|
On June 11 2013 04:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:22 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:16 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:13 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:08 Djzapz wrote: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? Because... Why join a discussion if you're going to spew bullshit? It's exhausting reading 100's and 100's of comments on the power of a PC vs console when the console is hundreds of dollars cheaper... It's like those idiots who run around with 2.5k macbook pro and say "Man dat 500 laptop, aint as good as this macbook" and you just wanna slam your face into a desk. It doesn't exhaust me. Are you new to the internets?  We have our dumb people here. Indeed, perhaps I've been worn down to far after years and years of stupid comments. "Yo did you know dat da cloud is complete impossible, Xbox totally lying" , "Yo PC so much more powerful bro, buy one!" my head implodes... Anywho, who thought that Titan game looked sick. Are you implying you can't build a $500 PC that will massively outperform the Xbox One? with his current knowledge of computers, he probably can't lolol Show me a PC built better then the xbox one that has higher graphic quality, faster processing and better ram for 500$ and I'll conceit defeat on the topic. love the guy above me "Lets factor in the price of games for the console to equate its power!"  palm to face once again http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148543http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130720http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147123$510 ib4 you bringing up 8 core vs dual core, it matters almost fucking nothing. EDIT: Derp, forgot power supply and DVROM. Guess it's more like $600. So I concede, not $500, it's $600. Which is about what it will cost with your tax + subscription fee anyways. You're right. Dual core means nothing when you're just running 1 game most of the time. However, throw in some of the features of the XBox One in there and the extra cores start coming in handy (the Kinect specifically uses at least 1 more core to function). Same thing with a PC, which obviously runs more than just SC2 at any one time. It also allows flexibility with developers, allowing them to parallelize certain elements. On to the GPU, you've picked out a real POS compared to what is available for PC gaming and compared to the XBox One. You've likely also picked out much slower RAM, but we can let that slide seeing as how we don't know the specific memory specs of the XBox One. There are also a number of parts missing, like PSU, Blu-Ray, and Wi-Fi. Even if we self contain this to PC performance, this is a mid-level PC at best for gaming. It's not close to the specs of an XBox One.
Many things that you say are true but I want to say that
-"Slow" ram does not really affect the gaming performance of a PC because GPUs have integrated fast RAM. It is not shared with the system.
-A blu-ray drive is largely useless for a PC.
-Wi-fi is terrible for gaming.
On June 11 2013 04:54 Grr Arr Rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:48 TheYango wrote:
The fact that the Wii was, by sales numbers, the most successful console of the last generation despite being considered the weakest hardware-wise seems to contest this claim. I'd argue that it "won" entirely based on the strength of its exclusive title library. I would argue that the pricepoint was a major factor as well.
Not sure why I didn't think of mentioning this .
|
On June 11 2013 04:48 Womwomwom wrote:
Hitch, let's cut to the chase. I'm getting confused so why don't you tell me what you think cloud processing can do. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that other people haven't given you (I don't blame them, posting a PC build with a CORE 2 DUO is laughable).
I'll admit my field in CS doesn't relate to Cloud other then comments made offhand by other developers but from what I've come to think doesn't it sort of work as a connected network dispersing the processing of web applications across a broad scope of other computers? Like connecting thousands of computers together vs having a single computer complete a task? So relatively it's server based. I didn't take much in information systems but from my limited knowledge it works similar to a network.
As I said, my knowledge is weak in the subject but I'll still stand that, from all of the developer comments and people bashing on the cloud claims, I have yet to see it debunked yet other then "it can't be done" but I don't really think that's a correct mindset.
