|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On June 11 2013 03:34 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:15 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 03:14 Go0g3n wrote:If gaming is one's entertainment of choice, a 50-100$ price difference should not matter at all in a 5-7 year console lifespan. When does that $100 more start becoming a barrier? If $500 is reasonable, is $600, if $600 is reasonable, is $700, and so forth. A little bit more here and there adds up in the end. It shouldn't matter even if one tacks on another $500 for PS4 on top of the X1. A hobby doesn't necessarily have to come from the bargain bin. I'm under the impression, that all the outrage about DRM, used games and all that nonsense is generated by kids or poor studens. All mature gamers should've by now settled with families and more or less decent jobs, making all of these console holywar pricing differences completely obsolete.
Are you paid by micro$ as well?
|
On June 11 2013 03:34 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:15 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 03:14 Go0g3n wrote:If gaming is one's entertainment of choice, a 50-100$ price difference should not matter at all in a 5-7 year console lifespan. When does that $100 more start becoming a barrier? If $500 is reasonable, is $600, if $600 is reasonable, is $700, and so forth. A little bit more here and there adds up in the end. It shouldn't matter even if one tacks on another $500 for PS4 on top of the X1. A hobby doesn't necessarily have to come from the bargain bin. I'm under the impression, that all the outrage about DRM, used games and all that nonsense is generated by kids or poor studens. All mature gamers should've by now settled with families and more or less decent jobs, making all of these console holywar pricing differences completely obsolete.
Wait. What?
|
$900 AUS
This keeps getting better.
|
"I'm a mature individual who will spend more money for a console that gives me no real benefits over its competitors other than the ability to yell 'XBox go home' at it".
They've shown nothing to justify the price tag, especially in Europe. If the PS4 is cheaper then Microsoft are dependent on the "average joe" market rather than the gamers to save them; the people who want a shiny box for their TV watching, before having something to shove their kids in front of.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On June 11 2013 03:42 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:34 Go0g3n wrote:On June 11 2013 03:15 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 03:14 Go0g3n wrote:If gaming is one's entertainment of choice, a 50-100$ price difference should not matter at all in a 5-7 year console lifespan. When does that $100 more start becoming a barrier? If $500 is reasonable, is $600, if $600 is reasonable, is $700, and so forth. A little bit more here and there adds up in the end. It shouldn't matter even if one tacks on another $500 for PS4 on top of the X1. A hobby doesn't necessarily have to come from the bargain bin. I'm under the impression, that all the outrage about DRM, used games and all that nonsense is generated by kids or poor studens. All mature gamers should've by now settled with families and more or less decent jobs, making all of these console holywar pricing differences completely obsolete. Are you paid by micro$ as well?
I am not. This whole console thing just boggles my mind. One simply has to understand that X1 is not a simple gaming console, it's a home entertainment unit, which appears to be closer to a PC than a console.
I honestly don't understand the point of pages and pages of "Fuck MIcrosoft", as I didn't when "Fuck Sony" was going around back in 2006 when they had a $600 price tag.
