Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Xbox OneFollow

#102 May 22 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Apparently you still need your cable box. I don't know if the Xbox will have DVR abilities.


I couldn't have imagined otherwise. Most cable companies seem to be incredibly controlling over those systems. But it better have streaming potential to rival the Roku, if they're going to try selling it as the multimedia PC solution.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#103 May 22 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
#104 May 22 2013 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
I will say the controller is growing on me. It's a beautiful system, but Microsoft needs to put a lot of work into its gaming-specific offerings to survive.

It would also be a brilliant PR move, at this point, if they announced opt-out programs for the online checks for the armed services. If that's possible, of course. But gaming sites, like Kotaku, are already featuring articles about how the once-a-day checks (or maybe checks in general) would be impossible for those serving in, say, the navy.

That was no small part of the critique for always-online DRM. So it would be REALLY smart to do everything they could to dispel it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#105 May 22 2013 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts


See, now that's a clear mark against it in my eyes. Sony and Nintendo are waiving publishing requirements, but Microsoft will be keeping the draconian policies of the 360.


In semi-related news, this is the new greatest thing ever: http://i.imgur.com/7tmSCjo.gif
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#106 May 22 2013 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
I laughed.

I'm also having trouble processing it. It just feels so weird to be going into the next gen with Sony seeming to be at the top...

And I say this as someone who is legitimately a fan of the PS3. I love the system, and I've been completely content with my experiences with it (excepting Skyrim, which I'll happily blame on Bethesda - system difficulties or not, it's the publisher's job to work with the system they have).

In that vein, it IS worth noting what I like about the Xbox One. I like that it's a Bluray player, though that's less important now than it was in 2006. I love it aesthetically (though I absolutely abhor its interface, which is something I feel across the board of current-gen Windows products). I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.

Though these are all things that are true of the current PS3... which wasn't even my intention. I just honestly can't see anything about the product I care to mention as noteworthy. Well, besides that it has next-gen power, but I feel I shouldn't comment on that until we actually know what's inside it.

Allegedly smart glass, whatever it does, is something I could access from my phone? That could be cool, if it does something I care about.

/shrug
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 May 22 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,066 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#108 May 22 2013 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
***
2,210 posts
KTurner wrote:
TirithRR wrote:

To be fair, PS3 wireless built in is sh*t (at least, my old fat 80GB PS3).


Mine is too, what's up with that?


The Fat PS3s didn't have the best antenna placement, they fixed it with the slim revision.

TirithRR wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.


But is the X1's HDD Proprietary again or going to be a 3.5 laptop HDD like the ps3. It was nice being able to put an SSD or a 7400 RPM in my PS3 to help increase install times etc, and be able to cheap out on the HDD off a online sale, or hand me down for a laptop upgrade.
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#109 May 22 2013 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,066 posts
According to what they said (or, what I read about what they said) yesterday, the X1's HDD is non user replaceable, but they have USB 3.0 ports and any external storage would be able to have games installed on them.

Edit:
My point being, to idiggory, that it wasn't a new feature to the X1, that the 360 had already been using it.

Edited, May 22nd 2013 5:53pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#110 May 22 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
TirithRR wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.


I feel like this... is misleading.

The 360 didn't have an install feature because not all 360s have HDDs...

I mean, yes, the installation feature was very much partly to address the speed issue of blurays. But the result was that load times for the PS3 were WAY faster than load time for 360 when considering cross-platform games.

Yeah, it's possible now. But it SHOULD have been possible at launch. And the fact there won't be a repeat of that hassle is important.

Plus, I wasn't really trying to name features I liked relative to the 360. I was just trying to name features I liked, period. I only noted the HDD thing to point out why I cared, with that being an issue with the original 360, though I can definitely see that my language was VERY misleading there.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#111 May 22 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,337 posts
Screenshot
.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#112 May 22 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
I feel like this deserves to be posted again.

Screenshot
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#113 May 22 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
**
493 posts
Screenshot
.
#114 May 22 2013 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
BonYogi wrote:
Screenshot
.


Smiley: mad
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#115 May 23 2013 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
At least he knew enough to tuck and roll.

