or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 118  

post #3511 of 7006
I don't know how accurate your numbers are, but assuming they were perfect, you could argue that you get what you pay for.

Like someone getting a cheap AV receiver vs a higher end one with more connections and features. You have to pay for all those options.

I'm already prepared to be underwhelmed by the next gen of consoles. I have a feeling Sony and MS are going to focus on very different features that don't play into my interests.

PC gaming is hopefully going to have another surge in interest and in turn bring with it some needed improvements.
post #3512 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

The whole proposition that "consoles are cheaper" is simply no longer true. And there's nothing about the coming generation that makes me think it'll be anything but more expensive than the current gen. I see less and less reason to bother with consoles other than for a handful of console exclusives, but even those are fewer and farther between these days. The only big downside to PCs at the moment is that they require a lot of fiddling and fussing, and the upfront cost is greater.
I'm not trying to start a PC vs. console argument, since that goes nowhere. More than anything, I'm just frustrated by what the console business has become. There have been some incredible innovations this generation (like the huge market for XBLA-size games), but it's come at the cost of, well, cost.

Not true at all. Any PC gaming enthusiast spent more on the just the graphics card than an entire console.
post #3513 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbexperience View Post

An upper level PC, without going really crazy, could easily cost twice that. Going nuts you could spend $10K but honestly, who does that? tongue.gif So, after all that the console still comes out a conservative $625 cheaper. And yes, I'm bored today. biggrin.gif
Console:
$600 at launch
$300 x 2 for replacement consoles
$50 x 10 years for XBL
$35 x 5 for replacement controllers
$10 x 10 x 10 Average "extra" cost of 10 games per year over 10 years.
Total = $2,875
PC:
$1,000 Mid-level gaming PC
$500 x 5 biennial upgrades
Total = $3,500
Nice. Of course, the other thing you're not accounting for is that I have all three consoles. wink.gif

I'm actually in the process of assembling a new gaming/media PC. I'm targetting $700-800, but going high on CPU and mid-tier on GPU so I can upgrade in a couple of years at less cost (~$200). Puts me at about $1000 for a five-year rig. Between three consoles and one replacement each for my PS3 and my 360, I've spent far more on console hardware than I will spend on the one PC.

But who am I kidding? I'll end up buying the next round of consoles anyway. Getting a new PC just buys me a year's reprieve from the launch window stupidity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

Not true at all. Any PC gaming enthusiast spent more on the just the graphics card than an entire console.
A sub-$100 GPU will outperform current consoles.
post #3514 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yrd View Post

I don't know how accurate your numbers are, but assuming they were perfect, you could argue that you get what you pay for.
Like someone getting a cheap AV receiver vs a higher end one with more connections and features. You have to pay for all those options.
I'm already prepared to be underwhelmed by the next gen of consoles. I have a feeling Sony and MS are going to focus on very different features that don't play into my interests.
PC gaming is hopefully going to have another surge in interest and in turn bring with it some needed improvements.

Ultimately, even if the next gen of consoles is disappointing on some level, I think it'll be much easier for consoles to adapt over time to fill that gap, than for PCs to take back over. The PC will always stick around in some fashion...but if it makes too many concessions to become more consolified, it kind of loses it's edge.

The glory years of PC gaming are over. They had a good ten year run of being able to do online and multiplayer in ways consoles could only dream of. The next thing that comes along and makes consoles feel quaint probably won't be a PC.
post #3515 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

A sub-$100 GPU will outperform current consoles.

Of course, but we're talking spending habits and costs to get the typical experience. And what the typical gamer spends on the particular platform. No gamer spends sub $100 on a graphics card.

We're not trying to match specs because of course, the consoles are older. And if you're going to try to match specs, it's unfair to compare launch prices of the consoles versus today's technology which benefited from technology advancements and cost reductions. You have to match over the same time frame.

But really, you can't even compare over the same time frame currently. Because the only people that you can do the same matchup over the same time frame are people that right now have neither a PC nor a console and have to make a purchase decision. But how many of people are there? Most people have owned something at some point. My console was long paid for a long time ago. It would've been right to compare to the PC expenses during the time I paid for the console. If I was to do a comparison today, I'd have to say my console expenses are virtually nil as right now it's just discretionary expenses at this point. nil versus buying a good gaming PC is hard to compare. For me to get back into modern PC gaming, I'd have to upgrade and pay for new parts. For me to get back into console gaming, I just have to buy some games.