|
On June 11 2013 03:33 LeaD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 01:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 10 2013 19:13 LeaD wrote:On June 10 2013 06:07 Millitron wrote:On June 10 2013 05:53 BlueBird. wrote:On June 10 2013 05:10 Millitron wrote:On June 10 2013 05:04 Catch]22 wrote:
Well, if used games are important to you, you aren't a big revenue source for Microsoft. And if you never buy used games you dont care, so they don't really risk a lot by making it difficult for you. Surely people who buy used games also buy some new games as well. Turning them away is a bad idea, especially when as we've seen, they're going after the motion-sensing crowd. So they sell a copy of Xbox Fit or Xbox Bowling to everyone, and then never sell anything else again, just like what happened with the Wii. Only the Xbox One will cost way more than the Wii did, so it won't even sell that many of those. They're driving away the audience that buys lots of games for years so they can get the audience that buys a single motion sensing gimmick game. It's a huge mistake, and I can't believe they're doing it, considering Nintendo did basically the same thing last generation, and ended up reporting their first quarterly loss over it. The original Wii crushed Xbox 360 and PS3 when you talk about console numbers, it really wasn't even close, so that's why their doing it, it's hard to argue with the numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)#Comparison) . Microsoft wants a piece of that pie The problem with Nintendo numbers is the Wii U was not good enough, I don't know who decided to release the Wii U as is, but it was obviously a misstep, they tried to reach back out to core video game players somewhat with it, and they failed doing so, and the casual wii users did not see enough there to justify buying a new system.' The xboxone kinect is a large enough leap, it should attract people to it, just not sure how many, and I agree, the price point is really important. Yes, the Wii sold lots and lots of consoles, but aside from selling Wii Fit's to old people, it sold basically no games. Nintendo DID report their first quarterly loss after the Wii, that's indisputable. What are you talking about? Mario Kart wii sold over 30 million copies, that's the second highest selling game ever, then there's the Mario Galaxy games, which are sitting around 16-17 million sold, New Super Mario Bros at 26.92 million, Zelda at around 4-5 million..the list goes on. I could find others if you like, but the Wii made way more profit than Xbox or PS3 did in selling games and as a console. Nintendo reported it's first quarterly loss because A) They were in development of a new console, RND is pretty expensive and the company is prepared for these losses B) The biggest reason is do to the yen depreciation and C) The 3DS wasn't doing too well at the time either, now it's booming. Probably other reasons too that someone with a better business acumen could go into. People keep harping about the Wii U "failing", but in reality it's sold just as well if not better than the PS3 and Xbox360 did in their first year and people are a lot more conscious of their wallet with the recession nowadays than they were in 2005/2006. The Wii U is perfectly fine, it's actually innovative and has a lot more power than current generation systems, even though ignorant people tell you otherwise. I could make a huge post about the specs and how they work, but I rather not do that unless someone specifically asks, plus there is plenty of data for it out there anyways. Gamers are always about "what's going on now" rather than looking at the entire picture, the Wii U will be fine just like the 3DS is after all the doom and gloom it got. The Wii was successful and the 3DS is successful as of the price drop. The Wii U has been worse than the PS3 (which if I recall, was plagued with production issues and what was called low sales numbers) The Wii U sold 3.45 million as of march 31st of its first year The PS3 sold 3.61 million as of march 31st of its first year (was not released in the EU until march either though) The xbox 360 sold 3.2 million (cant find the shipped number, likely around that of the PS3) as of march 31st of its first year The Wii sold 5.84 million (again, cant find shipped number) as of march 31st of its first year The Wii U is failing pretty miserably, especially in the most recent months. It had decent initial sales, but they dropped off a cliff pretty quick. To give you an idea of HOW much of a cliff, they only sold about 390k units from January 1 to March 31. The Wii U is "innovative" in the same sense as the dreamcast, and it doesnt have a "lot" more power than the current gen, it is roughly gauged at 2x as powerful as current gen which is lackluster since the current gen is 7 years old. If the Wii U gets like a $50 price drop it could see sales rise again like the 3DS after its ~$100 price drop. How is beating out the Xbox 360 and being 150k less than the PS3 failing pretty miserably? How can you see those numbers and think that? That's without their heavy hitters or system sellers out in force. Let's not forget we're not in the best of economic times compared to 2005/2006. Price drop and the release of a massive amount of games is what made the 3DS boom, not just the price drop. What does that even mean, same sense as the Dreamcast? You just seem to throw out a bunch of things then don't back up any of your claims. Innovative in the sense that it brings new game-play avenues that neither Sony or Xbox are going to bring to the table since they are system is limited by the same controls as always. That controller adds a ton of new gameplay possibilities, that's innovative, not to mention Mii verse has been pretty incredible for single player games so far. The Wii U is a lot more that 2x as powerful: + Show Spoiler +It is actually a lot more powerful than current gen. The gpu is said to have 320 shader units. The 360 gpu only has 48 shader units. The cpu is clocked slower, but the individual cores are stronger than the cores in the 360's cpu. Do you remember when ps3 games suffered because third party developers didn't know how to code for the cell processor on the ps3? Plus it has 1Gb of ram for games and 1GB for the os. The 360 only has 512 for everything.