Mostly roll.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 May 23 2013 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gamespot wrote:
EA executive vice president and chief technical officer Rajat Teneja has said that the architectures of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are "a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market."
[...]
"Both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have adopted electronics and an integrated systems-on-a -chip (soc) architecture that unleashes magnitudes more compute and graphics power than the current generation of consoles," says Teneja. "These architectures are a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market and their unique design of the hardware, the underlying operating system and the live service layer create one of the most compelling platforms to reimagine game mechanics."

Ars Technica wrote:
AMD today is announcing three new families of chips that it hopes will dominate the market of high-end tablets, low-end laptops, and converged hybrid devices. The chips [...] are close siblings to the processors found in both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 console
[...]
AMD is positioning these three chips up against Intel's Clover Trail and low-end Ivy Bridge Core i3 processors, hoping to ship them into what it calls "performance tablets": tablet devices with better performance than ARM chips currently offer, and capable of running the full range of traditional x86 software


Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 May 23 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
I dont feel it's even worth comparing considering they are custom built and a console and PC have different priorities.
#118 May 23 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,337 posts
But aren't both supposed to be custom built for gaming?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#119 May 23 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
While true, they're worth considering because cross-platfrom games are realistically the industry standard now, so it certainly matters.

I have no doubt that consoles will be better than the average gaming pc at launch. I doubt they'll be better than the high-end gaming pcs at launch. And by the end of the cycle, they'll likely be below average.

That seems to be the standard trend, to be honest. My laptop has a Sandy Bridge i5 processor, using the SB integrated graphics, and the difference in graphic quality between my PS3 and this laptop is not that substantial. Noticeable? Sure. But relatively small, all things considered. If this was a tower, and I could toss in a cheap graphics card, the difference would realistically disappear.

And this is, in no way, a gaming laptop. It's one I grabbed for $400 when my last one crapped out and I needed to replace it ASAP for school.

When the PS3 launched, a $400 laptop wouldn't have given you anywhere NEAR the same quality.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#120 May 23 2013 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
But aren't both supposed to be custom built for gaming?


Um yeah, thats the point. It's all built and programmed with a gaming focus and I bet they get a lot better gaming performance for the hardware than you would think.

Remember that the PS3 had 512mb total memory for both graphics and system, yet they put out some very good looking games.

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

What kind of ram does your gaming PC have? I wonder what your gaming PCs memory bandwidth is... Cuz the PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 for graphics and system RAM.

Admittedly, I don't have a top of the line gaming rig, nor have I researched what a top of the line gaming rig can accomplish (or cost...), but the specs of the ps4 are impressive. The xbox, not so much.

#121 May 23 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Yes, but you're talking about different things.

They say that their architectures are ahead of PCs. And if we're limiting that solely to gaming means, that might be true. But it's not true of performance.

So, yes, their statement is potentially true. It's also misleading, because what they want is for the audience to think that the quality of their experience will be better because of this superior architecture. If we're comparing to top-of-the-line gaming PCs, which is the comparison THEY made, it won't be.

That's just the flat truth of the matter. They can optimize all they want, but it's not going to stop the top gaming PCs from being quite optimized as well, with far more power behind them.

Compared to average gaming PCs? I'm sure it'll be great, even better. But not to the top-of-the-line rigs.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 May 23 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yes, but you're talking about different things.

They say that their architectures are ahead of PCs. And if we're limiting that solely to gaming means, that might be true. But it's not true of performance.

So, yes, their statement is potentially true. It's also misleading, because what they want is for the audience to think that the quality of their experience will be better because of this superior architecture. If we're comparing to top-of-the-line gaming PCs, which is the comparison THEY made, it won't be.

That's just the flat truth of the matter. They can optimize all they want, but it's not going to stop the top gaming PCs from being quite optimized as well, with far more power behind them.

Compared to average gaming PCs? I'm sure it'll be great, even better. But not to the top-of-the-line rigs.


Unfortunately I don't know enough about hardware to really argue it too much, but the impressive capability of the PS3 (and probably xbox 360 though i havent looked at its specs) considering it's specs makes me think the PS4 (and xbox) will perform a lot better than it looks.

I'd be interested to see what a top of the line PC from 2006 would look like today next to the PS3.
#123 May 23 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
The PS3 didn't have the best graphical output in 2006, it just had the best graphical output at that price bracket. A top of the line PC would have still provided better graphics at a higher resolution.

