Who else won't be buying the Xbox 360?

[duckdown]

i'll believe it all when i see it

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck
You missed my point, I was going back to the idea that consoles are unnecessary.

Uh, as are video games in general. You going to change your argument every time someone comes up with a counterpoint? First it's "console graphics are inferior", then it's "console manufacturers force people to buy consoles", then it was "PCs are more cost effective than consoles", now it's "consoles are unnecessary".

I do not think you could have come close to purchasing a gaming PC in 2002 for $600. Building -- maybe -- if you recycled parts and were not at the cutting edge (the Ti4600 was already a generation old in 2002).

Correct, I essentially only bought the case/psu, mb, chip & ram. You argue about the high cost of entry, but the main difference between the PCs which are proliferating so widely thanks to bulk dealers such as Dell, and gaming PCs, are the video solutions. Your argument seems based on the premise that most anyone trying to break into PC gaming won't have the peripherals to recycle, but I beg to differ. Five years ago you'd have a point perhaps, but not anymore. More people now own a PC than don't.

And most people own a TV already, too, so you can't hold that against game consoles.

Unless they bought a computer in the last year or two, most people do not have a system that could be easily upgraded to be comparable to a mainstream system you could buy today (anything that cannot take a P4 or Athlon processor is basically obsolete and not worth upgrading at this point). Many older Dell and other OEM systems don't even have AGP slots, and systems more than a few years old will force you to be stuck with older CPUs and slower RAM. Even if you have a system that can take a fairly fast processor now, unless you have a PCI Express slot, you will run out of upgrade room in a few years and need a complete new system anyway (so there goes your $50/year figure, at least if you want the system to last for more than a couple years).

Basically, I think most people who own a computer already will need either substantial upgrades (CPU/MB/RAM and video card), or a whole new system, if they want to have a system that can further be upgraded and maintained over the next 3-5 years. And I thought the average joe was so technically inept that they can't even tell how much a computer costs? Now they're going to be upgrading a legacy system with a whole new set of components?

If your argument is now going to be that you can game at low res/detail on a PC for not too much more money than a console, then yes, that is true -- but then you might as well just be playing on a console for less money. You can't have it both ways.

Only a valid argument if the person in question doesn't own a PC.

See above. Most people don't own a PC that can be made into a decent (by today's standards) gaming system, and even most of those will have little upgrade path.

I haven't seen a lot of innovation recently in the PC gaming industry

I beg to differ, 2004 saw some really groundbreaking games.

Such as? Name a major PC release that wasn't a sequel or something that is basically "earlier game X with new feature Y" (ie, Far Cry doesn't do anything that FPS games haven't done before; it just looks prettier).

Games continue to look better & better on the PC while consoles stagnate.

I thought the graphics didn't matter, since you only had to game at 800x600 and low detail to be better than a console, and gaming on a several-year-old PC was fine? You keep flip-flopping on whether or not graphics are important. PC graphics don't improve (much) unless you upgrade your hardware, either, so it's not like such improvements are free on the PC side.

Console graphics improve noticeably when new consoles come out, although graphics of newer games on the same console are often considerably better than older ones.

Imagine where we could be if console money was going toward PCs instead? It's not out of the question that we might be at the point of photorealism or games which stimulate senses other than sight & hearing...

Or maybe graphics hardware would have stagnated without competition from game consoles, and we'd still have something the level of the GeForce2. Again, playing "what if" is not helpful.

If a $300-400 console starts severely outpacing a $1000 gaming PC in terms of graphics AND has the edge in ease of use, then PC gaming will need some very strong pluses indeed to compete.

Easy to say this in anticipation of the release of a new console, when they're at their strongest. You're ignoring the fact that for ~7/10 of its life cycle, the console will be outdated compared to PCs.

But wait, I thought graphics weren't the big selling point? Or wait, do people care more about price? Now I'm getting confused by all your different arguments again.

Any fixed hardware platform will be surpassed by a changing hardware platform. No surprise there. But those PC upgrades aren't free, either.

