Forget John Romero - XBox360 and PS3 ARE *Doomed*

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: apoppin
did you read the interview

or are you one of the *hate mailers* that read only the titles of threads?


why the heck would anyone want an expensive console "PC wannabe" when a cheaper, multi-purpose PC offers better gaming and *much* better graphics?
:Q

Well for $600 I can have a Blu-ray player, 720P/1080P game machine, Linux box, Media player, etc. What computer can you build me for $600 with a legit OS, nice Vista gaming machine? LOL.

That's all well and good, but what about the television to play that system on? Sure, you can get a junker for $100-$200, but if you're in the market for a PS3, I'd assume you'd want some form of HD, whether it be 720p or 1080p. Going cheap, that'd be about $400 for a display, so it makes the cost of a good PC vs. a gaming setup much closer.

You're also omitting the fact that Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, whereas we aren't purchasing our gaming PCs at a loss to the manufacturer. If we were...mmmm

Jesus, you don't add the cost of the TV when comparing a console. I know people LOVE to do this to make the price comparable, but that's simply not an accurate figure. When 99% of people buy an HDTV, they buy it for watching HDTV, HD movies and at a distant third, gaming. That would be like saying you also have to add the cost of the receiver, and speakers. Those components are already there and their main purpose if for something other than gaming. A console is just another way of making use of your existing HT equipment.

Whoa, calm down one second. I know plenty of friends who bought an HDTV solely for the purpose of complementing their new X360 or PS3. Hell, I bought a 30" just for my Wii so I could do EDTV. The added clarity it gave me when watching TV was just a bonus.

I'll do the same for a PC. MOST people use their PC for other things rather than gaming. So you should only compare the parts you'll need to upgrade if you wanted to play games. If you had a PC which consisted of a P4 3.0GHz CPU, 1GB of memory, and integrated video, most people even at AT would have no problems doing their normal everyday computing tasks. HOWEVER, since they DO want to play games, they'll have to buy a new CPU, more memory and DEFINITELY a new video card (or two), oh and yeah, a new motherboard, oh and look at that, now you need a new type of memory...oh wait, you need a new PSU now too. You've now just pretty much rebuilt your whole PC to play games. Yes, you can use it for other things, but you could have used your old machine for those things just fine.

If someone had a P4C and 1GB of memory, unless they were a hardcore gamer, why would they need anything more than a video card upgrade? Maybe if you were planning to maximize your experience in future games, sure. Been to a LAN lately? Most people are gaming on a setup similar to what you suggested, plus a decent video card. No need at all for two video cards.

If you really wanted to overhaul that P4 setup, grab an X2 3600+ for $65, 2GB of DDR 667 for $100, a decent AM2 board for $75, an Enhance 500W for $70, and an 8800GTS 320MB for $275. That's $585, not including the money you get back from selling your old equipment. That's not bad.

Anyone that tries to pretend PC gaming is in the same league price wise as console gaming needs to get back to reality. PC gaming is much more expensive than console gaming. That's just a fact. It is also not as simple as just popping in a game and having it just play. If you buy an XBox 360/PS3/Wii game now or 3 years from now, it is guaranteed to run just about flawlessly when you get home. That is the beauty of console gaming, simplicity. And THAT is why is is doing so well.

I'm not. All I said was that PC gaming is a lot closer than some here would have you believe, pricewise. This is my opinion, I have seen it be true in the real world, and I will stick with it. No harm done, and no need for you to get antsy with my post.

i *had* a P4 2.80c ... x850xt and 1GB RAM
... "net $300" for a P43.4EE@3.74G/x1950p/1.5GB RAM

simple 30 minute upgrade ... no fuss or muss or OS install

PC gaming is a LOT cheaper than console gaming when in you figure the extra costs of the console games over PC games ... HW upgrades are gonna get even cheaper ...
that IS romero's point

and the PC will be wireless in every room

the console will be stuck next to the TV ... or in the kid's room

so why do we need PC wannabe consoles, again?



:laugh:

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Avalon
I'm not. All I said was that PC gaming is a lot closer than some here would have you believe, pricewise. This is my opinion, I have seen it be true in the real world, and I will stick with it. No harm done, and no need for you to get antsy with my post.

Fair enough.