I know the xbox one and ps4 will be more powerful, but here is a comparison of gpu's
ps3- 32 SPU(SHADER PROCESSING UNITS)
360- 48 SPU
Wii U- 320 SPU
Xbox One- 640 SPU
PS4- 1024 SPU
Companies are throwin Tflops around when it comes to gpu's, but SPU's is actually one of the most important number to look at. Note that the ps3's spu's is less than 360, but nvidia gpu's usually perform on par with amd gpu's with a higher number of spu's. According to the Tflops microsoft and sony are spouting, the ps4's gpu should be roughly a radeon 7850 and the XBone should be around a radeon 7770, so that is where I got their numbers from.
Graphically speaking, the wii u will produce graphics far superior to what is found on ps3/360. It really wouldn't be a stretch for the wii u to run XBone/ps4 games, but with no AA. Because it'll be a while b4 developers start to "push" the gpu's in the next gen systems. If I had 3 pc's with the specs of wiiu,xb1,ps4, I could take the same graphically demanding game and run it with all the same settings on all 3 rigs except for AA. The "ps4"rig would have absolutely no jaggies, the "xb1" would have some jaggies, and the "Wii u" would be jaggies galore. If you render the "wii u" version in 720p instead of 1080p, it would help out also, maybe even handle minimal AA in 720p. I know that doesn't say much to most people, but it is all theoretically possible.
Because of the fact that the PS3 was out in EU for about a week rather than 4 months and that the Wii U has only been selling 130k consoles/month after the first month (the PS3 was selling 640k/month after the first month). The PS3 only sold 1.68 million in its first month, the Wii U sold 3 million. Continuing sales are more important than a single spike. It is entirely too early to call it a COMPLETE failure, but if it keeps the current pace it is a failure of a console.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed
"It was ballpark speculation at the time based on what we had eyeballed at the event, but the final GPU is indeed a close match to the 4650/4670, albeit with a deficit in the number of texture-mapping units and a lower clock speed - 550MHz. AMD's RV770 hardware is well documented so with these numbers we can now, categorically, finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U - the GCN hardware in Durango and Orbis is in a completely different league. However, the 16 TMUs at 550MHz and texture cache improvements found in RV770 do elevate the capabilities of this hardware beyond the Xenos GPU in the Xbox 360 - 1.5 times the raw shader power sounds about right. [Update: It's generally accepted that the PS3 graphics core is less capable than Xenos, so Wii U's GPU would be even more capable.]"
How much more powerful than the x360 and PS3 do you think that the Wii U is? Are you biting onto the nintendo soundbyte of it being 4-5x?
|
On June 11 2013 03:44 Fruscainte wrote:
$900 AUS
This keeps getting better.
?
No official AU price yet AFAIK. EBGames has a placeholder they've had for ages..
|
On June 11 2013 03:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:32 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 11 2013 03:25 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:58 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:56 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:
Halo with cloud computing what? Cloud computing is just anything that would normally be called online, including matchmaking, uploads, replays etc. Its marketing, lol. It's more than that. There was an article that I saw a couple weeks ago that XBone will tap into cloud computing for game rendering. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gamingAnalysis by techies^ Nutshell, its marketing. Cruised through the article. Basically they say that it's all "marketing" until there's a demo showing otherwise. We'll just have to see. Asymmetrical graphics rendering is literally insane and stupid. Think for a second: if you have 100 million Xbox Ones, how many servers would you need to harness rendering for each one? How fast can your internet transfer next gen graphics to your console? How much latency are you getting? How many devs will actually use this feature? The only useful thing you can do with cloud computing so far are agent-based models - no surprise that Forza's only tangible CLOUD COMPUTING feature was their drivatar feature. Keep in mind, game streaming like Onlive or Gaikai is not the same thing. That's easy, the actual idea shouldn't be too different from streaming a video. Actor-based models aren't anything new, they've been used since the dawn of time. Graphically, the cloud shit is bullshit. They're saying this to tie people to the internet and muddy the water so people think the PS4 is graphically weaker (it probably won't be). Sounds like when they had the HD packs on CD's for the 360 that were optional in order to get high res textures. Except now the textures have to be streamed to my console? Sounds fucking shitty to me. Streaming from CDs is fine because you're able to assume consistent metrics. The Gamecube did this extremely well to decrease load times. In some games, you could load a level, pop out the disk, and play around that level because the Gamecube just caches everything into RAM or something. That's impossible with what Microsoft is claiming to do. There are far too many metrics to offer a consistent experience to every single console user on the market. Guess we should call up Hulu and Netflix to tell them their streaming service is actually impossible. They'll be devastated once they hear Womwomwom on teamliquid.net said it. ;_;
Streaming pre-compressed video is very different than streaming parts of a game being rendered on the fly. onLive worked the same way.