Yet you are saying that prices are going to go up, with no prior evidence for this occurring.

You're misunderstanding me, I'm not saying they'll begin to charge more for the same hardware, rather they'll charge less for it - but make purchasing it a condition of buying individual games. As I've said, I expect this to happen 3-4 years into its life cycle, when they can afford to sell the outdated technology for ~$50 a pop (ie. the $99 package of console + game). At $50 they might not make much, but it'll be step 1 toward charging $129, $149, maybe even $199 per console/game combo.

IE, you think they will raise prices on games, although you personally think they will do so by trying to hide it by bundling games with game-specific hardware (which everybody else says is nuts). Point remains that prices have not been going up (quite the opposite recently), and you think this trend will reverse. With no evidence that I've seen other than your opinion.

Oh, ok. According to you, Nintendo doesn't count as a console maker and they "don't compete" with MS and Sony. I guess I'd better sell my Gamecube, then, because it doesn't exist and I can't play games on it?

It's like comparing an SUV to two sports cars.

Huh? It's a game console, last I checked, and they market it as competing directly against MS and Sony. I guess you should let Capcom know that making RE4 on the GameCube was a big mistake.

You're definitely way out in left field on this one.

No, it wouldn't drop by 50%, because some people would spend more money.

So you're agreeing with me that it would benefit manufacturers to do this? And you honestly think that, given the prospect of higher profits, they'd hold bacK?

I think that in the short term, revenues would rise, but they would be lucky if they got a 50% increase in revenue. In the longer term, they would lose money overall because of the lower customer base. They're not stupid; they would make more money by having more customers and selling more copies of games and services like XBox Live (which is more profitable, and palatable to consumers, than somehow trying to profit on hardware).

Plus, this can still only happen if all three console makers collude together to raise prices, which would be blatantly anticompetitive. If only one or two of them did, most of their customers would defect to the cheaper console(s).

They could certainly make programs that would only run on certain hardware, and they could certainly collude to raise prices (in fact, several RAM manufacturers were sued for this last year, so there's even precedent for it). I've seen people suggesting in the Video forum that the PC gaming industry will move in this direction (I think it's nuts, but people are saying it). If you're going to hold this against the console industry, you can't ignore it on the PC side either.

First, RAM manufacturers faced punishment for doing what they did.

Most companies that engage in anticompetitive tactics eventually do.

Second, the additional price in this scenario wouldn't be going toward thin air, but rather the hardware to go with each game. Thus the two situations are dissimilar and console makers would face no potential punishment for pricejacking.

If all three console makers were to suddenly raise their hardware/software costs by similar amounts after years of cutthroat price competition, you don't think someone over at the FTC might notice? Basically you're claiming that the console industry can violate antitrust laws and get away with it (because of some ridiculous loophole you think would exempt them from antitrust regulation), while dismissing the same notion out of hand for the PC industry (when PC hardware and software companies have already been convicted of similar acts in the past)? You've gotta be kidding me.

And -- funny -- you don't seem to have a lot of supporters for your theory here either.

*shrug* neither did the heliocentric model of the solar system at first. People are far too concerned with what others will think and not concerned enough with discussing ideas and speaking their mind.

So... you ignore outside sources because they're not people on this forum (I'm unclear on why AT members get such special treatment), even though people on this forum don't agree with your either? Wouldn't that be, basically, ignoring everybody who disagrees with you? Not much of a debate tactic if you ask me.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck

we've sunk to the level of talking about buying used parts again? sorry, thats not realistic. not to mention a gf3 is useless for todays games. an xbox is not useless for todays games. stop it gurck...its just sad.

An xbox doesn't play today's games. It plays games developed for its elderly hardware. Today's games are heads, shoulders and other bodyparts above what an xbox can do.

quote: Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
wrong, [the xbox] does play todays games

Absolutely not, it doesn't play Far Cry, HL2, Doom3, or any game with technology to look anywhere near as good as them.