And it still takes a decent PC to run a game well. My old secondary PC is an AMD X2 6000+ with an ATI HD4670. I had Need for Speed Hot Pursuit for both the PC and the 360. It ran like #$*^ on the PC, even taking it down to lower graphics levels. The framerate wasn't rock solid like on the 360. Granted, the 360 version most likely was not running it at the same level of detail. But you don't have to tweak any settings for it to run like a champ. I was constantly tweaking various settings before I got to something I could play it at on the PC.
post #3516 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

I was constantly tweaking various settings before I got to something I could play it at on the PC.
This is really the only difference that matters. You get a lot more bang for your buck with a PC, but you also have to treat it like an endless project.
post #3517 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

This is really the only difference that matters. You get a lot more bang for your buck with a PC, but you also have to treat it like an endless project.

Which is why most people still choose a console over PC. They go to Best Buy and pick a computer/laptop. Not everyone is willing to pay someone or tweek their system to try and run the latest game at the best setting. Some of you that are going back to PC gaming this isn't a movement. People are still going to choose the console more than the PC. Sales still reflect this today. It will reflect it next year as well.
post #3518 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Which is why most people still choose a console over PC.
I thought the game controller was the reason.

Portal on the PC sucked. I got just so far, and then the moves I needed to make weren't as easy to do with a mouse as they were with my 360 controller. Then there's the whole what-key-does-what thing, which touch typists would manage far better than those of us who hunt and peck. Looking at the keyboard detracts from play.

The 360 adapter for the PC solves some issues, but not every game supports it. Sure, the limitations of the controller make some menus complicated, but I have yet to see a game on any platform that uses the 360 chatpad to allow input just like a PC game does. THAT would be nice in lots of 360 console games...
post #3519 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post


And it still takes a decent PC to run a game well. My old secondary PC is an AMD X2 6000+ with an ATI HD4670. I had Need for Speed Hot Pursuit for both the PC and the 360. It ran like #$*^ on the PC, even taking it down to lower graphics levels. The framerate wasn't rock solid like on the 360. Granted, the 360 version most likely was not running it at the same level of detail. But you don't have to tweak any settings for it to run like a champ. I was constantly tweaking various settings before I got to something I could play it at on the PC.

Then it was a bad port, sometimes they just phone in the PC versions and hope beefy parts cover up their laziness. Most low end PC will run circles around a PS360 with no tweaking. Just have Steam install, turn on the 360 PC controller, let the game auto-pick setting and off you go. The option to tweak is there, that is part of the fun. My kids PC (i3 + AMD 4850) ran Skyrim at 1080P at > 30fps with no tweaks or mods. Looked great, too bad the game sucks.
post #3520 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikepaul View Post

I thought the game controller was the reason.
Portal on the PC sucked. I got just so far, and then the moves I needed to make weren't as easy to do with a mouse as they were with my 360 controller. Then there's the whole what-key-does-what thing, which touch typists would manage far better than those of us who hunt and peck. Looking at the keyboard detracts from play.
The 360 adapter for the PC solves some issues, but not every game supports it. Sure, the limitations of the controller make some menus complicated, but I have yet to see a game on any platform that uses the 360 chatpad to allow input just like a PC game does. THAT would be nice in lots of 360 console games...

I think people who actually own both a pc and console make that choice but for convenience. I never stopped building PC systems and I myself use the 360 controller for the games I play on mine. The thing is most of the games I play on the PC are not on the consoles and even if when the choice comes down to it I still chose the 360 over a PC version because my family and friends are all gaming on the console and connected to play MP. No matter how good Steam or equivalents are on a PC it will not make the PC the leading game system for consumers outside of Germany.

Ease of use is now the biggest factor. Money used to be the primary factor over the years. Consoles make it easier to put the disc in and play. Consumers are not going to give up having to wait to install/patch/load a 30gig game on disc or digital just because the graphics are better along with the option for a higher resolution. It has always been about convenience.
post #3521 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Ease of use is now the biggest factor. Money used to be the primary factor over the years. Consoles make it easier to put the disc in and play. Consumers are not going to give up having to wait to install/patch/load a 30gig game on disc or digital just because the graphics are better along with the option for a higher resolution. It has always been about convenience.
To continue playing devil's advocate: this also used to be the case, but is no longer. Installs on console are totally standard, as are patches.