|
On June 11 2013 03:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:32 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 11 2013 03:25 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:58 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:56 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:
Halo with cloud computing what? Cloud computing is just anything that would normally be called online, including matchmaking, uploads, replays etc. Its marketing, lol. It's more than that. There was an article that I saw a couple weeks ago that XBone will tap into cloud computing for game rendering. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gamingAnalysis by techies^ Nutshell, its marketing. Cruised through the article. Basically they say that it's all "marketing" until there's a demo showing otherwise. We'll just have to see. Asymmetrical graphics rendering is literally insane and stupid. Think for a second: if you have 100 million Xbox Ones, how many servers would you need to harness rendering for each one? How fast can your internet transfer next gen graphics to your console? How much latency are you getting? How many devs will actually use this feature? The only useful thing you can do with cloud computing so far are agent-based models - no surprise that Forza's only tangible CLOUD COMPUTING feature was their drivatar feature. Keep in mind, game streaming like Onlive or Gaikai is not the same thing. That's easy, the actual idea shouldn't be too different from streaming a video. Actor-based models aren't anything new, they've been used since the dawn of time. Graphically, the cloud shit is bullshit. They're saying this to tie people to the internet and muddy the water so people think the PS4 is graphically weaker (it probably won't be). Sounds like when they had the HD packs on CD's for the 360 that were optional in order to get high res textures. Except now the textures have to be streamed to my console? Sounds fucking shitty to me. Streaming from CDs is fine because you're able to assume consistent metrics. The Gamecube did this extremely well to decrease load times. In some games, you could load a level, pop out the disk, and play around that level because the Gamecube just caches everything into RAM or something. That's impossible with what Microsoft is claiming to do. There are far too many metrics to offer a consistent experience to every single console user on the market. Guess we should call up Hulu and Netflix to tell them their streaming service is actually impossible. They'll be devastated once they hear Womwomwom on teamliquid.net said it. ;_;
I lold
|
I cant be the only one who noticed the Mexican MC
All he needed was a Sombrero.
|
On June 11 2013 03:49 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:36 aksfjh wrote:On June 11 2013 03:32 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 11 2013 03:25 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:58 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:56 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:
Halo with cloud computing what? Cloud computing is just anything that would normally be called online, including matchmaking, uploads, replays etc. Its marketing, lol. It's more than that. There was an article that I saw a couple weeks ago that XBone will tap into cloud computing for game rendering. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gamingAnalysis by techies^ Nutshell, its marketing. Cruised through the article. Basically they say that it's all "marketing" until there's a demo showing otherwise. We'll just have to see. Asymmetrical graphics rendering is literally insane and stupid. Think for a second: if you have 100 million Xbox Ones, how many servers would you need to harness rendering for each one? How fast can your internet transfer next gen graphics to your console? How much latency are you getting? How many devs will actually use this feature? The only useful thing you can do with cloud computing so far are agent-based models - no surprise that Forza's only tangible CLOUD COMPUTING feature was their drivatar feature. Keep in mind, game streaming like Onlive or Gaikai is not the same thing. That's easy, the actual idea shouldn't be too different from streaming a video. Actor-based models aren't anything new, they've been used since the dawn of time. Graphically, the cloud shit is bullshit. They're saying this to tie people to the internet and muddy the water so people think the PS4 is graphically weaker (it probably won't be). Sounds like when they had the HD packs on CD's for the 360 that were optional in order to get high res textures. Except now the textures have to be streamed to my console? Sounds fucking shitty to me. Streaming from CDs is fine because you're able to assume consistent metrics. The Gamecube did this extremely well to decrease load times. In some games, you could load a level, pop out the disk, and play around that level because the Gamecube just caches everything into RAM or something. That's impossible with what Microsoft is claiming to do. There are far too many metrics to offer a consistent experience to every single console user on the market. Guess we should call up Hulu and Netflix to tell them their streaming service is actually impossible. They'll be devastated once they hear Womwomwom on teamliquid.net said it. ;_; I lold