And what, exactly, do you think of the XBox port of Doom3? What about KOTOR2 (which was recently ported to the PC as well)? Are those not "today's games"? Since when do graphics alone determine how "new" or "modern" a game is?

Or do they not count, because they've been "dumbed down" in some way for its hardware? Keep in mind that you have to do the same "dumbing down" if you want to play new games on an older PC. Or do you have some bizarre rationalization for why that's different?

 

[0roo0roo]

Absolutely not, it doesn't play Far Cry, HL2, Doom3, or any game with technology to look anywhere near as good as them.

actually it plays doom3 while the two other games are irrelevant comparisons as they aren't on the platform. you know very well what i meant by todays games. todays games avaliable for the platforms in question. else there are countless current console titles not avaliable for pc at any price to level your arguement.

whereas your gf3 or integrated graphics of the supposedly clearly superior pc's doesn't play those games either. so really..whats your point.

A friend of mine was playing Doom3 on his gf3 no problem

sacrificing quality and framerate to such a level where spending the money on a new game becomes rather pointless is not "no problem".

No I'm not

actually you did. its why you brought it up. and if you brought it up for playing yesterdays games, you've still lost the arguement.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
You going to change your argument every time someone comes up with a counterpoint? First it's "console graphics are inferior", then it's "console manufacturers force people to buy consoles", then it was "PCs are more cost effective than consoles", now it's "consoles are unnecessary".

I haven't changed my argument. They are, They do, They are, They are.

And most people own a TV already, too, so you can't hold that against game consoles.

I can & will hold this argument against game consoles, as it pertains to the next-generation ones (xbox2, ps3). Computer monitors dating back to 1990, possibly earlier, are capable of >640x480. HDTVs are relatively new, and older style TVs are still readily available and widely sold.

See above. Most people don't own a PC that can be made into a decent (by today's standards) gaming system, and even most of those will have little upgrade path.

I'd disagree, but without numbers this is a moot point. Regardless, without consoles PCs would be more advanced & less expensive.

Name a major PC release that wasn't a sequel or something that is basically "earlier game X with new feature Y" (ie, Far Cry doesn't do anything that FPS games haven't done before; it just looks prettier).

Lol, we're discussing technical merits so you claim a game must break new ground in terms of gameplay? What, like releasing the same Madden year after year with updated player stats? :roll: Far Cry did indeed break new ground. No PC game at its release matched or even came close to its image quality. PC games are constantly pushing the image quality envelope, while console games remain stagnant due to being limited to the same hardware for their ~5 year lifespan.

I thought the graphics didn't matter, since you only had to game at 800x600 and low detail to be better than a console, and gaming on a several-year-old PC was fine? You keep flip-flopping on whether or not graphics are important. PC graphics don't improve (much) unless you upgrade your hardware, either, so it's not like such improvements are free on the PC side.

Point is that with PCs you're afforded this option. The budget gamer or one with low interest can experience a game performing better than consoles on old hardware. Those with more of an interest & money to burn can experience a game in all its splendor. Btw my PC could be considered several years old; certainly the mb/cpu is, and the 9800pro in it came out ... when, late '02? It can handle current games in FAR better than 8x6 low detail settings.

Or maybe graphics hardware would have stagnated without competition from game consoles, and we'd still have something the level of the GeForce2. Again, playing "what if" is not helpful.

Again, the competition is there without consoles. Different manufacturers compete within the realm of PCs; Intes/AMD, nVidia/ATi, etc.

Point remains that prices have not been going up (quite the opposite recently)

Of course aging hardware will drop in price. Tell me about how they're slashing prices when the price of a current xbox goes from.. what is it now, $150? to the $350+ the xbox 2 will cost

Huh? It's a game console, last I checked, and they market it as competing directly against MS and Sony. I guess you should let Capcom know that making RE4 on the GameCube was a big mistake.

You're definitely way out in left field on this one.

You're out of the stadium if you think Nintendo is out to compete with Sony & MS. Their target audience is very different, and with little overlap.