I'll stand that until it's proven that the cloud processing will not have any noticable effects on processing power whichi relates to gameplay (ie graphics) that their claims are true because I feel, from a company standpoint, it's going to cause a lot more loss to lie about something that big then it will to just not make the claim at all and be a generally weaker console then your competitor.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 11 2013 04:50 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:48 TheYango wrote:On June 11 2013 04:42 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:39 TheYango wrote:On June 11 2013 04:39 Djzapz wrote:
I'm not saying it's impossible to upgrade or build a PC using existing pieces, but if you're trying to study the market for the Xbone, it's probably a rather irrelevant amount of people. And as I said, it's also an equally irrelevant amount of people who are judging the consoles based on hardware specs at all, and not simply just on the games they want to play being on a particular one. I don't think it's irrelevant. I agree that exclusives play a huge role but people will be willing to pay a certain amount of money depending on how good they perceive the hardware to be. "Casuals" will be told that a certain console is more powerful than the other and so they'll pick out that one, except the people who are very attached to specific franchises. The fact that the Wii was, by sales numbers, the most successful console of the last generation despite being considered the weakest hardware-wise seems to contest this claim. I'd argue that it "won" entirely based on the strength of its exclusive title library. Well yeah but that's a bit disingenuous because we obviously none of the consoles are directly comparable like that. The Wii clearly had other advantages which also weigh in. It doesn't mean that hardware doesn't matter, clearly it does. It's no secret that Xbox360/PS3 are an entirely different demographic too. I think the PS4 will have a marked advantage over Xbone, notably because of its superior hardware (and everything else that makes the xbox one look like shit). And given that Microsoft probably won't manage to actually do interesting shit with the Kinect, it's the hardware that'll do the work.
Well there's two different arguments going on here. There's the Xbone/PS4 "who's gonna win this generation" argument, and the Xbone/PC "is the Xbone worth my money" argument. I think the Xbone/PS4 one is hard to call due to the lack of info about console exclusives, but I can see where you're coming from.
I feel the PC vs Xbone comparison is moot because the PC gaming experience is markedly different from the console gaming one. Even if the cost-effectiveness of building or even buying gaming PC far outstripped the Xbone, I feel the demographic that actually considers the two interchangeable enough that they would actually switch entirely to PC gaming based on that is actually somewhat small.
In fact, I'm also willing to bet that most of the people making the arguments are people that are already entrenched one way or another in the first place, and would never be in the position where they'd actually stop and choose.
|
On June 11 2013 04:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:52 aksfjh wrote:On June 11 2013 04:22 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:16 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:13 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:08 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Why do you care so much? Because... Why join a discussion if you're going to spew bullshit? It's exhausting reading 100's and 100's of comments on the power of a PC vs console when the console is hundreds of dollars cheaper... It's like those idiots who run around with 2.5k macbook pro and say "Man dat 500 laptop, aint as good as this macbook" and you just wanna slam your face into a desk. It doesn't exhaust me. Are you new to the internets? We have our dumb people here. Indeed, perhaps I've been worn down to far after years and years of stupid comments. "Yo did you know dat da cloud is complete impossible, Xbox totally lying" , "Yo PC so much more powerful bro, buy one!" my head implodes... Anywho, who thought that Titan game looked sick. Are you implying you can't build a $500 PC that will massively outperform the Xbox One? with his current knowledge of computers, he probably can't lolol Show me a PC built better then the xbox one that has higher graphic quality, faster processing and better ram for 500$ and I'll conceit defeat on the topic. love the guy above me "Lets factor in the price of games for the console to equate its power!" palm to face once again http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148543http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130720http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147123$510 ib4 you bringing up 8 core vs dual core, it matters almost fucking nothing. EDIT: Derp, forgot power supply and DVROM. Guess it's more like $600. So I concede, not $500, it's $600. Which is about what it will cost with your tax + subscription fee anyways. You're right. Dual core means nothing when you're just running 1 game most of the time. However, throw in some of the features of the XBox One in there and the extra cores start coming in handy (the Kinect specifically uses at least 1 more core to function). Same thing with a PC, which obviously runs more than just SC2 at any one time. It also allows flexibility with developers, allowing them to parallelize certain elements. On to the GPU, you've picked out a real POS compared to what is available for PC gaming and compared to the XBox One. You've likely also picked out much slower RAM, but we can let that slide seeing as how we don't know the specific memory specs of the XBox One. There are also a number of parts missing, like PSU, Blu-Ray, and Wi-Fi. Even if we self contain this to PC performance, this is a mid-level PC at best for gaming. It's not close to the specs of an XBox One. Many things that you say are true but I want to say that -"Slow" ram does not really affect the gaming performance of a PC because GPUs have integrated fast RAM. It is not shared with the system. -A blu-ray drive is largely useless for a PC. -Wi-fi is terrible for gaming. Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:54 Grr Arr Rawr wrote:On June 11 2013 04:48 TheYango wrote:
The fact that the Wii was, by sales numbers, the most successful console of the last generation despite being considered the weakest hardware-wise seems to contest this claim. I'd argue that it "won" entirely based on the strength of its exclusive title library. I would argue that the pricepoint was a major factor as well. Not sure why I didn't think of mentioning this .