And that resolution is important.

The PS3 typically plays games at 720p. Even FFXIII, which is still some of the best graphics you'll see on the system, only had pre-rendered cutscenes in 1080p. Rendering an image at a lower resolution takes vastly less processing power. 1080p is 1,920 x 1,080 pixels. 780p is 1280x720 pixels. My LAPTOP has a higher resolution than that (and the laptop I bought around that time had about that).

So you need to qualify what you want. If we're reducing the image down to a 720p screen, you free up a lot of processing power that can be used to render things like shaders, shadows, reflections, etc.

If you increase the resolution (and get crisper images on an appropriate monitor), that same rig gets an image that's much crisper, but graphically less impressive.

And we might as well note that the PS3 and 360 have further limited their processing needs by capping FPS, where the PC has the option to display up to your monitor's refresh rate.

So you need to decide if you want to compare images, which is only part of the story, vs. videos (harder to evaluate, but gives a more appropriate account).

Either way, I'd be amazed if the PS3 had the best graphics on the market, all things considered, in 2006. I'll happily bet that it was near the top (maybe top 1/3 of dedicated gaming rigs?). But there's just no way it was the best.

The only title I can actually think of to compare is Oblivion. Looking up reviews of the game from March 2006, it was stuttering on the 360 and mid-low end PCs, but high-end PCs weren't having issues.

And trying to find anecdotal accounts of the game vs. the PS3, the consensus seems to be that having a mid-range gaming rig would break about even, with high-end rigs looking better, and low-end rigs looking worse.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 May 23 2013 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:


The only title I can actually think of to compare is Oblivion. Looking up reviews of the game from March 2006, it was stuttering on the 360 and mid-low end PCs, but high-end PCs weren't having issues.


Yeah and that game was hideous compared to skyrim, which also runs OK on those two systems with no hardware upgrade.

Besides, the cross-platform titles never seem to be that great looking on PS3, but the PS3 exclusives generally look pretty spectacular in comparison, like uncharted 3 and most likely even moreso with Last of Us.
#125 May 23 2013 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,950 posts
KTurner wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:


The only title I can actually think of to compare is Oblivion. Looking up reviews of the game from March 2006, it was stuttering on the 360 and mid-low end PCs, but high-end PCs weren't having issues.


Yeah and that game was hideous compared to skyrim, which also runs OK on those two systems with no hardware upgrade.

Besides, the cross-platform titles never seem to be that great looking on PS3, but the PS3 exclusives generally look pretty spectacular in comparison, like uncharted 3 and most likely even moreso with Last of Us.


I'm going to bluntly point out that you're the one who said you wanted a side-by-side comparison which, by necessity, means using cross-platform games. So there's that.

Now onto the actual response: The thing to remember here is that they were running on different graphical engines. Skyrim uses the Creation Engine, where Oblivion was using the Havoc engine... I think.

To put it in its most basic form, that means that the engine allows wiser allocations of the power a system has. Your PS3 isn't using less power to run Oblivion than it would to run Skyrim, it's just using it more efficiently.

It wasn't limited by the systems all that much really, it was limited by its engine. As time has passed, developers of games and engines have learned more about how to optimize for the capabilities of the consoles, allowing them to produce better graphics over time, sure. What they can't do is make the system any better at churning out graphics.

So, when we say that "Oblivion stressed the PS3, but it didn't stress high-end PCs", it doesn't matter whether or not games have graphically gotten better over time. The PC had more blunt-force power to throw at that game at the time, where the PS3 was limited by what it was being asked to do. That's the point.

What has happened over time is that developers learned how to squeeze more juice out of a system without advancing the hardware. That's true of both consoles and PCs. Say you have a PC that has exactly the recommended settings for ME1. Even though those fall below the recommended settings for ME3, ME3 is still going to look way better than ME1 did.

Same hardware, used more efficiently. True across the board.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#126 May 23 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Actually I said I wanted to see what a top of the line PC from 2006 looked like today, and you gave me an example of a game from 2006.

Regardless of that, I only meant it rhetorically anyway (since im not aware of anyone with a top of the line pc from 2006) and I'm not trying to slam PC or Xbox or w/e. I'm generally interested to know how well it actually could perform now that the developers have the system fully figured out.