Plus, this can still only happen if all three console makers collude together to raise prices, which would be blatantly anticompetitive. If only one or two of them did, most of their customers would defect to the cheaper console(s).

Lol, this from someone making the argument that consoles are worth it because of titles unavailable on other platforms... which is it?

First, RAM manufacturers faced punishment for doing what they did.

Most companies that engage in anticompetitive tactics eventually do.

I already explained how this differs.

If all three console makers were to suddenly raise their hardware/software costs by similar amounts after years of cutthroat price competition, you don't think someone over at the FTC might notice? Basically you're claiming that the console industry can violate antitrust laws and get away with it (because of some ridiculous loophole you think would exempt them from antitrust regulation), while dismissing the same notion out of hand for the PC industry (when PC hardware and software companies have already been convicted of similar acts in the past)? You've gotta be kidding me.

It's a new type of product. Saying a price increase wouldn't fly is like saying MS will have to face the music for asking more than $150 for the xbox2.

So... you ignore outside sources because they're not people on this forum (I'm unclear on why AT members get such special treatment), even though people on this forum don't agree with your either? Wouldn't that be, basically, ignoring everybody who disagrees with you? Not much of a debate tactic if you ask me.

Can't believe you're still making this argument, shows just how weak the legs you stand on are. Want me to cite literature detailing the downfall of our culture & our species' intelligence? I have a feeling you'd have much the same reaction to it

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
And what, exactly, do you think of the XBox port of Doom3? What about KOTOR2 (which was recently ported to the PC as well)? Are those not "today's games"? Since when do graphics alone determine how "new" or "modern" a game is?

When discussing technical capabilities graphics are the only factor. What about the xbox port of doom3? It was stripped of much of its image quality, since the xbox couldn't handle that. Odd, also, that you claim doom3 isn't a new game in your last post since it broke no new ground and is a sequel, yet here it's an example of the xbox playing a new game.. which is it? And you accuse me of flip flopping? Lol...

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

A friend of mine was playing Doom3 on his gf3 no problem

sacrificing quality and framerate to such a level where spending the money on a new game becomes rather pointless is not "no problem".

He didn't sacrifice fps. And odd how you consider sacrificing quality is fine with a console but not a PC. Why the double standard, no argument without it?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Matthias99
You going to change your argument every time someone comes up with a counterpoint? First it's "console graphics are inferior", then it's "console manufacturers force people to buy consoles", then it was "PCs are more cost effective than consoles", now it's "consoles are unnecessary".

I haven't changed my argument. They are, They do, They are, They are.

Fine, you want to argue everything. Whatever.

And most people own a TV already, too, so you can't hold that against game consoles.

I can & will hold this argument against game consoles, as it pertains to the next-generation ones (xbox2, ps3). Computer monitors dating back to 1990, possibly earlier, are capable of >640x480. HDTVs are relatively new, and older style TVs are still readily available and widely sold.

And you still don't need an HDTV to use a game console, even a next-gen one. Since below you're saying an old PC is still fine to use to play newer games, certainly using an old TV to play newer console games would also be fine.

See above. Most people don't own a PC that can be made into a decent (by today's standards) gaming system, and even most of those will have little upgrade path.

I'd disagree, but without numbers this is a moot point. Regardless, without consoles PCs would be more advanced & less expensive.

So says you. You still haven't addressed why PC hardware makers wouldn't participate in the same collusive behavior you think will happen in the console market.

Name a major PC release that wasn't a sequel or something that is basically "earlier game X with new feature Y" (ie, Far Cry doesn't do anything that FPS games haven't done before; it just looks prettier).

Lol, we're discussing technical merits so you claim a game must break new ground in terms of gameplay? What, like releasing the same Madden year after year with updated player stats? :roll:

On one hand you're talking about how consoles can't match new PC games, but then now it seems like the only thing you care about is graphics?

I didn't say that consoles don't also have sequels and derivative games (I'm always amazed at how many people rush out to get the next year's sports games when they're essentially identical in terms of gameplay), but pretty much every major PC release in the last few years has been one.