Video RAM is different, but system RAM is still used to store data like unused textures and constants to be loaded into CPU cache. There's also the whole simultaneous programs thing, like web-surfing while gaming. I doubt you'd run into a bottleneck with slower RAM and what usually is happening within games, but benchmarks would find a difference. We'll get at least a couple of games out of the system 2-3 years down the line that won't work "well" with slower RAM.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Don't know about $500, but I think £500 ($775) is a stupid price for a console. I am planning on building a (reasonably) top-spec PC to replace my current one and it works out to around £600, which will cover all my work and gaming needs.
I would consider buying one if it was around £250 to play the exclusives though.
|
On June 11 2013 05:01 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:55 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:52 aksfjh wrote:On June 11 2013 04:22 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:16 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:13 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Hitch-22 wrote:
[quote]
Because... Why join a discussion if you're going to spew bullshit? It's exhausting reading 100's and 100's of comments on the power of a PC vs console when the console is hundreds of dollars cheaper... It's like those idiots who run around with 2.5k macbook pro and say "Man dat 500 laptop, aint as good as this macbook" and you just wanna slam your face into a desk. It doesn't exhaust me. Are you new to the internets? We have our dumb people here. Indeed, perhaps I've been worn down to far after years and years of stupid comments. "Yo did you know dat da cloud is complete impossible, Xbox totally lying" , "Yo PC so much more powerful bro, buy one!" my head implodes... Anywho, who thought that Titan game looked sick. Are you implying you can't build a $500 PC that will massively outperform the Xbox One? with his current knowledge of computers, he probably can't lolol Show me a PC built better then the xbox one that has higher graphic quality, faster processing and better ram for 500$ and I'll conceit defeat on the topic. love the guy above me "Lets factor in the price of games for the console to equate its power!" palm to face once again http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148543http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130720http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147123$510 ib4 you bringing up 8 core vs dual core, it matters almost fucking nothing. EDIT: Derp, forgot power supply and DVROM. Guess it's more like $600. So I concede, not $500, it's $600. Which is about what it will cost with your tax + subscription fee anyways. You're right. Dual core means nothing when you're just running 1 game most of the time. However, throw in some of the features of the XBox One in there and the extra cores start coming in handy (the Kinect specifically uses at least 1 more core to function). Same thing with a PC, which obviously runs more than just SC2 at any one time. It also allows flexibility with developers, allowing them to parallelize certain elements. On to the GPU, you've picked out a real POS compared to what is available for PC gaming and compared to the XBox One. You've likely also picked out much slower RAM, but we can let that slide seeing as how we don't know the specific memory specs of the XBox One. There are also a number of parts missing, like PSU, Blu-Ray, and Wi-Fi. Even if we self contain this to PC performance, this is a mid-level PC at best for gaming. It's not close to the specs of an XBox One. Many things that you say are true but I want to say that -"Slow" ram does not really affect the gaming performance of a PC because GPUs have integrated fast RAM. It is not shared with the system. -A blu-ray drive is largely useless for a PC. -Wi-fi is terrible for gaming. On June 11 2013 04:54 Grr Arr Rawr wrote:On June 11 2013 04:48 TheYango wrote:
The fact that the Wii was, by sales numbers, the most successful console of the last generation despite being considered the weakest hardware-wise seems to contest this claim. I'd argue that it "won" entirely based on the strength of its exclusive title library. I would argue that the pricepoint was a major factor as well. Not sure why I didn't think of mentioning this . Video RAM is different, but system RAM is still used to store data like unused textures and constants to be loaded into CPU cache. There's also the whole simultaneous programs thing, like web-surfing while gaming. I doubt you'd run into a bottleneck with slower RAM and what usually is happening within games, but benchmarks would find a difference. We'll get at least a couple of games out of the system 2-3 years down the line that won't work "well" with slower RAM.
