PC gamers, pepare to be OWNED!!!!!!

[TheGreySpectre]

^^ i find PC controlls much better than console controls, not only do they offer more options, but i can use them longer, i start to get blisters on console controllers

 

[>HyperlogiK<]

Well, leave it to EA to jerk us around again by faking in game graphics on a commerical. They say that if will look better than the commercial though, so even though I hate EA that still leaves me stoked.

Wasn't there a port of Doom for a console (I think maybe Mega Drive/CD32) where they put out demo art for (and the box art) that was taken from the game running on a high end workstation when the console could only put out about half as many pixels and fewer colors. I remember a friend of mine being quite angry as the images looked really good.

 

[OC Noob]

Now I don't want any part of this flame war, but I would like to see a bit more accuracy in the statements.

1) PS2, Xbox and GC were NEVER better than PCs for gfx. PCs have had better gfx since around the time of the first true 3d cards and have since. Before that Consoles owned PCs like PCs have for the past decade or so.

2) Console makers do NOT usually sell at a huge loss. GC and PS2 hardware actually made cash. I doubt GC makes money anymore due to its $99.99 price tag, but PS2 and its new slimmer cheaper unit may at $150. Xbox never made money because its based on the much more inefficient (production wise) PC architecture.

3) You can fit the equivlent of a 6800GT and serveral CPUs in a console and do it for a decent price. If you manufacture your own product you aren't paying the insane markup we see on end user PC parts and they save a lot even compared to buying Xbox parts from PC hardware manufactures. Not to mention a console is streamlined for 1 purpose and you don't need a lot of the extra stuff you do in a PC.


That said, these consoles will look freakin nice on HDTVs and probably surpass PCs for the first time in a long time, but of course PCs will catch up and regain the gfx crown. Best thing you can do is enjoy games on all systems. Gfx are so good today games look great even if EA developes it I think its great that visually my console games will be as nice as my PC games. All the better for us gamers.


ps don't be surprised if a little console with an r520 and multiple streamlined PPC chips is powerful. These things are focused like a lazer on 1 thing and that makes up for a lot of hardware power. Just look at Riddick on the Xbox. Its amazing that thing can even run the game. That little ******* (Xbox360) is going to pack a ton of power. But it ain't gonna stop me from enjoying games running the DIII and HL2 engines. Its just more opertunities for kick@ss games.

 

[theMonster]

Also TheMonster, note that your video card is a 6200 and hence is not giving you the best video performance on your computer. Im not sure if you have, but take a look at the video on an x850 or 6800U, or even a 9800Pro, for a better comparison

6200>9800pro fyi. Plus I don't game on the PC. I like consoles better for games.

consoles are convienient and fun to the core. it's easy; it works (usually ) and you can get lots of folks together. the controls are not as comfortable or fluid....

I agree with this wholeheartedly which is why I prefer consoles for games. Plus I don't like FPS or multiplayer-online stuff.

i find PC controlls much better than console controls, not only do they offer more options, but i can use them longer, i start to get blisters on console controllers

I couldn't disagree more.

Well said OCNOOB!!! (see post above)

 

[Panzerknacker]

that movie absolutely doesnt show anything. It's just prerendered crap IMHO. And even if graphics on the xbox360 will be better than on the fastest PC hardware available at the time of the Xbox360's release, it's still a fact that there is no WoW on the consoles so I don't give a crap!

 

[Sentential]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22828

Continue your pointless bickering.

That may be so, but that is a feature on the R500 which will migrate to PC. In addition we will get PPUs. PCs are still better

 

[Bensa]

Prerendered, 640 x 480, and tons of filtering, yay.

And as stated before (some people are not reading the whole thread) this is not ingame footage, but a artist's view.

 

[Banyan]

there is no way that that video was shot of someone actually playing that game... it was set up to up the hype.

 

[Panzerknacker]

yep, and unfortunately we are the only kind of people knowing that. Most people will think w00t after seeing that movie.

 

[doublejack]

2) Console makers do NOT usually sell at a huge loss. GC and PS2 hardware actually made cash. I doubt GC makes money anymore due to its $99.99 price tag, but PS2 and its new slimmer cheaper unit may at $150. Xbox never made money because its based on the much more inefficient (production wise) PC architecture.

I can't speak of the GC because I don't care for/follow Nintendo, but I can tell you it's a fact that Sony sold PS2s for a loss when they were launched in 2000. Retailers who carried PS2s also sold them under their cost, sharing in the loss with Sony. The retail price was $299 back then. My brother worked at CompUSA at the time and his cost was about $315. The actual production cost was estimated to be in the $350-370 range (which is how much the PS2 sold for in Japan). So everyone who bought a PS2 was setting Sony back some cash, which was a big reason the supply was very limited initially (all units sold within 24 hours of launch).

Now, over the course of it's lifespan at some point the component & assembly costs went down enough for Sony to break even and eventually start to make a modest profit on PS2 sales. However they did initially sell them at an artificially low price to jump-start sales, and they've never made enough money on the consoles themselves to add up to anything.

In regard to the Xbox, M$ has suffered much worse losses. They've never come close to breaking even because of the high production cost. The average loss per Xbox is guesstimated to be about $100. From 2002 to now M$ has lost $3 billion selling the Xbox console. That's right, 3 *billion* dollars.