Far Cry did indeed break new ground. No PC game at its release matched or even came close to its image quality. PC games are constantly pushing the image quality envelope, while console games remain stagnant due to being limited to the same hardware for their ~5 year lifespan.

Again, you're flip-flopping on the importance of graphics. Here you say that PC games are superior because of the better image quality, but you're also saying that playing at low resolution and detail is fine because it's still better than a console. But if you don't keep updating your PC, you won't be able to experience the new graphics of better games. This kills the cost-effectiveness argument. You can't have it both ways.

Graphics do not make great games. If that was the #1 thing that people cared about, nobody would buy a game console to begin with, since the PC clearly has better graphics.

I thought the graphics didn't matter, since you only had to game at 800x600 and low detail to be better than a console, and gaming on a several-year-old PC was fine? You keep flip-flopping on whether or not graphics are important. PC graphics don't improve (much) unless you upgrade your hardware, either, so it's not like such improvements are free on the PC side.

Point is that with PCs you're afforded this option. The budget gamer or one with low interest can experience a game performing better than consoles on old hardware. Those with more of an interest & money to burn can experience a game in all its splendor. Btw my PC could be considered several years old; certainly the mb/cpu is, and the 9800pro in it came out ... when, late '02? It can handle current games in FAR better than 8x6 low detail settings.

My point is that, if you're going to go the budget route, you might as well just get a game console. With the next round of consoles, it seems likely that they will have graphics capabilities in line with a current fairly high-end PC, making graphics even less of an issue than it already is.

Or maybe graphics hardware would have stagnated without competition from game consoles, and we'd still have something the level of the GeForce2. Again, playing "what if" is not helpful.

Again, the competition is there without consoles. Different manufacturers compete within the realm of PCs; Intes/AMD, nVidia/ATi, etc.

You still haven't discussed why you believe PC hardware manufacturers would not engage in anticompetitive practices. Why would Microsoft and Sony collude to raise prices, but NVIDIA and ATI wouldn't?

Point remains that prices have not been going up (quite the opposite recently)

Of course aging hardware will drop in price. Tell me about how they're slashing prices when the price of a current xbox goes from.. what is it now, $150? to the $350+ the xbox 2 will cost

New hardware costs more than old hardware on both PC and console platforms. Overall, your $350+ this year is buying you a whole lot more processing power than your $350+ when the first XBox came out. Huh, kinda like the video card market, don't you think?

Huh? It's a game console, last I checked, and they market it as competing directly against MS and Sony. I guess you should let Capcom know that making RE4 on the GameCube was a big mistake.
You're definitely way out in left field on this one.

You're out of the stadium if you think Nintendo is out to compete with Sony & MS. Their target audience is very different, and with little overlap.

I just don't even know what to say. They're direct competitors, your bizarre assertions notwithstanding. I've never seen anyone else even try to advance this argument.

Plus, this can still only happen if all three console makers collude together to raise prices, which would be blatantly anticompetitive. If only one or two of them did, most of their customers would defect to the cheaper console(s).

Lol, this from someone making the argument that consoles are worth it because of titles unavailable on other platforms... which is it?

Your response does not address my original point, which is that collusion between the console manufacturers is highly unlikely. While there are a few exclusive titles out there that people might pay more for, they are few and far between.

I think consoles are worth it despite the existence of exclusive titles. Of course, I have a PC too. Ironically, I'm probably more of a PC gaming fan than a console gamer, but your position is so extreme that I'm basically forced to defend consoles in this thread to not have it be totally one-sided.

First, RAM manufacturers faced punishment for doing what they did.

Most companies that engage in anticompetitive tactics eventually do.

I already explained how this differs.

No, not really. You offered a ridiculous explanation that doesn't make any sense.

If all three console makers were to suddenly raise their hardware/software costs by similar amounts after years of cutthroat price competition, you don't think someone over at the FTC might notice? Basically you're claiming that the console industry can violate antitrust laws and get away with it (because of some ridiculous loophole you think would exempt them from antitrust regulation), while dismissing the same notion out of hand for the PC industry (when PC hardware and software companies have already been convicted of similar acts in the past)? You've gotta be kidding me.