#127 May 23 2013 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Well, looks like the 8800 GTX was out in Nov. 2006, equipped with 768 MB GDDR3 RAM. From wiki:
Quote:
The GeForce 8800 GTX was by far the fastest GPU when first released, and 13 months after its initial debut it still remained one of the fastest. The GTX has 128 stream processors clocked at 1.35 GHz, a core clock of 575 MHz, and 768 MB of 384-bit GDDR3 memory at 1.8 GHz, giving it a memory bandwidth of 86.4 GB/s.
Apparently it originally retailed for around $600.

For CPUs, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 came out in Nov. 2006 as well, clocked at 2.67 GHz, for around $1000.

You're probably talking around 2 GB DDR2 1066 for RAM.

Edit: Oh, neat! I found a Tweaktown article on building a gaming PC from 2006 here.

The relevant part:
Screenshot


Edited, May 23rd 2013 4:48pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#128 May 23 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,135 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.


I feel like this... is misleading.

The 360 didn't have an install feature because not all 360s have HDDs...

I mean, yes, the installation feature was very much partly to address the speed issue of blurays. But the result was that load times for the PS3 were WAY faster than load time for 360 when considering cross-platform games.

Yeah, it's possible now. But it SHOULD have been possible at launch. And the fact there won't be a repeat of that hassle is important.

Plus, I wasn't really trying to name features I liked relative to the 360. I was just trying to name features I liked, period. I only noted the HDD thing to point out why I cared, with that being an issue with the original 360, though I can definitely see that my language was VERY misleading there.


You're the one that's being misleading on this one. The vast majority of 360s have hard drives (including the launch models). Only the absolute bottom of the barrel budget models that very few people actually bought don't. Just because the minority couldn't install to the hard drive doesn't mean that the system in general didn't support the feature.

Edited, May 23rd 2013 5:27pm by Turin
#129 May 23 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Reading is generally worth doing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#130 May 23 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,135 posts
Care to clarify, or did you just want to pretend to be superior while I invalidate your point?
#131 May 23 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
***
2,210 posts
Turin wrote:

You're the one that's being misleading on this one. The vast majority of 360s have hard drives (including the launch models). Only the absolute bottom of the barrel budget models that very few people actually bought don't. Just because the minority couldn't install to the hard drive doesn't mean that the system in general didn't support the feature.

Edited, May 23rd 2013 5:27pm by Turin



There is a good handful of game (Halo Reach/4) that wont play on he 4 gig cheapo 360 because they NEED the install space. Placing some games in a 4 gig will error out saying not enough drive space to play the game. I often would here people come in asking about that. Some games even had to start listing it onb the package ( Installation required).

Thats another thing about the Xbox nickel and diming you. The Standard HDD on a launch 360 was 20 gigs I believe. that would be terrible around now when everything wants to install, and you cant replace it with anything other then the proprietary HDD. I mean My PS3 160 gig was full, and I tossed in a spare 320 7400 Rpm from a laptop.

Also wanted to point out one thing about internet checking/Xbox live. Consoles are designed to be affordable, unlike custom gaming pcs . Most people from lower class that buy them do so around tax time. So what happens if go forbi you get laid off and cant have net? Dead system. I have a few friends that go months without net because he works a job for 12, his wife is stay at home mom with there under 5 kids. Sometimes internet just isnt a necessity above food.
He has a ps3 he got with taxes, if it had been an Xbox One it would be a dead system.

Thats really the entire argument to defeat this stupid always online BS. I mean 20% of American houses dont have internet, and if you took smart phones off that list maybe higher with no landline internet. I understand a good percentage of those people would never buy an Xbox one, but how many have kids they would pick one up for for a birthday etc.
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#132 May 23 2013 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Spoonless wrote:
You're probably talking around 2 GB DDR2 1066 for RAM.

WinXP handled 4GB so if we're doing "top of the line" seems like you'd want to go with four.