The bigger hassle is the constant tweaking and fussing to eke out a few extra FPS. But these days, console folks are doing the same thing just to eke out slightly better connection speeds. The differences are disappearing.
post #3522 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Why would I want to deal with a system that doesn't allow me to be lazy? Every year that I get older I have less and less patience for this kind of thing. It needs to just work. Yes...PC games have improved vastly over the past few years, almost entirely thanks to steam. But now we're starting to get competitors to steam, even some that hold some games exclusively hostage like EA/Origin. I don't want to be locked in to just steam. Many games work with a controller....but not all. Not even some big ones like Mass Effect, that obviously should support it. Its almost impossible to bring a PC out of standby and launch a game 100% exclusively just using the controller.
It indeed has never been easier...but its just not good enough yet. Call it a cop out if you want, but it just doesn't meet my usability standards. When:
1) I can pick up a controller, wake the PC, pick from a list of games installed and launch a game with one button press - regardless of where I DLed it from.
2) The DL services can determine whether or not I can run and/or control a game properly by scanning the capabilities of my system and input devices.
3) I can browse and purchase games using nothing but a controller.
4) I can get a refund for when a game doesn't run well or is crashy on my system, which still happens too often.
When all of those requirements are met, PC gaming is couch ready.

No doubt there are some real obstacles to PC gaming becoming as easy as console gaming and I doubt it will ever get to that level. Still, it's very easy to use a wireless keyboard and mouse and controller and work from the couch with no issues. The rumored Steam redesign for big tvs might have part of the answer too. It's not perfect but eh it's not nearly as frustrating as it used to be and easily worth the effort, at least in my opinion.

Your points are all valid outside of number 4 somewhat. You can't get refunds for purchased console games, why should it be any different for PC games? Most stores allow you to trade for the same copy but that doesn't solve bug issues usually although you can just sell the console game (minus MP support increasingly) but ultimately there's no real advantage over digital downloads of pc games. If the game sucked or is broken you're out money regardless. Throw in Xbox Live and PSN downloadable games and there's really no difference whatsoever.
post #3523 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

To continue playing devil's advocate: this also used to be the case, but is no longer. Installs on console are totally standard, as are patches.
The bigger hassle is the constant tweaking and fussing to eke out a few extra FPS. But these days, console folks are doing the same thing just to eke out slightly better connection speeds. The differences are disappearing.

It still is the case. You will always have to install a game from disc to get it running on a PC. That is after booting up the computer into Windows and then launching the game from the computer or Steam. You have the option to install the game on the 360 or have a mandatory install on some games on the PS3 or Halo 4 which is one game that does require an 8gig install which is not the norm to the above. No installs on the Wii so not sure how this is a standard per say. Patches come to you on the 360 when you load the game up the patch last for 5 seconds the most being only 10mb file because they consolidate it and make it a standard on Live. On the PC you download patch and hit next, next, confirm location, next, install and that is if you didn't buy the game on Steam since not all games are on Steam. Steam doesn't always have the best deal for new releases to franchise games either. I bought Cities XL direct from the publisher because it only cost me $20 to get it because I own the original Cities game.


PS3 comes close to how the PC installs work if you are going to compare. 360 does it better with downloading games and patches. If you had just said PS3 then I can see your argument about the differences disappearing but it isn't the same at all with the 360.
post #3524 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yrd View Post

I don't know how accurate your numbers are, but assuming they were perfect, you could argue that you get what you pay for.
Like someone getting a cheap AV receiver vs a higher end one with more connections and features. You have to pay for all those options.
I'm already prepared to be underwhelmed by the next gen of consoles. I have a feeling Sony and MS are going to focus on very different features that don't play into my interests.
PC gaming is hopefully going to have another surge in interest and in turn bring with it some needed improvements.

From the sound of the following articles Sony may not even make a successor to PS3.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/01/11/cloud-gaming-company-predicts-sony-or-microsoft-will-not-have-a-next-gen-console.aspx