It's a new type of product. Saying a price increase wouldn't fly is like saying MS will have to face the music for asking more than $150 for the xbox2.

It really doesn't work that way, no matter how many times you say it does. Conspiring to raise prices like that is anticompetitive, even if they try to hide it by saying it's a different product.

So... you ignore outside sources because they're not people on this forum (I'm unclear on why AT members get such special treatment), even though people on this forum don't agree with your either? Wouldn't that be, basically, ignoring everybody who disagrees with you? Not much of a debate tactic if you ask me.

Can't believe you're still making this argument, shows just how weak the legs you stand on are. Want me to cite literature detailing the downfall of our culture & our species' intelligence? I have a feeling you'd have much the same reaction to it

Well, why should I listen to it? I cited literature to defend my position, and I believe you called it "BS" and disregarded it without giving it any consideration. Awfully hypocritical of you, don't you think?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Matthias99
And what, exactly, do you think of the XBox port of Doom3? What about KOTOR2 (which was recently ported to the PC as well)? Are those not "today's games"? Since when do graphics alone determine how "new" or "modern" a game is?

When discussing technical capabilities graphics are the only factor.

Well, I'm glad you've decided that for us. Clearly gameplay is irrelevant when comparing gaming platforms. :disgust:

If you want to talk technical merits, the PC is obviously better (and almost always will be, except maybe right after a console launch). It's also much more expensive if you want new video cards and processors that can give you that high image quality.

What about the xbox port of doom3? It was stripped of much of its image quality, since the xbox couldn't handle that. Odd, also, that you claim doom3 isn't a new game in your last post since it broke no new ground and is a sequel, yet here it's an example of the xbox playing a new game.. which is it? And you accuse me of flip flopping? Lol...

You're the one who referred to Doom3 as a "new" game. Your claim above was that:

An xbox doesn't play today's games. It plays games developed for its elderly hardware. Today's games are heads, shoulders and other bodyparts above what an xbox can do.

While the XBox clearly *does* play at least a few of "today's" PC games (Doom3, KOTOR2). At least assuming you mean "today's games" by "games developed and released recently on the PC" and not something else.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

A friend of mine was playing Doom3 on his gf3 no problem

sacrificing quality and framerate to such a level where spending the money on a new game becomes rather pointless is not "no problem".

He didn't sacrifice fps. And odd how you consider sacrificing quality is fine with a console but not a PC. Why the double standard, no argument without it?

Um, you're the one saying that graphics are PC's big advantage, yet using a GF3 (which sacrifices all the new graphics) is fine? You don't think that is a double standard?

 

[0roo0roo]

I can & will hold this argument against game consoles, as it pertains to the next-generation ones (xbox2, ps3). Computer monitors dating back to 1990, possibly earlier, are capable of >640x480. HDTVs are relatively new, and older style TVs are still readily available and widely sold.

once again it is silly. standard definition broadcast tv is good enough to show photo real video. it is not a severe limitation on consoles.

I'd disagree, but without numbers this is a moot point. Regardless, without consoles PCs would be more advanced & less expensive.

the numbers are that integrated graphics dominates. and no, pc's wouldn't be more advanced and less expensive since you've already stated on numerous occasions that consoles are just another type of pc. the pc market was never without competition pushing forward advances. no magic would have happened if consoles didn't exist. its more likely that without consoles the pc's wouldn't have had to work so hard to get the share of the gaming market they have.
in fact without the console gaming market seeding generations with the culture of gaming, its probable the pc market would be years behind where it is now as the early expense of pc's would have kept the market very small.

Again, the competition is there without consoles. Different manufacturers compete within the realm of PCs; Intes/AMD, nVidia/ATi, etc.

contradicting yourself now again. first its competition of consoles are holding pc's back, now its competition keeping the pc's strong... by your initial reasoning competition between pc makers lowers the "numbers" and makes pc's weaker against consoles

Of course aging hardware will drop in price. Tell me about how they're slashing prices when the price of a current xbox goes from.. what is it now, $150? to the $350+ the xbox 2 will cost

its irrelevant when you are touting the indisputable superiority of pc's. to beat the xbox 2 you will need to spend far more than $350.