My old i3-530 duo core with 4GB RAM and my 9800 GTX+ handled Skyrim just fine at greater resolution than you get out of a PS3. Looked a lot better than the PS3 version as well (my son has it). I'd be willing to bet a top of the line 2006 system could have handled it. But what a PS3 could handle at the ed of its life cycle isn't too telling since the games were being designed for antiquated systems. If games were being designed around i5 or i7's, the PS3 life cycle would have ended years earlier.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 May 23 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Okay, yeah, that was too much. I apologize, I was ****** because I was sitting in stopped traffic and it wasn't your fault.

That said,

Quote:
though I can definitely see that my language was VERY misleading there.


As for the subject matter, the majority of 360s had hard drives, but installation wasn't possible regardless. That was added in 2008, 3 years after the system launched. My comments of my liking it for the Xbox One had to do with the fact that the potential that a user couldn't install would not be a factor in content decisions now.

With the current system, a feature that would drive up load times for a console without an HDD would be abandoned. With a model in which every system involves installation, that is no longer an issue. The Core, and later Arcade, were on the market until mid 2010.

So, yes, users can install now on the xbox 360. They couldn't at launch, and the fact that not all could still be a real, and significant, influence on product development.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#134 May 23 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
You're probably talking around 2 GB DDR2 1066 for RAM.

WinXP handled 4GB so if we're doing "top of the line" seems like you'd want to go with four.

My old i3-530 duo core with 4GB RAM and my 9800 GTX+ handled Skyrim just fine at greater resolution than you get out of a PS3. Looked a lot better than the PS3 version as well (my son has it). I'd be willing to bet a top of the line 2006 system could have handled it. But what a PS3 could handle at the ed of its life cycle isn't too telling since the games were being designed for antiquated systems. If games were being designed around i5 or i7's, the PS3 life cycle would have ended years earlier.



If the gaming industry kept up with PCs we might end up having to buy $3k+ computers every couple years. :P
#135 May 23 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Well, XP handled 4GB worth of memory, including the video card. In 2006, 512MB was the standard stick size, and 1GB was starting to become more common. After looking up the mobo in the above listing, it apparently only had 2 RAM slots, which is likely why it only had 2GB of ram, but at $400 for the matched pair, I'm not certain there'd be any real reason to bump up to 4GB even if the mobo could accommodate it.
____________________________
Banh
#136 May 23 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Also, that PC has like an $800 monitor in there. Not that it makes a huge difference.
____________________________
Banh
#137 May 23 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Spoonless wrote:
at $400 for the matched pair, I'm not certain there'd be any real reason to bump up to 4GB even if the mobo could accommodate it.

TOP OF THE LINE! Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 May 23 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,684 posts
I'm really curious how all of this will play out with 4K resolution. Oddly enough, PCs will be able easily make the transition, yet it will be consoles that actually see the benefit.

This is a fairly new product (for normal consumers), so I don't think it will even be concern for another 5 years, but since the PS4 (and not the X1?) will have support for 4K resolutions, I wonder if this make any difference in the long term of these consoles.
____________________________
Signature starts here.
#139 May 23 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
at $400 for the matched pair, I'm not certain there'd be any real reason to bump up to 4GB even if the mobo could accommodate it.

TOP OF THE LINE! Smiley: mad
Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#140 May 23 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,066 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
So, yes, users can install now on the xbox 360. They couldn't at launch, and the fact that not all could still be a real, and significant, influence on product development.


But I don't believe that the reason why installation was not an option at launch was because not all Xbox's had HDDs as you put it.

I'm not a Microsoft official but I'd wager that the reason game installation was not a launch feature was because at the time, installation was not a concept in the console market. And with a DVD drive, it likely barely crossed anyone's mind during development. Like I said before, with the PS3 release, the limitations of Blu-Ray speed made the PS3 installation a must for some games to avoid load times which would have crushed it in reviews. As is, I seem to remember the Blu-Ray speed and being forced to install games as a negative mark against the console for many users at the time of the release.

Also, when the Xbox was first released in 2005, I'm pretty sure HDDs were relatively small and still relatively expensive. Sure, now you can throw a 500GB HDD in your PS3 for pennies, but I remember buying my brand new 200GB HDD when it first came out in 2004 or so and it was $200+ new.

Edit:
Can't the Core/Arcade models still purchase an Xbox HDD and install it on the system to get the HDD capacity?