http://asia.cnet.com/sony-launching-a-new-ps3-62217523.htm


The source of the rumor was Gaikai. The One article is from January 2012. But since that time Sony has actually bought Gaikai. Plus they are apparently making a slimmer version of PS3 for 2013. So who really knows at this point. As I said in an earlier comment...I could actually see Durango being MS' last console. They may just squat on the market with Durango...the XBox 360...and a Surface/WIndows phone 8/Xbox hybrid for a long time. EIther way...I moved back over to PC and I enjoy both formats. I am a tinkerer...tweaker by nature. And I like that aspect of PC gaming. But I also like the predictable simplicity of console gaming. Especially on FPS games.
post #3525 of 7006
I'm fine with PCs having better graphics. But I will not be happy if games on the PC (IE R6, COD, BF) can have 64 player rooms while the console can barely squeeze 12 people in a game without lagging or running choppy. These small rooms, having to play with certain friends because they all can't join due to room size is annoying. The minimum number of players in games like BF, COD and R6 should have on the new system should be 32 players. Some games aren't meant for high volume players but these are. And you should have more game types if you only want a small room but you should also have the ability to have large rooms.
post #3526 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieloneil01 View Post

I'm fine with PCs having better graphics. But I will not be happy if games on the PC (IE R6, COD, BF) can have 64 player rooms while the console can barely squeeze 12 people in a game without lagging or running choppy. These small rooms, having to play with certain friends because they all can't join due to room size is annoying. The minimum number of players in games like BF, COD and R6 should have on the new system should be 32 players. Some games aren't meant for high volume players but these are. And you should have more game types if you only want a small room but you should also have the ability to have large rooms.

I doubt that's going to change. If it was, it already would have. Consoles can handle as many players as a PC - they just can't do it and manage the same level of graphical fidelity. EA definitely decided with BF3 that graphics were more important than number of players. This is also a design choice - more players isn't always better. Mag wasn't any better for having 128 players. 32 players on a cod sized map is absolutely ridiculous...too crowded. I personally don't want larger games. 12-24 is more than enough for everything but a huge game of battlefield.
post #3527 of 7006
An interesting take on the Halo 2 Anniversary rumor, and how it may tie in with the Durango launch. It will be interesting to see how this one unfolds...if it actually happens...with Halo 4 and Durango.

http://gamerant.com/halo-2-anniversary-edition-riley-158761/
post #3528 of 7006
This whole concept of Tweaking is for the Super PC Enthusiasts. I am just a Video Game Player (Xbox 360, PS3 & Gaming PC) & I have never gone in to Tweak settings for my PC games (Skyrim, Borderlands, Diablo 3 & Amular). I install my GPU (Radeon 7850) & just pop in the game and play (with my Wireless 360 Controller). I had a Radeon 5850 but wanted DX11 so I got a Radeon 7850 ($250) and don't see the need to upgrade for another 3-4 years. I am so much happier PC gaming and don't see myself getting the Next Xbox or PS4 (will get a Wii U for Nintendo 1st Party Exclusives).
post #3529 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigfame View Post

This whole concept of Tweaking is for the Super PC Enthusiasts. I am just a Video Game Player (Xbox 360, PS3 & Gaming PC) & I have never gone in to Tweak settings for my PC games (Skyrim, Borderlands, Diablo 3 & Amular). I install my GPU (Radeon 7850) & just pop in the game and play (with my Wireless 360 Controller). I had a Radeon 5850 but wanted DX11 so I got a Radeon 7850 ($250) and don't see the need to upgrade for another 3-4 years. I am so much happier PC gaming and don't see myself getting the Next Xbox or PS4 (will get a Wii U for Nintendo 1st Party Exclusives).

Tweaking is actually more needed for the people with less powerful PCs. Back when I was a major PC gamer, I didn't have to tweak. My system could handle whatever game I threw at it. Turn on the game, crank up the settings and go. Nowadays, I have to tune down settings one at a time in order to get settings that run fine on my system.

Yeah, you bought a Radeon 7850 for $250. Nice. Makes it easy for you to just plug and play. Try it with a 4670 and see if you can just run the game as-is.
post #3530 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

Tweaking is actually more needed for the people with less powerful PCs. Back when I was a major PC gamer, I didn't have to tweak. My system could handle whatever game I threw at it. Turn on the game, crank up the settings and go. Nowadays, I have to tune down settings one at a time in order to get settings that run fine on my system.
Yeah, you bought a Radeon 7850 for $250. Nice. Makes it easy for you to just plug and play. Try it with a 4670 and see if you can just run the game as-is.

Exactly. And in two years that 7850 will be the new 4670. Have fun with that.
post #3531 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbexperience View Post

Exactly. And in two years that 7850 will be the new 4670. Have fun with that.