Lol, this from someone making the argument that consoles are worth it because of titles unavailable on other platforms... which is it?

there is no colusion to to keep the titles from pc's. in fact the pc market is open titles generally found on consoles like fighting games. its just that no companies want to lose money. its not a conspiracy, just simple reason.

When discussing technical capabilities graphics are the only factor. What about the xbox port of doom3? It was stripped of much of its image quality, since the xbox couldn't handle that. Odd, also, that you claim doom3 isn't a new game in your last post since it broke no new ground and is a sequel, yet here it's an example of the xbox playing a new game.. which is it? And you accuse me of flip flopping? Lol...

which is funny since your suggested system of a gf3 as an economically comparable platform would suffer far worse since the pc version of doom3 is not optimized in any way for such a low powered system.

He didn't sacrifice fps. And odd how you consider sacrificing quality is fine with a console but not a PC. Why the double standard, no argument without it?

its actually against your own standard to sacrifice quality on the pc as a clearly superior and more costly system should not have to resort to such measures.

the clear difference is after 4 years the majority of games made for consoles have their hardware in mind and are meticulously optimized as such. after 4 years the pc games have support for old hardware as an after thought at best.

 

[Gurck]

Just going to go back & forth, it's no longer entertaining so I'm not going to continue. Enjoy your consoles. Again, I'd have no problem with them if they didn't adversely affect me by castrating games which could have been epic otherwise, such as the GTA series, and in doing so hurt the gaming industry as a whole.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
Well, it's nice to see the kids have made an appearance on this thread

This from someone who thinks it's "kewl" to replace letters with numbers when typing :laugh: Oh, the irony...

You do realize that's about the 3rd time you have said that to me in a thread right? You only proved me right with your response. Maybe you should consider not attacking people for disagreeing with you & arguing for hours on the internet with anonymous strangers.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Just going to go back & forth, it's no longer entertaining so I'm not going to continue. Enjoy your consoles. Again, I'd have no problem with them if they didn't adversely affect me by castrating games which could have been epic otherwise, such as the GTA series, and in doing so hurt the gaming industry as a whole.

of course you aren't. you are simply wrong, ignorant or a liar.

a geforce gts does doom3 just fine? you have been consistently overestimating the abilities of your hardware.

mainstream integrated graphics/old cards do fine?

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040809/doom3-06.html

i think not.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
Well, it's nice to see the kids have made an appearance on this thread

This from someone who thinks it's "kewl" to replace letters with numbers when typing :laugh: Oh, the irony...

You do realize that's about the 3rd time you have said that to me in a thread right? You only proved me right with your response. Maybe you should consider not attacking people for disagreeing with you & arguing for hours on the internet with anonymous strangers.

I did it while I found it enjoyable yu0 kn0w w0t 1 m34n??/?/?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Yeah well like I said before, Prodigy was the first method I used to get online so I use that for my name. As I told you before, good luck finding Prodigy in any forum without using 1337 letters, as so many people on the internet are such obvious geniuses...including your almighty intellect. What do you really contribute to any thread other than personal attacks & pure ignorance? Well I think that has been answered already but I'm sure you'll have some overly intelligent response.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Just going to go back & forth, it's no longer entertaining so I'm not going to continue. Enjoy your consoles.

Okay. I will.

Again, I'd have no problem with them if they didn't adversely affect me by castrating games which could have been epic otherwise, such as the GTA series, and in doing so hurt the gaming industry as a whole.

This is a puzzling statement.

Rockstar chose to move the GTA series from the PC to the PS2 when they were developing GTA3, and I don't recall hearing from most developers that working on consoles "castrates" games. Obviously hardware always puts some limitations on game graphics and content, but that's unavoidable on any platform (even the PC). Do you think they would have produced a radically different game if they had made GTA3 on the PCs of that era? Or are you still sticking to your (IMO, misguided and naive) assertion that if game consoles didn't exist, PC gaming would somehow be light-years ahead of where it is today?