I don't expect people will be running benchmarks on their consoles . Slower ram is not relevant is all I was saying.
|
On June 11 2013 05:04 Random() wrote:
Don't know about $500, but I think £500 ($775) is a stupid price for a console. I am planning on building a (reasonably) top-spec PC to replace my current one and it works out to around £600, which will cover all my work and gaming needs.
I would consider buying one if it was around £250 to play the exclusives though.
You'll be waiting a few years then T.T
|
On June 11 2013 04:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:22 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:16 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:13 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:08 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:05 Hitch-22 wrote:
Every person who says "won't beat my computer" deserves a quick slap in the face... Show me a computer that runs 8core cpu with as powerful a gpu for 500$ 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? Because... Why join a discussion if you're going to spew bullshit? It's exhausting reading 100's and 100's of comments on the power of a PC vs console when the console is hundreds of dollars cheaper... It's like those idiots who run around with 2.5k macbook pro and say "Man dat 500 laptop, aint as good as this macbook" and you just wanna slam your face into a desk. It doesn't exhaust me. Are you new to the internets? We have our dumb people here. Indeed, perhaps I've been worn down to far after years and years of stupid comments. "Yo did you know dat da cloud is complete impossible, Xbox totally lying" , "Yo PC so much more powerful bro, buy one!" my head implodes... Anywho, who thought that Titan game looked sick. Are you implying you can't build a $500 PC that will massively outperform the Xbox One? with his current knowledge of computers, he probably can't lolol Show me a PC built better then the xbox one that has higher graphic quality, faster processing and better ram for 500$ and I'll conceit defeat on the topic. love the guy above me "Lets factor in the price of games for the console to equate its power!" palm to face once again http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148543http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130720http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147123$510 ib4 you bringing up 8 core vs dual core, it matters almost fucking nothing. EDIT: Derp, forgot power supply and DVROM. Guess it's more like $600. So I concede, not $500, it's $600. Which is about what it will cost with your tax + subscription fee anyways. You're right. Dual core means nothing when you're just running 1 game most of the time. However, throw in some of the features of the XBox One in there and the extra cores start coming in handy (the Kinect specifically uses at least 1 more core to function). Same thing with a PC, which obviously runs more than just SC2 at any one time. It also allows flexibility with developers, allowing them to parallelize certain elements. On to the GPU, you've picked out a real POS compared to what is available for PC gaming and compared to the XBox One. You've likely also picked out much slower RAM, but we can let that slide seeing as how we don't know the specific memory specs of the XBox One. There are also a number of parts missing, like PSU, Blu-Ray, and Wi-Fi. Even if we self contain this to PC performance, this is a mid-level PC at best for gaming. It's not close to the specs of an XBox One.
I don't get why people try to do this comparison. Any PC that is equal in hardware capability to an XB1 will naturally be more expensive, but that's because a PC, by definition, can do significantly more things than the XB1 can or ever will be able to do. Yea, you pay more, but you pay more so you can do more. The PC never has been and never will be an exclusive gaming system. The PC is a multi-purpose system for the entire family and does tons of things besides gaming, and you can't really avoid that when buying it.
I think the thing that makes the PC-XB1 comparison interesting is that a PC can play just about any game that the XB1 can. Combine this with the fact that any given average family in the western world will need a PC to be properly connected to society and that a console is irrelevant to that factor, trying to push the XB1 as an "ultimate entertainment experience" is ridiculous. The gaming/internet aspect is done better by a PC and the TV/movie aspect is done better by a damn TV. At this point, everything that an XB1 does, something else does better. This is why things like the Nintendo/PS1+2 have worked so well; they carve out their niche as a cheaper alternative to video games and don't try to expand outside of that. Sticking to cheaper + focusing on great video games (especially exclusive content) will win Nintendo/Sony the next console generation, and we'll see the Xbox fail for a 3rd generation in a row.
|
On June 11 2013 05:04 Random() wrote:
Don't know about $500, but I think £500 ($775) is a stupid price for a console. I am planning on building a (reasonably) top-spec PC to replace my current one and it works out to around £600, which will cover all my work and gaming needs.