 

[apoppin]

otOh, you can feel free to get 'antsy' with my posts


it has become 'expected'



[just watch what yo post in the *other* thread
--big brother is watching]
:shocked:

 

[apoppin]

at least we seem to be agreed that you pay more for PC games over console games ...
--that 'hidden cost' is *substantial* ... i usually see at least $10 more per console game over their PC counterparts - regardless of 'newness'

IF you buy a LOT of games ... it is hundreds of dollars more over the 5 year lifetime of your console ... in my case, $200 a year difference

imo, you really DO get what you pay for ...

and unless you like the console games [which would be my reason for owning one] ... i can't see ANY advantage of the "PC wannabes" over a PC ...

in the future the console seems even less *compelling*

my 'take'

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: apoppin

you can run Vista on your PS3
:Q

i am impressed



youg guys completely miss JR's point ... not to mentione 'mine'

.. as usual

Are you just slow? Did I say I can run Vista on a Ps3? I can play games on it, you cannot play games on a PC without XP or Vista, which is $100-$200. So again, I was answering your stupid comment:

why the heck would anyone want an expensive console "PC wannabe" when a cheaper, multi-purpose PC offers better gaming and *much* better graphics?
:Q

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

I game on trhe PC, PS3 and 360 - so I'm no fanboy.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: apoppin

you can run Vista on your PS3
:Q

i am impressed



youg guys completely miss JR's point ... not to mentione 'mine'

.. as usual

Are you just slow? Did I say I can run Vista on a Ps3? I can play games on it, you cannot play games on a PC without XP or Vista, which is $100-$200. So again, I was answering your stupid comment:

why the heck would anyone want an expensive console "PC wannabe" when a cheaper, multi-purpose PC offers better gaming and *much* better graphics?
:Q

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

I game on trhe PC, PS3 and 360 - so I'm no fanboy.

Dude, I wouldn't even waste my time on him. He just likes to argue, that's it.

 

[zoozilla]

Quite frankly, I don't want consoles to die. PC games are great: free multiplayer, mods, endless customization; but a gaming PC is just too expensive for me. Consoles like the 360 (the best price-performance-games ratio as I see it) provide a way for people like me to have a good gaming "rig" that will last for 5 years. There's also guaranteed compatibility (besides backwards compatibility or if you're trying to play MGS4 on your Xbox), no installation, and usually less bugs. I don't see why people are getting so mad about this.

 

[UnTech]

Are we still John Romero's bitch?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: apoppin

you can run Vista on your PS3
:Q

i am impressed



youg guys completely miss JR's point ... not to mentione 'mine'

.. as usual

Are you just slow? Did I say I can run Vista on a Ps3? I can play games on it, you cannot play games on a PC without XP or Vista, which is $100-$200. So again, I was answering your stupid comment:

why the heck would anyone want an expensive console "PC wannabe" when a cheaper, multi-purpose PC offers better gaming and *much* better graphics?
:Q

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

I game on trhe PC, PS3 and 360 - so I'm no fanboy.

strange you bring it up ... i guess you are a Fanboy
... since you strongly defend the console and call me 'slow" when i have another valid PoV

i run Win2K ... which does everything for games that XP does and it was way less expensive than XP ... not to mention there are other advantages of buying a MS OS over Linux for business ... i am not paying ANY *extra* for the privilege of gaming
... and Vista will be - when mature - for my *business* machine ... that i also use for gaming ...
--try taking a tax deduction on your PS3

and wtH does this confused statement mean?:
"games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore"

huh?

what does the 1st half of you sentence have to do with the other?


yes, as you admitted, each console game IS generally more - usually, TEN dollars more than their PC counterpart ... all the way to the sub-bargain bin

if you game as i do - 20 games per year - you ARE spending $200 a year "rent" to the console maker
[more-or-less]

add it in as a direct expense of being a console gamer

and to answer your part 2 non sequitur - PC gaming has *stopped* it's slide ...

expect - with DX10 and cheaper HW ... a renaissance in PC gaming

i believe, each month you wait. the PS3 becomes less attractive as an "alternative" to the PC ... UNLESS you want to play those games

i have no argument with those 'wants' ... but you are not saving any money
--and unlike the PC it is not upgradable

finally .... IS consloe gaming *easier* ?