If this is why you're so angered by the existence of consoles, then you should be happy that more powerful consoles are in development, since that will almost certainly spur the development of more advanced games for all platforms, and probably put pressure on the development of more advanced PC hardware as well.

 

[0roo0roo]

its all he has left. to pick on grammer while he uses emoticons

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Gurck
Just going to go back & forth, it's no longer entertaining so I'm not going to continue. Enjoy your consoles.

Okay. I will.

Wait, you're attacking me when I was agreeing with you? OMFG, you're a god damn moron Gurck, seriously.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its all he has left. to pick on grammer while he uses emoticons

Tell me about it. Funny thing is that he does it on EVERY thread I make. The maturity of online message boards is really taking a dive when AT is having these problems. Good thing is that I found many mature people for my clan on here so there is definitely hope for this place, but there are guys like Gurck who need to have their internet shut off so they will leave their house.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
What do you really contribute to any thread other than personal attacks

OMFG, you're a god damn moron Gurck

:laugh:

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
This is why I loathe trying to have a discussion with you.

Advancements = money. You say they string us along, I call BS, sounds like a conspiracy theory. In reality they're competing to bring the best technology to market. If one manufacturer was capable of technology which could bring us photorealism and could stimulate our senses of taste, smell and especially touch, they'd make a mint and a huge name for themselve by bringing it to market. It's a race; it's competition. Nobody's holding back.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
wrong, [the xbox] does play todays games

Absolutely not, it doesn't play Far Cry, HL2, Doom3, or any game with technology to look anywhere near as good as them.

ou shouldn't have even mentioned a gf3 since it can't realistically play todays games even at the lowest settings

A friend of mine was playing Doom3 on his gf3 no problem

[you're]recommending a gf3 for todays games

No I'm not

Making the technology they have released last longer = MORE money.

And yes, they are "holding back". Notice how ATI and Nvidia have always been...for the most part, similar in graphics power. Sure one has been better than the other at times..but in the past 3 years, it has started to level off even more.

 

[Wingznut]

With all the flip-flopping by Gurck, everytime someone comes up with a logical counterpoint, it's obvious that he doesn't really have a point.

He's just throwing his bait into most every console thread, just to see who bites, to try and fill his attention needs.

You would think with the number of times he posts per day, his logical debating skills would be better.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
With all the flip-flopping by Gurck, everytime someone comes up with a logical counterpoint, it's obvious that he doesn't really have a point.

He's just throwing his bait into most every console thread, just to see who bites, to try and fill his attention needs.

You would think with the number of times he posts per day, his logical debating skills would be better.

You don't get it . . . yet?!

let me post his response that sums it all up for you in a nutshell:

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: randumb
why does every thread on the xbox have to turn into a consolve vs pc flamewar?

Just to piss you off

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: randumb
why does every thread on the xbox have to turn into a consolve vs pc flamewar?

Just to piss you off

And you're twisting my words just to piss me off?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: randumb
why does every thread on the xbox have to turn into a consolve vs pc flamewar?

Just to piss you off

And you're twisting my words just to piss me off?

i would never do that!
:Q

i have no need to 'twist' anything . . . you are the master-baiter in the this topic

. . . i just quoted your words exactly and in context



edited

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: randumb
why does every thread on the xbox have to turn into a consolve vs pc flamewar?

Just to piss you off

And you're twisting my words just to piss me off?

i would never do that!
:Q

i have no need to 'twist' anything . . . you are the master-baiter in the this topic

. . . i just quoted your words exactly and in context



edited

Nothing in-context about it, I was being sarcastic and this was glaringly obvious to anyone who read that thread. I can understand the frustration you feel at someone being stupid and wrong enough to disagree with you, y'highness, but twisting my words as such is akin to lying. Par for the course for elite members