as did I : D
On June 11 2013 03:25 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:58 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:56 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:
Halo with cloud computing what? Cloud computing is just anything that would normally be called online, including matchmaking, uploads, replays etc. Its marketing, lol. It's more than that. There was an article that I saw a couple weeks ago that XBone will tap into cloud computing for game rendering. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gamingAnalysis by techies^ Nutshell, its marketing. Cruised through the article. Basically they say that it's all "marketing" until there's a demo showing otherwise. We'll just have to see. Asymmetrical graphics rendering is literally insane and stupid. Think for a second: if you have 100 million Xbox Ones, how many servers would you need to harness rendering for each one? How fast can your internet transfer next gen graphics to your console? How much latency are you getting? How many devs will actually use this feature? How many kids live with bandwidth caps? The only useful thing you can do with cloud computing so far are agent-based models - no surprise that Forza's only tangible CLOUD COMPUTING feature was their drivatar feature. Keep in mind, game streaming like Onlive or Gaikai is not the same thing. That's easy, the actual idea shouldn't be too different from streaming a video. What Microsoft claims is entirely different. Actor-based models aren't anything new, they've been used since the dawn of time. Graphically, the cloud shit is bullshit. They're saying this to tie people to the internet and muddy the water so people think the PS4 is graphically weaker (it probably won't be).
With the amount of knowledge he has about the specifics of Microsoft's plan and how Cloud works he must be an employee... I mean shit, Xbox goes all day saying it's possible but we heard it here first that they're just full of shit! : P
Best to trust the internet junkie with an opinion on technology he's not as versed with as the developers at Microsoft over Microsoft themselves : D
|
anyone notice the 666$ UK pricetag?
|
On June 11 2013 03:45 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:42 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 03:34 Go0g3n wrote:On June 11 2013 03:15 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 03:14 Go0g3n wrote:If gaming is one's entertainment of choice, a 50-100$ price difference should not matter at all in a 5-7 year console lifespan. When does that $100 more start becoming a barrier? If $500 is reasonable, is $600, if $600 is reasonable, is $700, and so forth. A little bit more here and there adds up in the end. It shouldn't matter even if one tacks on another $500 for PS4 on top of the X1. A hobby doesn't necessarily have to come from the bargain bin. I'm under the impression, that all the outrage about DRM, used games and all that nonsense is generated by kids or poor studens. All mature gamers should've by now settled with families and more or less decent jobs, making all of these console holywar pricing differences completely obsolete. Are you paid by micro$ as well? I am not. This whole console thing just boggles my mind. One simply has to understand that X1 is not a simple gaming console, it's a home entertainment unit, which appears to be closer to a PC than a console. I don't understand the point of pages and pages of "Fuck MIcrosoft", as I didn't when "Fuck Sony" was goinga round back in 2006 when they had a $600 price tag.
But thats no what i want out of it. And if beeing that means it's more expensive than fuck you. I haven't watched television outside of sports stuff in years because of how bad the german television has become. If the price was 500€ without the home entertainment shit and you could reasonably explain it we could talk about it. But having so much stuff i really do not want or need presumably make the price go up. Those are features i expect to be available paid optional as extras not as core features of the fucking system.