- no, not if you are reading this




better than JR's bitch

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: apoppin

you can run Vista on your PS3
:Q

i am impressed



youg guys completely miss JR's point ... not to mentione 'mine'

.. as usual

Are you just slow? Did I say I can run Vista on a Ps3? I can play games on it, you cannot play games on a PC without XP or Vista, which is $100-$200. So again, I was answering your stupid comment:

why the heck would anyone want an expensive console "PC wannabe" when a cheaper, multi-purpose PC offers better gaming and *much* better graphics?
:Q

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

I game on trhe PC, PS3 and 360 - so I'm no fanboy.

strange you bring it up ... i guess you are a Fanboy
... since you strongly defend the console and call me 'slow" when i have another valid PoV

i run Win2K ... which does everything for games that XP does and it was way less expensive than XP ... not to mention there are other advantages of buying a MS OS over Linux for business ... i am not paying ANY *extra* for the privilege of gaming
... and Vista will be - when mature - for my *business* machine ... that i also use for gaming ...
try taking a tax deduction on your PS3

and wtH does this confused statement mean?:
"games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore"

huh?

what does the 1st half of you sentence have to do with the other?


yes each console game is generally TEN dollars more than their PC counterpart ... all the way to the sub-bargain bin

if you game asa i do - 20 games per year - you ARE spending $200 a year "rent" to the console maker
[more-or-less]

add it in as a direct expense of being a console

and the PC gaming has *stopped* it's slide ...

expect - with DX10 and cheaper HW ... a renaissance in PC gaming

i believe, each month you wait the PS3 becomes less attractive as an "alternative" to the PC ... UNLESS you want to play those game

i have no argument with those 'wants' ... but you are not saving money

is consloe gaming *easier* ?

not if you are reading this




better than JR's bitch

:thumbsup:

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Todd33

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

PC Gaming

Case: $50
PSU: $40 Forton 350watt
CPU: AMD x2 3600+, $60
RAM: 1gb ddr2 $60
Video card: x1950pro $135
OS: Windows XP $90
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 200gb $65
Motherboard: $50
DVDrom: $20

Total: $570

Console Gaming

PS3 or Xbox360: $500-600
Dell/HP/Emachines computer for web browsing, doing work (GASP!), etc: $300

Total: $800-$900

And that's without an xbox live subscription, HDTV to enjoy resolutions higher than 640*480, etc.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Todd33

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

PC Gaming

Case: $50
PSU: $40 Forton 350watt
CPU: AMD x2 3600+, $60
RAM: 1gb ddr2 $60
Video card: x1950pro $135
OS: Windows XP $90
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 200gb $65
Motherboard: $50
DVDrom: $20

Total: $570

Console Gaming

PS3 or Xbox360: $500-600
Dell/HP/Emachines computer for web browsing, doing work (GASP!), etc: $300

Total: $800-$900

And that's without an xbox live subscription, HDTV to enjoy resolutions higher than 640*480, etc.

i believe that would be something close to ownage

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Todd33

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

PC Gaming

Case: $50
PSU: $40 Forton 350watt
CPU: AMD x2 3600+, $60
RAM: 1gb ddr2 $60
Video card: x1950pro $135
OS: Windows XP $90
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 200gb $65
Motherboard: $50
DVDrom: $20

Total: $570

Console Gaming

PS3 or Xbox360: $500-600
Dell/HP/Emachines computer for web browsing, doing work (GASP!), etc: $300

Total: $800-$900

And that's without an xbox live subscription, HDTV to enjoy resolutions higher than 640*480, etc.

i believe that would be something close to ownage

Same here. And the games will look better and you can customize your experience. Have fun buying that HDTV for $1500 dollars as well to bring the grand total to about $2300 dollars for the consoles (so you can actually enjoy somewhat smooth edges with the lack of AA on consoles). Now add in a 21" monitor for $400-500 and that brings the PC grand total to ~$970. I sorta like consoles, but I like image quality and money, so....

 

[josh6079]

If consoles would simply allow the user more control over their graphics and frames they would be a lot more enjoyable. Gamma settings alone are not enough.

Even if console hardware is similar to PC hardware, the fact that consoles lock the user out of altering any graphics for any games on it makes the PC a much more flexible product. Consoles already have portability and ease of use, they just need advanced options for more knowledgeable users.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Todd33

$600 on the PC won't even buy you a CPU and graphics card, let alone a OS, HD, memory, etc. For $400-$600 the 360 and PS3 are a better hardware value. As far as software, games do cost more on the consoles if you buy them as new releases, but more and more games developers are moving to the consoles, so the PC is not the king anymore.

PC Gaming

Case: $50
PSU: $40 Forton 350watt
CPU: AMD x2 3600+, $60
RAM: 1gb ddr2 $60
Video card: x1950pro $135
OS: Windows XP $90
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 200gb $65
Motherboard: $50
DVDrom: $20

Total: $570

Console Gaming

PS3 or Xbox360: $500-600
Dell/HP/Emachines computer for web browsing, doing work (GASP!), etc: $300

Total: $800-$900

And that's without an xbox live subscription, HDTV to enjoy resolutions higher than 640*480, etc.