I would consider buying one if it was around £250 to play the exclusives though.
It's 429 pounds, though still more expensive than the US dollar version. I wonder if EU has some sort of regulations that causes higher prices or perhaps it's just additional distribution costs.
|
What everyone forgets to account for is that, everyone needs a PC/Laptop at the very least for work and web browsing which is at minimum of ~$300. You will spend or already have in hand a utility of a PC/laptop that a Xbox One cannot give you, so if you build a high-mid-tier PC worth ~$900, the real utility cost for gaming is ~$600. Here's an example of a low-mid-tier PC that's more or less equivalent in price to Xbox One http://pcpartpicker.com/p/14YLy $532 real price not accounting for everyday use utility of at minimum $300.
|
On June 11 2013 05:08 Eventine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 05:04 Random() wrote:
Don't know about $500, but I think £500 ($775) is a stupid price for a console. I am planning on building a (reasonably) top-spec PC to replace my current one and it works out to around £600, which will cover all my work and gaming needs.
I would consider buying one if it was around £250 to play the exclusives though. It's 429 pounds, though still more expensive than the US dollar version. I wonder if EU has some sort of regulations that causes higher prices or perhaps it's just additional distribution costs.
Could be over the IE dispute which cost a couple billion in fines to Microsoft did it not?
|
Titanfall is looking fantastic.
|
5930 Posts
On June 11 2013 04:55 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:48 Womwomwom wrote:
Hitch, let's cut to the chase. I'm getting confused so why don't you tell me what you think cloud processing can do. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that other people haven't given you (I don't blame them, posting a PC build with a CORE 2 DUO is laughable). I'll admit my field in CS doesn't relate to Cloud other then comments made offhand by other developers but from what I've come to think doesn't it sort of work as a connected network dispersing the processing of web applications across a broad scope of other computers? Like connecting thousands of computers together vs having a single computer complete a task? So relatively it's server based. I didn't take much in information systems but from my limited knowledge it works similar to a network. As I said, my knowledge is weak in the subject but I'll still stand that, from all of the developer comments and people bashing on the cloud claims, I have yet to see it debunked yet other then "it can't be done" but I don't really think that's a correct mindset. I'll stand that until it's proven that the cloud processing will not have any noticable effects on processing power whichi relates to gameplay (ie graphics) that their claims are true because I feel, from a company standpoint, it's going to cause a lot more loss to lie about something that big then it will to just not make the claim at all and be a generally weaker console then your competitor.
They are using an actor based model for distributed computing (this is what Azure basically is). Since you do CS, what this can do is obvious. Its not new either since its been used in industries like telecommunications since forever. Its in every MMO as well. It works well for online games because each actor communicate through asynchronous message passing. Everything is in its own bubble so concurrent computations can't really corrupt or mess each other up. So yes, you can have "cloud processing" manage things like AI, spawn locations, daily events, etc etc. So everything you've seen before in a decent MMO. This is what they're using in Forza - notice how this was the only real concrete example they provided regarding cloud computing?
So why can't Microsoft do it for things like textures? Its easy: use your head for a second.
Microsoft is suggesting things like boosting graphics and system performance. Think for a second: how much would this cost Microsoft if every game was to use this "graphical cloud computing". No system architect would design a console around cloud computing "for some things" when you can ditch the expensive dedicated servers (that will have GPUs themselves if they are actually rendering shit) and just have a better console overall. Instead of spitting out fumes, you can instead say "our shit is better than the PS4, we have more compute cores, more shaders, more tangible things that are directly comparable since we are both using the same CPU and GPU architecture".
But they can't because the PS4's GPU curbstomps the Xbox One's GPU in shaders, compute units, and even possibly clock speed. I think memory speed is faster too. We're talking an HD7790 vs a HD7850/7870 difference. Hence why everyone, even if they don't understand anything, is saying that the cloud is a marketing ploy.