|
On June 11 2013 03:55 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:45 Go0g3n wrote:On June 11 2013 03:42 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 03:34 Go0g3n wrote:On June 11 2013 03:15 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 03:14 Go0g3n wrote:If gaming is one's entertainment of choice, a 50-100$ price difference should not matter at all in a 5-7 year console lifespan. When does that $100 more start becoming a barrier? If $500 is reasonable, is $600, if $600 is reasonable, is $700, and so forth. A little bit more here and there adds up in the end. It shouldn't matter even if one tacks on another $500 for PS4 on top of the X1. A hobby doesn't necessarily have to come from the bargain bin. I'm under the impression, that all the outrage about DRM, used games and all that nonsense is generated by kids or poor studens. All mature gamers should've by now settled with families and more or less decent jobs, making all of these console holywar pricing differences completely obsolete. Are you paid by micro$ as well? I am not. This whole console thing just boggles my mind. One simply has to understand that X1 is not a simple gaming console, it's a home entertainment unit, which appears to be closer to a PC than a console. I don't understand the point of pages and pages of "Fuck MIcrosoft", as I didn't when "Fuck Sony" was goinga round back in 2006 when they had a $600 price tag. But thats no what i want out of it. And if beeing that means it's more expensive than fuck you. I haven't watched television outside of sports stuff in years because of how bad the german television has become. If the price was 500€ without the home entertainment shit and you could reasonably explain it we could talk about it. But having so much stuff i really do not want or need making the price go up. Those are features i expect to be available paid optional as extras not as core features of the fucking system.
You do know the Xbox is subsidized correct? At the current pricetag, for the current hardware, it would be much, much more expensive. If you anticipated the next gen console to be any less then 500$ then you've simply not been around these past 10 years.
|
On June 11 2013 03:34 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:15 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 03:14 Go0g3n wrote:If gaming is one's entertainment of choice, a 50-100$ price difference should not matter at all in a 5-7 year console lifespan. When does that $100 more start becoming a barrier? If $500 is reasonable, is $600, if $600 is reasonable, is $700, and so forth. A little bit more here and there adds up in the end. It shouldn't matter even if one tacks on another $500 for PS4 on top of the X1. A hobby doesn't necessarily have to come from the bargain bin. I'm under the impression, that all the outrage about DRM, used games and all that nonsense is generated by kids or poor studens. All mature gamers should've by now settled with families and more or less decent jobs, making all of these console holywar pricing differences completely obsolete.
uhh.. so i have a 'decent' job and a family and.. i really really care about how much a console costs if i am going to put money in on it.. id pref to you know.. save more money for more important things? 500 more bucks that could go to my son's college fund or his first car or.. hell put it towards buying a house since i still rent.
so, no thx if its more expensive lol, i can keep my pc and ps3 since $500+ consoles that wont even beat my computer.
|
On June 11 2013 03:55 CptCutter wrote:
anyone notice the 666$ UK pricetag?
Hard to miss such a colossal price tag
|
On June 11 2013 03:54 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:49 PassiveAce wrote:On June 11 2013 03:36 aksfjh wrote:On June 11 2013 03:32 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 11 2013 03:25 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:58 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:56 Elwar wrote:
[quote]
Cloud computing is just anything that would normally be called online, including matchmaking, uploads, replays etc.