Nice computer for games two years ago. I was assuming something for todays games, but ok. If you "need" a $1500 HDTV for a console, you "need" one for a computer too, both can use the same output devices.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: apoppin


since i don't watch TV, i would *need* a big expensive LCD for my living room .. more like $700 + $600 for that PS3 ... you can get a really *nice* PC for that

next year, i expect to have at least a 22" WS monitor for my computer ... anyway ... and a 2nd 19" one

and i will watch TV and movies on it also .... not to mention view and file my tax forms
--that just might be a "business deduction" ... your PS3 certainly isn't

EIT: *wrong*, MyStupidMouth PC HW costs are NOT added to PC game prices.

ONLY in concoles do you get to pay for your PS3 or xbox - forever - in higher-priced games

100 games over the 5 life of your console is at least $1000 more than buying 100 PC games

don't *forget* to add in 'rent' to the manufacturer of your console
:Q

First you can play a console on a monitor, just like you can play your PC on a HDTV. This isn't rocket science guys.

Second, sure new games cost more, I said that already. But.. you can buy them 6+ months later for $30 or just rent them and never buy them. How are those PC game rental services? Oh that's right PC gamers just pirate everything, OS included

I'm a PC gamer too, but lets not be thick and make consoles look like a bad deal. I think real gamers need both, there are far too many games on consoles that you cannot play a PC.

 

[Matt2]

Sooo.... what'd I miss?

On a serious note, I agree with Jack Burton about just buying a 24" display and using it with both devices.

That's what I do with my 24" gateway. It's my display for the computer and I enjoy xbox360 and HD-DVDs in full 1080p glory.

I also have a 50" DLP, but that is for cable/HDTV.

 

[450R]

Originally posted by: josh6079
If consoles would simply allow the user more control over their graphics and frames they would be a lot more enjoyable. Gamma settings alone are not enough.

Even if console hardware is similar to PC hardware, the fact that consoles lock the user out of altering any graphics for any games on it makes the PC a much more flexible product. Consoles already have portability and ease of use, they just need advanced options for more knowledgeable users.

So ... use a PC? Everything you're arguing against is exactly why consoles are so popular, especially in the case of developers.

What is it you would change?

 

[AmdInside]

I have pretty much every game console but most of my games I buy for PC because I don't like paying $50-$60 for new releases. I generally only play $20-$30 for PC games and don't have to wait a year for that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: apoppin


since i don't watch TV, i would *need* a big expensive LCD for my living room .. more like $700 + $600 for that PS3 ... you can get a really *nice* PC for that

next year, i expect to have at least a 22" WS monitor for my computer ... anyway ... and a 2nd 19" one

and i will watch TV and movies on it also .... not to mention view and file my tax forms
--that just might be a "business deduction" ... your PS3 certainly isn't

EIT: *wrong*, MyStupidMouth PC HW costs are NOT added to PC game prices.

ONLY in concoles do you get to pay for your PS3 or xbox - forever - in higher-priced games

100 games over the 5 life of your console is at least $1000 more than buying 100 PC games

don't *forget* to add in 'rent' to the manufacturer of your console
:Q

First you can play a console on a monitor, just like you can play your PC on a HDTV. This isn't rocket science guys.

Second, sure new games cost more, I said that already. But.. you can buy them 6+ months later for $30 or just rent them and never buy them. How are those PC game rental services? Oh that's right PC gamers just pirate everything, OS included

I'm a PC gamer too, but lets not be thick and make consoles look like a bad deal. I think real gamers need both, there are far too many games on consoles that you cannot play a PC.

i don't *really* think you are a PC gamer ... anymore ... why the HELL would i play console games on my PC's LCD ...
that is just stupid for me ... WHY do i want that $600 third-leg 'PC wannabe' hooked up in the first place, anyway?