But then you ask, what about the future where the Xbox One gets outdated? Can't you use cloud computing to help it along? If you were going to have a system that depends heavily on cloud computing for ingame performance, why even have a fuckhuge 5 billion transistor APU that is probably giving TSMC the shits to manufacturer with good yields and giving you the shits too because you have to pay for all the failed processors?
They can just copy what Onlive or Gaikai do where you're basically playing a video: you basically send inputs to a bunch of servers and they stream a video (not textures, a video) back to you. If Microsoft is really big on this sort of graphical cloud computing, they can have servers everywhere like what they're currently claiming and therefore severely cut down on the latency issue. It'll look like shit but it'll actually work really well.
They're not doing this because its stupidly expensive, no sensible dev will waste time and money developing around cloud computing when they can just cut back on physics and graphics, no system dev will create a system that relies on a cloud computing crutch, etc etc. They have 300,000 servers rolling out because that's easy for them to do since they're all under the Azure platform (which is far more than Xbox) as far as I know. But 300,000 dedicated servers to render graphics? Haha Microsoft is made of money but they don't like spending it on something as pointless as this.
Note: I haven't even really talked about the technical problems yet. Logistically its impossible from the get go.
|
Oh Titanfall is a EA product... well it'll be without me, either it goes on PC or not no way I'm getting in an EA game again.
|
On June 11 2013 05:09 lithium3n wrote:What everyone forgets to account for is that, everyone needs a PC/Laptop at the very least for work and web browsing which is at minimum of ~$300. You will spend or already have in hand a utility of a PC/laptop that a Xbox One cannot give you, so if you build a high-mid-tier PC worth ~$900, the real utility cost for gaming is ~$600. Here's an example of a low-mid-tier PC that's more or less equivalent in price to Xbox One http://pcpartpicker.com/p/14YLy $532 real price not accounting for everyday use utility of at minimum $300.
I think when it's all said and done, the cost of PC vs Xbox gaming will be quite similar and the PC will provide more bang for the buck. Especially down the line.
Like the mod said, it's all coming down to exclusives and gaming preferences. I always viewed consoles as 'side fun' where I played occasional halo with friends now and then, and not as my main gaming device. Personally, I'm not touching any console over $300 for that reason.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:15 Iblis wrote:
Oh Titanfall is a EA product... well it'll be without me, either it goes on PC or not no way I'm getting in an EA game again.
but but battlefront. Shit, this is hard...
|
On June 11 2013 05:16 Gentso wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 05:09 lithium3n wrote:What everyone forgets to account for is that, everyone needs a PC/Laptop at the very least for work and web browsing which is at minimum of ~$300. You will spend or already have in hand a utility of a PC/laptop that a Xbox One cannot give you, so if you build a high-mid-tier PC worth ~$900, the real utility cost for gaming is ~$600. Here's an example of a low-mid-tier PC that's more or less equivalent in price to Xbox One http://pcpartpicker.com/p/14YLy $532 real price not accounting for everyday use utility of at minimum $300. I think when it's all said and done, the cost of PC vs Xbox gaming will be quite similar and the PC will provide more bang for the buck. Especially down the line. Like the mod said, it's all coming down to exclusives and gaming preferences. I always viewed consoles as 'side fun' where I played occasional halo with friends now and then, and not as my main gaming device. Personally, I'm not touching any console over $300 for that reason.
My thoughts exactly . My limit is around 200-250€ for a console which equates to about your 300$ . As long as the new generation is above that i won't even think about purchasing one. Didn't so with the last one won't with the new one.