I highly doubt that. PC games are not pushing the limit of Graphics right now like Crysis did a few years ago. My Radeon 5850 (2 1/2 years old) was going strong as I could play all my games at Max settings. The only reason I upgraded was for DX11. I could keep my 7850 for 3-4 years and still Max out games. Plus my 7850 will be more powerful than what the PS4 & NextBox will have in them.
post #3532 of 7006
Holy hell, if you want to talk about consoles vs PC, or PC gaming or anything BUT the NEXTBOX please start your own thread. THIS one is for the NEXTBOX ONLY.

Getting back to the actual thread..... Barrelbelly, can you post the text of the article? Cant access from work.
post #3533 of 7006
I think this is all still in the content of the post. This thread has 118 pages and it's gone all over the place, and this is actually of interest to me. Unlike some of the conversation a few pages back. There's nothing going on in the new consoles, this thread would be dead without this current discussion.

We're arguing the merits of PC vs our projected next gen console expectations. No one knows what the hardware will be, we've argued it ad infinitum. It's a fresh conversation finally.


Also, if Microsoft's new thing will be to just rehash the same games in a new shiny wrapper, I am fast losing interest in their game system. These sequels and remakes are getting tired, and I rather hate people for paying to play them still. That means they are just going to make more of them.
post #3534 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianbat420 View Post

Holy hell, if you want to talk about consoles vs PC, or PC gaming or anything BUT the NEXTBOX please start your own thread. THIS one is for the NEXTBOX ONLY.
Getting back to the actual thread..... Barrelbelly, can you post the text of the article? Cant access from work.

this whole thread is silly speculative fun anyway. no one has any real evidence of anything so everything's up for grabs. if anyone is trying to glean real concrete information, it'd be better they wait for real concrete information. otherwise, this thread is just to pass the time.
post #3535 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianbat420 View Post

Holy hell, if you want to talk about consoles vs PC, or PC gaming or anything BUT the NEXTBOX please start your own thread. THIS one is for the NEXTBOX ONLY.
Getting back to the actual thread..... Barrelbelly, can you post the text of the article? Cant access from work.

"Last year Xbox 360 gamers got to experience an HD version of the Xbox game that launched a multibillion dollar franchise. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary was a fateful renditioning of the original smash-hit, and it was well received by gamers because of its $40 price point and nostalgia-filled content. Now it’s being reported that the original game’s sequel, Halo 2, will be getting a very similar treatment.

According to Official Xbox Magazine‘s rumor section, they’ve been tipped off about 343′s plans to release a Halo 2: Anniversary Edition. Anyone who followed interviews with members of 343 during development of Anniversary knows that the idea was being tossed around, so this rumor won’t flabbergast dedicated followers of the franchise – it may, however, make their wallets ache in anticipation.

CVG grabbed a quick quote from OXM, and it can be viewed in all of its unparalleled glory below.


“Following the success of remake Halo: Anniversary, 343 Industries has now started development of Halo 2: Anniversary.”

It’s hard to see past the behemoth known as Halo 4 currently hurdling towards retailers, but potentially getting a revamped version of Halo 2 sounds splendid. Of course, the question now becomes when will this rumored game release, and if 343 is releasing it in line to celebrate the game’s 10 year anniversary then it’ll release on November 9th, 2014. If that’s the case, then it’s almost guaranteed to be developed on the Xbox 360′s successor (potentially named Xbox Infinity).

Microsoft may also just want to keep consumers happy with a new Halo release every year, so Halo 2 may be arriving in 2013. That would make it a nice stop gap between Halo 4 and the inevitable Halo 5, but that means it may arrive as a final hoorah for 360 owners.

We already know that Microsoft has the Halo series mapped out for the next 10 years, but we won’t know whether or not their plans were realized for another decade. Halo 2: Anniversary is almost a sure bet after the success of Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, so stay tuned to Game Rant for more information on the alleged title as soon as we can get our grubby mitts on it."
post #3536 of 7006
Thanks for the info! I am not a huge fan of remakes but it may be worth it to pick this one up. I had many MANY hours in Halo 2.