Its marketing, lol. It's more than that. There was an article that I saw a couple weeks ago that XBone will tap into cloud computing for game rendering. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gamingAnalysis by techies^ Nutshell, its marketing. Cruised through the article. Basically they say that it's all "marketing" until there's a demo showing otherwise. We'll just have to see. Asymmetrical graphics rendering is literally insane and stupid. Think for a second: if you have 100 million Xbox Ones, how many servers would you need to harness rendering for each one? How fast can your internet transfer next gen graphics to your console? How much latency are you getting? How many devs will actually use this feature? The only useful thing you can do with cloud computing so far are agent-based models - no surprise that Forza's only tangible CLOUD COMPUTING feature was their drivatar feature. Keep in mind, game streaming like Onlive or Gaikai is not the same thing. That's easy, the actual idea shouldn't be too different from streaming a video. Actor-based models aren't anything new, they've been used since the dawn of time. Graphically, the cloud shit is bullshit. They're saying this to tie people to the internet and muddy the water so people think the PS4 is graphically weaker (it probably won't be). Sounds like when they had the HD packs on CD's for the 360 that were optional in order to get high res textures. Except now the textures have to be streamed to my console? Sounds fucking shitty to me. Streaming from CDs is fine because you're able to assume consistent metrics. The Gamecube did this extremely well to decrease load times. In some games, you could load a level, pop out the disk, and play around that level because the Gamecube just caches everything into RAM or something. That's impossible with what Microsoft is claiming to do. There are far too many metrics to offer a consistent experience to every single console user on the market. Guess we should call up Hulu and Netflix to tell them their streaming service is actually impossible. They'll be devastated once they hear Womwomwom on teamliquid.net said it. ;_; I lold as did I : D Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:25 Womwomwom wrote:On June 11 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:58 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2013 02:56 Elwar wrote:On June 11 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:
Halo with cloud computing what? Cloud computing is just anything that would normally be called online, including matchmaking, uploads, replays etc. Its marketing, lol. It's more than that. There was an article that I saw a couple weeks ago that XBone will tap into cloud computing for game rendering. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gamingAnalysis by techies^ Nutshell, its marketing. Cruised through the article. Basically they say that it's all "marketing" until there's a demo showing otherwise. We'll just have to see. Asymmetrical graphics rendering is literally insane and stupid. Think for a second: if you have 100 million Xbox Ones, how many servers would you need to harness rendering for each one? How fast can your internet transfer next gen graphics to your console? How much latency are you getting? How many devs will actually use this feature? How many kids live with bandwidth caps? The only useful thing you can do with cloud computing so far are agent-based models - no surprise that Forza's only tangible CLOUD COMPUTING feature was their drivatar feature. Keep in mind, game streaming like Onlive or Gaikai is not the same thing. That's easy, the actual idea shouldn't be too different from streaming a video. What Microsoft claims is entirely different. Actor-based models aren't anything new, they've been used since the dawn of time. Graphically, the cloud shit is bullshit. They're saying this to tie people to the internet and muddy the water so people think the PS4 is graphically weaker (it probably won't be). With the amount of knowledge he has about the specifics of Microsoft's plan and how Cloud works he must be an employee... I mean shit, Xbox goes all day saying it's possible but we heard it here first that they're just full of shit! : P Best to trust the internet junkie with an opinion on technology he's not as versed with as the developers at Microsoft over Microsoft themselves : D
MS: "We want 3 'devices' for every console"
MS: "We have 300,000 cloud servers"
AKA: "We expect to sell 100,000 xbox1's!"
Let us just look at it from a reasonable standpoint. They are going into digital downloads. That is a huge amount of bandwidth requirement by itself. Then they are going to have, supposedly (if it is successful), millions of people concurrently using the "cloud" always. Do you really think that they can render, upload, and just generally handle ALLLLL of that?
|
Wasn't 500 EUR the price tag of an Xbox360 elite, even two years after its release? I remember it as the non-gimped version of the X360 before the new slim models came out a couple of years ago.
I agree it's a lot of money, but to let's be honest, that's the amount many of us spend each year on new hardware and/or software. I bet some of us even have GPUs that cost that much.
|
Every person who says "won't beat my computer" deserves a quick slap in the face... Show me a computer that runs 8core cpu with as powerful a gpu for 500$ and I'll eat my own words. That's not even fucking including the kinect which in and of itself is easily a couple hundred dollars cut down in price.
"YO I WANT A COMPUTER CONSOLE BRO" ok go fucking spend 1,000 and get one and fuck off... But don't bitch about 500$+ pricetag on a console, its exhausting.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3118_7-6662171-5.html here's an example, likely outdated.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396974,00.asp 2011 so shift it 2 years and you can imagine the same.
|
On June 11 2013 04:05 Hitch-22 wrote:
Every person who says "won't beat my computer" deserves a quick slap in the face... Show me a computer that runs 8core cpu with as powerful a gpu for 500$ and I'll eat my own words. That's not even fucking including the kinect which in and of itself is easily a couple hundred dollars cut down in price.
"YO I WANT A COMPUTER CONSOLE BRO" ok go fucking spend 1,000 and get one and fuck off... But don't bitch about 500$+ pricetag on a console, its exhausting.
Why do you care so much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