|
On June 11 2013 05:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:52 aksfjh wrote:On June 11 2013 04:22 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:16 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:13 amazingxkcd wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 11 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Djzapz wrote:On June 11 2013 04:10 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 11 2013 04:08 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Why do you care so much? Because... Why join a discussion if you're going to spew bullshit? It's exhausting reading 100's and 100's of comments on the power of a PC vs console when the console is hundreds of dollars cheaper... It's like those idiots who run around with 2.5k macbook pro and say "Man dat 500 laptop, aint as good as this macbook" and you just wanna slam your face into a desk. It doesn't exhaust me. Are you new to the internets? We have our dumb people here. Indeed, perhaps I've been worn down to far after years and years of stupid comments. "Yo did you know dat da cloud is complete impossible, Xbox totally lying" , "Yo PC so much more powerful bro, buy one!" my head implodes... Anywho, who thought that Titan game looked sick. Are you implying you can't build a $500 PC that will massively outperform the Xbox One? with his current knowledge of computers, he probably can't lolol Show me a PC built better then the xbox one that has higher graphic quality, faster processing and better ram for 500$ and I'll conceit defeat on the topic. love the guy above me "Lets factor in the price of games for the console to equate its power!" palm to face once again http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148543http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130720http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147123$510 ib4 you bringing up 8 core vs dual core, it matters almost fucking nothing. EDIT: Derp, forgot power supply and DVROM. Guess it's more like $600. So I concede, not $500, it's $600. Which is about what it will cost with your tax + subscription fee anyways. You're right. Dual core means nothing when you're just running 1 game most of the time. However, throw in some of the features of the XBox One in there and the extra cores start coming in handy (the Kinect specifically uses at least 1 more core to function). Same thing with a PC, which obviously runs more than just SC2 at any one time. It also allows flexibility with developers, allowing them to parallelize certain elements. On to the GPU, you've picked out a real POS compared to what is available for PC gaming and compared to the XBox One. You've likely also picked out much slower RAM, but we can let that slide seeing as how we don't know the specific memory specs of the XBox One. There are also a number of parts missing, like PSU, Blu-Ray, and Wi-Fi. Even if we self contain this to PC performance, this is a mid-level PC at best for gaming. It's not close to the specs of an XBox One. I don't get why people try to do this comparison. Any PC that is equal in hardware capability to an XB1 will naturally be more expensive, but that's because a PC, by definition, can do significantly more things than the XB1 can or ever will be able to do. Yea, you pay more, but you pay more so you can do more. The PC never has been and never will be an exclusive gaming system. The PC is a multi-purpose system for the entire family and does tons of things besides gaming, and you can't really avoid that when buying it. I think the thing that makes the PC-XB1 comparison interesting is that a PC can play just about any game that the XB1 can. Combine this with the fact that any given average family in the western world will need a PC to be properly connected to society and that a console is irrelevant to that factor, trying to push the XB1 as an "ultimate entertainment experience" is ridiculous. The gaming/internet aspect is done better by a PC and the TV/movie aspect is done better by a damn TV. At this point, everything that an XB1 does, something else does better. This is why things like the Nintendo/PS1+2 have worked so well; they carve out their niche as a cheaper alternative to video games and don't try to expand outside of that. Sticking to cheaper + focusing on great video games (especially exclusive content) will win Nintendo/Sony the next console generation, and we'll see the Xbox fail for a 3rd generation in a row.
How did the Xbox fail three generations in a row? The first one sold great with Halo 1 and 2 and Fable, the second generation did even better with the Gears of War series, the Halo series, Fable 2 and 3 and the fact that multiplatform games tended to look/run better on the Xbox360 than on the PS3 because it was way easier to develop for.
The gaming aspect is done better on PC for some genres (mainly RTS and shooters) while other genres are done better on consoles (racing, fighters, RPGs, platformers, third person games in general etc.). My favourite genre is RTS, so naturally I will tend to favour my PC, but there are plenty of games I enjoy more when I can lean back in my couch.
|
On June 11 2013 05:19 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 05:15 Iblis wrote:
Oh Titanfall is a EA product... well it'll be without me, either it goes on PC or not no way I'm getting in an EA game again. but but battlefront. Shit, this is hard...
Battlefront will undoubtly not be an Xbox exclusive , probably will even be on PS4 else they would've mentioned it in MS press conference.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:15 Iblis wrote:
Oh Titanfall is a EA product... well it'll be without me, either it goes on PC or not no way I'm getting in an EA game again.
They said it will be available on PC as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