I know this is a speculative thread and it has gotten off course a few times, just trying to steer it back on track. I understand talking about PC's has a small part to play but I would rather get tidbits of articles talking about the nextbox than hear a couple people battle out PC vs console gaming. The last two pages, maybe more, has just been back and forth about who's GPU is better. My post wasnt meant as a a-hole one, just a smartass funny one. biggrin.gif
post #3537 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianbat420 View Post

Thanks for the info! I am not a huge fan of remakes but it may be worth it to pick this one up. I had many MANY hours in Halo 2.
I know this is a speculative thread and it has gotten off course a few times, just trying to steer it back on track. I understand talking about PC's has a small part to play but I would rather get tidbits of articles talking about the nextbox than hear a couple people battle out PC vs console gaming. The last two pages, maybe more, has just been back and forth about who's GPU is better. My post wasnt meant as a a-hole one, just a smartass funny one. biggrin.gif

No offense taken by me for sure. You gotta have a hide thick as a rhino to hang out on this one. But as said by Onlysublime...It's a lot of fun. No one means anything malicious...just some very strong opinions in this house. So fire away with no apologies necessary. Plus you were correct up to a point. It veered slightly off topic. But not by very much. And the veer was very interesting, necessary and informative IMO. Because a lot of folks on this thread recently built PC based game rigs...myself included. I did it because I wanted to experience what the very best looked and felt like...right now. I will still buy my XBox Durango when the time is right. Meaning...when I'm confident there is no RROD kind of deal breaker in the mix. But I want to compare it to the XBox 360, WiiU, PS3/PS-X and my Uber PC (Asus ROG Rampage Extreme IV mobo...Asus AMD HD 7970 x2 Crossfire GPU and Intel I7 Extreme CPU). I got most of those parts & others through extreme discounts from friends in the industry...or the cost would have been prohibitive. But I have a major benchmark to compare nextgen consoles with. And if MS does "Blend"/converge in the Next generation...I am good to go on the PC and display side. Durango can't possibly beat my Asus Rig. I doubt even their generation after Durango can. But I expect it to be very competitive in areas that really count. That is what the PC/Durango/ NexGen talk has been about for the last 2-3 pages IMO. SO hang in there and indulge our rumors...speculation...spitball fights and handshakes.
post #3538 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Because a lot of folks on this thread recently built PC based game rigs...myself included. I did it because I wanted to experience what the very best looked and felt like...right now. I will still buy my XBox Durango when the time is right. Meaning...when I'm confident there is no RROD kind of deal breaker in the mix. But I want to compare it to the XBox 360, WiiU, PS3/PS-X and my Uber PC (Asus ROG Rampage Extreme IV mobo...Asus AMD HD 7970 x2 Crossfire GPU and Intel I7 Extreme CPU).
Exactly. Unlike the old PS3 v. 360 silliness a few years ago, it seems reasonable to talk about PCs in comparison to future consoles. From my perspective, I'm seeing fewer reasons to jump straight into the next gen console race, and more reasons to go back to PC gaming.

More than anything else, I'm lamenting the way that the console industry has veered off track. When MS jumped into the console business, it forced the whole console business to start chasing PC tech and game design. Sony followed suit with the PS3. Nintendo didn't.

I used to keep a console around not just because it was cheap and convenient. It was because it offered vastly different experiences from what I could get on a PC. But now, there's almost no difference in the kinds of games you can play. FPS and Western RPGs were pretty much the exclusive domain of PCs, but the Xbox changed all of that. Now it's merely a difference in graphics tech. MS and Sony try to artificially keep consoles "different" from PCs by paying for exclusives, but just ten years ago, those games were exclusive because it was a completely different industry and market. And now with the push into media content, there's even less of a difference. And console manufacturers have monetized the hell out of their content.

I think this conversation about PCs is totally relevant (maybe not to the point of comparing specs, though). It has everything to do with where the console industry is and where it's going. We won't know for sure until we get some solid information about the next generation, but I see nothing that convinces me that consoles won't be even more like (hobbled) PCs in the next generation. At that point, I just don't know why I would bother. I hope MS and Sony can convince me otherwise.
post #3539 of 7006
I don't think MS forced the industry to follow PC game design. It was something most console gamers had little experience with after decades of Japanese dominated development. I think people just liked what they played and wanted more, simple as that. The traditional Japanese console devs just haven't been able to keep up.

I also put off buying a 360 or PS3 for a while because I felt like my PC did everything it could do better, and while the console experience of today still feels dominated by the PC devs of yesteryear, there's still just as many traditional console games. The room is just way more crowded.
post #3540 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianbat420 View Post

Thanks for the info! I am not a huge fan of remakes but it may be worth it to pick this one up. I had many MANY hours in Halo 2.

I hear ya... I had played 11K+ games of Halo 2 on my old Happi Killmore account!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....