'm not condoning the use of warez other than for the sole purpose of backing up).

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
3. 60fps at 720p or 1080i at 30 both look superb.

Exactly. Any half decent PC can do 720p resolution at 60fps. And guess what? They're cheap too!

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
4th and finally investing 1000 in PC versus 450ish out of box for gaming, pretty simple math. Plus the fact that one does not have to upgrade ram nor graphics card or cpu over this time with the xbox and would argue to keep up with pc gaming each year one would have to at least invest in a new card after 2-3 and a new pc in 5-7.

No, your XBox 360 won't be keeping up with PC gaming (unless you want to argue that prior to the release of the 360, the original XBox was keeping up with the PC in the last few months? HAH!). Don't take the lack of choice to be a Good Thing. Neither should you take progressive refinement of PC games to fit with PC hardware (as opposed to the consoles' successive optimization to get the last bit of juice out of the systems) as a Bad Thing, either.

Overall, if you were to present the argument that PC games aren't suitable for some genre or another, or that PC games don't offer the consistency compared to consoles, then I'd buy those.

I wouldn't argue that at all because I am a PC gamer as well, lol. I'm not arguing that one is better then the other per se but what I'm saying is that in my mind the 360 provides a great gaming experience for less cost then I would be throwing into a new computer over 4-5 years.

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I wouldn't argue that at all because I am a PC gamer as well, lol. I'm not arguing that one is better then the other per se but what I'm saying is that in my mind the 360 provides a great gaming experience for less cost then I would be throwing into a new computer over 4-5 years.

I'm personally going to get a 360 as well. I'm not saying that the 360 isn't a great experience (it is definitely worth the money!). I'm just saying that all those who claim that PC gaming is way more expensive has the wrong impression. The fact is that it's expensive ONLY when one makes it to be. One can easily spend an extra $1k into a system that will only net them 10% gains in perceivable performance. On the other hand, one can easily turn a budge PC into a nice gaming PC for only $300 more. All I'm saying is, it's not that expensive if one doesn't place their sights only at the top of the line. Afterall, this is an 80/20 world here (for those of you who don't get the reference, it means that you accomplish 80% of the task for 20% of the effort...and conversely, 80% of the effort to complete the last 20% of the task).

 

[thethree102]

Yes, it's quite true that decent gaming PCs can be built on a budget for less than $500. You also get the added functionality of actually being able to do a larger amount of tasks on your pc then just compared to gaming....

 

[moonboy403]

pc can do other stuff
gaming's practically the only thing xbox 360 can do
i think the expensive price tag of pc is justifiable

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: moonboy403
pc can do other stuff
gaming's practically the only thing xbox 360 can do
i think the expensive price tag of pc is justifiable

I don't think you'll find anyone here who if faced with the absolute choice of EITHER a pc OR a console, they'd pick the console. So, in that respect, you are preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by: thethree102
Yes, it's quite true that decent gaming PCs can be built on a budget for less than $500. You also get the added functionality of actually being able to do a larger amount of tasks on your pc then just compared to gaming....

I don't think anyone is arguing against that, either. But there's no way you are building a complete gaming PC for "less than $500" that can provide the same gaming experience that a 360 can.

Not a fanboy here... I own both a gaming PC (well... three, actually) and a 360. They both do what they do very well, but they also both provide gaming experiences that the other absolutely cannot.

 

[Sonikku]

Just wanted to note, for the 20th time that you don't need to buy an HDTV to get the most out of the 360, but rather you can game on your monitor in such resolutions for the $40 vga cord for the 360. Falling well short of the $2000 HDTV some claim as being needed to even boot up a game on the console.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Sonikku
Just wanted to note, for the 20th time that you don't need to buy an HDTV to get the most out of the 360, but rather you can game on your monitor in such resolutions for the $40 vga cord for the 360. Falling well short of the $2000 HDTV some claim as being needed to even boot up a game on the console.

Not only that, but the 360 looks spectacular on a SDTV, as well.