--for BluRay?
:roll:

--and i also *trade* PC games ... i give them away ... i get them free from friends

Rental is a big ripoff ... try renting Oblivion for your 360 ... it's ok for really short games or to 'demo' them ... us PCer's have free *demos* for many good games
--beats' 'rental'


*used* console games ALSO cost TEN DOLLARS more then equivalent PC games ... you pay a *fee* to the console maker rather 'directly'. New Games are much worse.

you got it right , iMO, consoles *are* a bad deal UNLESS you just like games that are *exclusive* to your platform

letssee let me reiterate

1) You pay $1,000 more for console games over 5 years if you play 20 games a year
... otOH, you already have a PC for work [or whatever] and can easily and cheaply "adapt" it for gaming it's also a tax-write off, if you have a business - that's nothing to sneeze at

2) Your console HW is NOT upgradable ... you sell or toss it when you buy the nextGen

3) the console - after the first year - looks a little worse than a decent gaming rig ... after 2 years it looks progressively worse and after 3 years, the load times get longer and the FPS drop ... you are lucky really to get 30 ... on a demanding game ... in the last year of your console's useful life

4) there are no mods or user-created content for consoles ... KB+M is not implemented on consoles and - for PC games, you *can* use a USB controller [i AM playing RE4 with a controller ]

 

[josh6079]

What is it you would change?

The ability to have advanced sections that could control AA/AF, resolution, etc - all of the minimal things that are normally activated in a PC's graphic card driver. Such options could be used under an advanced tab in a console's / game's UI.

I know being different than a PC is one of the things that attracts buyers to consoles, but as long as the console remains portable and the UI is easy to navigate through, adding such options wouldn't complicate the experience IMO.

Granted, I know what graphic features like AA/AF, resolutions, etc. do so my imagination is probably a little biased.

I'm just giving my $0.02 as to why I don't prefer consoles. And it's something that I feel manufacturers could easily change. The only reason why I don't think they do is because it would probably require more maintenance with drivers / updates and such.

 

[josh6079]

nevermind

 

[Jules]

lol

 

[Matt2]

Rental is a big ripoff ... try renting Oblivion for your 360 ... it's ok for really short games or to 'demo' them ... us PCer's have free *demos* for many good games
--beats' 'rental'

Xbox Live users get demos too poppy. Plus services like GameFly make renting much more attractive. You can play and finish as many games as you want for a small monthly fee.

1) You pay $1,000 more for console games over 5 years if you play 20 games a year

I'd pay more than $1000 in video card upgrades during those 5 years, so I think it about evens out.

Your console HW is NOT upgradable ... you sell or toss it when you buy the nextGen

How is that different from a video card? For roughly the same price, you get 2x the useful life with a console... at least.

the console - after the first year - looks a little worse than a decent gaming rig ... after 2 years it looks progressively worse and after 3 years, the load times get longer and the FPS drop ... you are lucky really to get 30 ... on a demanding game ... in the last year of your console's useful life

This may be true, however for this to in fact be true, I'll have to keep buying video cards or else sacrifice IQ settings. At least with the 360 I can enjoy my games in full 1080P and not have to spend a dime on upgrading my machine.

there are no mods or user-created content for consoles ... KB+M is not implemented on consoles and - for PC games, you *can* use a USB controller [i AM playing RE4 with a controller

I agree with user created content being a big plus for PC games, but consoles have downloadable content too. Map packs, etc...

After being a hardcore PC gamer for the past decade, I thought I'd never give up the KB + M, but you know what? If you're truly a gamer, you will adapt and master the controller just as you have the KB + M. I did. PLus the controller being so difficult adds another level to the game. Anyone can master the KB + M, but you REALLY have to be good to maintain a high level of play (especially online) when using the controller.

The ability to have advanced sections that could control AA/AF, resolution, etc - all of the minimal things that are normally activated in a PC's graphic card driver. Such options could be used under an advanced tab in a console's / game's UI.

They dont let you do it because it would ruin the game. PC games allow you to control every aspect of the graphics because there is a lot of performance overhead when using a PC. Game developers have to code the game to run on a $85 7600GT, so of course when you have a $550 8800GTX you're going to be able to up the eye candy.

OTOH, console games are coded to take advantage of every last drop of horsepower out of the console because everyone is running the same hardware. If you could be allowed to turn AA and AF up, you would be crippling performance.

 

[450R]

Originally posted by: josh6079

What is it you would change?

The ability to have advanced sections that could control AA/AF, resolution, etc - all of the minimal things that are normally activated in a PC's graphic card driver. Such options could be used under an advanced tab in a console's / game's UI.

I know being different than a PC is one of the things that attracts buyers to consoles, but as long as the console remains portable and the UI is easy to navigate through, adding such options wouldn't complicate the experience IMO.

The developers throw in all the goodies possible whilst retaining "good enough" performance, the resulting magic number probably depends on the particular game in question. IIRC, all 360 games are supposed to have a minimum of 2xAA. Basically, options don't exist because the hardware is already maxed out. That's the beauty of it.