Link Here

Now as a rich company M$ has the money to play this kind of game and 'compete' in a market where they really shouldn't be. However, with specs such as the ones thrown around for the Xbox 360 and an alleged retail of $299 for a standard edition unit - the red ink is going to flow like never before. I'll bet the per until loss is triple or quadruple what it was for the first Xbox... and that would mean $9-$12 billion over the next few years. Even for M$ that's starting to become a lot of money.

 

[elfiena]

and every april, m$ writes the losses off to uncle sam for a tax break on their software end of the busness

 

[doublejack]

and every april, m$ writes the losses off to uncle sam for a tax break on their software end of the busness

The federal corporate tax filing deadline is March 15th, but we know what you mean

 

[OC Noob]

I can't speak of the GC because I don't care for/follow Nintendo, but I can tell you it's a fact that Sony sold PS2s for a loss when they were launched in 2000. Retailers who carried PS2s also sold them under their cost, sharing in the loss with Sony. The retail price was $299 back then. My brother worked at CompUSA at the time and his cost was about $315. The actual production cost was estimated to be in the $350-370 range (which is how much the PS2 sold for in Japan). So everyone who bought a PS2 was setting Sony back some cash, which was a big reason the supply was very limited initially (all units sold within 24 hours of launch).

Now, over the course of it's lifespan at some point the component & assembly costs went down enough for Sony to break even and eventually start to make a modest profit on PS2 sales. However they did initially sell them at an artificially low price to jump-start sales, and they've never made enough money on the consoles themselves to add up to anything.

In regard to the Xbox, M$ has suffered much worse losses. They've never come close to breaking even because of the high production cost. The average loss per Xbox is guesstimated to be about $100. From 2002 to now M$ has lost $3 billion selling the Xbox console. That's right, 3 *billion* dollars.

Link Here

Now as a rich company M$ has the money to play this kind of game and 'compete' in a market where they really shouldn't be. However, with specs such as the ones thrown around for the Xbox 360 and an alleged retail of $299 for a standard edition unit - the red ink is going to flow like never before. I'll bet the per until loss is triple or quadruple what it was for the first Xbox... and that would mean $9-$12 billion over the next few years. Even for M$ that's starting to become a lot of money.

They would lose money right off the bat. Manufacturing processes are horendous at that point and theres all that R&D front loaded. Sony made money off PS2 hardware sales @ the $199.99/249.99 price point and will probably make a bit again at $149.99 with the new slim PS2.

My only point is that people are acting like console hardware is typically some huge loss and its not. MS lost a bunch of doe because they have to buy PC parts from 3rd parties and thats much less efficient then building and customizing your own system like Nintendo and Sony have done.

I know they don't make much, but they probably pay for themselves in sales over the units life and possibly make a few bucks. People can't translate end user PC part prices into console manufacturing prices. Its just way cheaper for them than it is for us.


I see why people are ****ed about the thread title, but I don't see why people are threatened by consoles to the point they create issues where there are none.

 

[shard]

how do you guys think these games are made? on computers duh, thus there is equipment already out that does this, nuff said

 

[Papier]

how do you guys think these games are made? on computers duh, thus there is equipment already out that does this, nuff said

By your logic, we already have the computer equipment to play Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Pixar movie quality games eh?

Consoles games are alot more efficient than computers when it comes to games no doubt. But they pay for it by their inflexiblility, the inability to upgrade, and becoming obsolete in 2 years. Xbox aside, how else can you fold, use gaim and trillian, skype, surf forums, and listen to your musics? Then you boot up UT2k4? That is unheard of with a console.

I take flexibility of the computer over the console, although I do own a dreamcast and a PS2 I play regularly. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and if one side OMG OWNZZ! the other side completely, there wouldn't be a market for them.

 

[shard]

i didnt say that "we" have the equipment, but i said that it was available, but i tell ya, it would be damn nice to play with FF SW graphics

 

[OC Noob]

By your logic, we already have the computer equipment to play Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Pixar movie quality games eh?

Consoles games are alot more efficient than computers when it comes to games no doubt. But they pay for it by their inflexiblility, the inability to upgrade, and becoming obsolete in 2 years. Xbox aside, how else can you fold, use gaim and trillian, skype, surf forums, and listen to your musics? Then you boot up UT2k4? That is unheard of with a console.

I take flexibility of the computer over the console, although I do own a dreamcast and a PS2 I play regularly. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and if one side OMG OWNZZ! the other side completely, there wouldn't be a market for them.

Thats what I'm talkin about!

Theres no reason we can't enjoy both!

 

[Sjaak]

i didnt say that "we" have the equipment, but i said that it was available, but i tell ya, it would be damn nice to play with FF SW graphics

We do have the equipment and speeds it takes to play it that way....a frame a week..

 

[>HyperlogiK<]

Yeah, we might have the equipment to play them in close to that quality if all the code and the os were written in machine code and then they spent 15 years optimising it.

 

[theMonster]

By your logic, we already have the computer equipment to play Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Pixar movie quality games eh?

Consoles games are alot more efficient than computers when it comes to games no doubt. But they pay for it by their inflexiblility, the inability to upgrade, and becoming obsolete in 2 years. Xbox aside, how else can you fold, use gaim and trillian, skype, surf forums, and listen to your musics? Then you boot up UT2k4? That is unheard of with a console.

I take flexibility of the computer over the console, although I do own a dreamcast and a PS2 I play regularly. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and if one side OMG OWNZZ! the other side completely, there wouldn't be a market for them.

Actually, except for folding the DreamCast can do all that. It may even be able to fold, I haven't tried it with Linux on the DreamCast.