Edited, May 23rd 2013 7:47pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#141 May 23 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
**
493 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Smiley: mad

Smiley: facepalm Smiley: blush I apologize, Eske. That's what I get for skimming posts. Now I feel like a Gbaji, shrouded in Varus ,wrapped in an Alma.
#142 May 23 2013 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
***
2,210 posts
TirithRR wrote:

Edit:
Can't the Core/Arcade models still purchase an Xbox HDD and install it on the system to get the HDD capacity?



Yes they can but since its proprietary MS charges WAY to much .


Speaking of HDD Deals Toshiba 2 TB 3.5 inch 7400 rpm for 79.99 (99-20 MIR) Memorial day sale

Edited, May 23rd 2013 11:41pm by BeanX

Edited, May 24th 2013 2:06am by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#143 May 24 2013 at 4:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,337 posts
BonYogi wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Smiley: mad

Smiley: facepalm Smiley: blush I apologize, Eske. That's what I get for skimming posts. Now I feel like a Gbaji, shrouded in Varus ,wrapped in an Alma.


He should have uploaded it and posted it like a normal, Kao-fearing, Premium owner.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#144 May 24 2013 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,066 posts
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
TirithRR wrote:

Edit:
Can't the Core/Arcade models still purchase an Xbox HDD and install it on the system to get the HDD capacity?



Yes they can but since its proprietary MS charges WAY to much .


That's beside the point, I never said 360 accessories didn't cost a lot.

Edited, May 24th 2013 7:49am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#145 May 24 2013 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Being able to purchase one is really neither here nor there, as you really shouldn't assume they will have purchased one. It's just really awful design.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#146 May 24 2013 at 6:26 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,066 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Being able to purchase one is really neither here nor there,


Which is why it wasn't the main point of my entire post, merely a little additional edit at the end, that even the harddrive free versions had the ability to be upgraded. That the lack of a HDD in some models at release would not be a hindrance to the inclusion of the optional ability to install games. And obviously isn't, since that optional ability exists now and HDD-free versions of the 360 exist.

Edited, May 24th 2013 8:32am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#147 May 24 2013 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
TirithRR wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Being able to purchase one is really neither here nor there,


Which is why it wasn't the main point of my entire post, merely a little additional edit at the end, that even the harddrive free versions had the ability to be upgraded. That the lack of a HDD in some models at release would not be a hindrance to the inclusion of the optional ability to install games. And obviously isn't, since that optional ability exists now and HDD-free versions of the 360 exist.

Edited, May 24th 2013 8:32am by TirithRR


Very fair. I honestly had only seen the comment in the quote - I missed your response entirely. The little green arrow brought me to Bean's post.

As for the concept of installation, I can see your point about not thinking it important (though I do feel like PCs and consoles had drifted sufficiently close at the time that someone should have noted it - the concept of installing DLC and updates to your machine already existed, afterall).

What confuses me is that the PS3 launched, and installation proved a great way to severely cut load times without sacrificing any of the environment, and the 360 proceeds to launch the Xbox Arcade, to replace the core, without a hard drive. I just don't really understand it.

You'd think 1) adding the HDD (and installation ability) and 2) adding native wifi would have been a great way to really pounce on selling features of the PS3. But they didn't even add the installation capability until a year after the Arcade's launch, a full two years after the PS3 launched.

Those delays helped the PS3 catch up, because cross-platform games were becoming, more and more, the bread-and-butter of the generation. The low load times were a major feature in pretty much every gaming article about the games, and with the PS3 holding its own graphically, it was definitely increasingly attractive. This is most notable as the year headstart for the 360 was mattering far less now that a backlog of titles was far less of a selling point.

It just strikes me as a really odd set of business decisions.

But, you know, to be 100% fair Microsoft is a very different company from Sony. Sony has a far larger stake in the hardware market than Microsoft, who only aggressively made that leap more recently. So while I don't doubt the 360 was important to them, it probably wasn't nearly as important as the Xbox One is.

I'd be really interested in seeing their profits for Windows 8, from launch to now, next to their profits on Xbox Live for one year.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#148 May 24 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'd be really interested in seeing their profits for Windows 8, from launch to now, next to their profits on Xbox Live for one year.

Both would likely be dwarfed by their business industry profits: business OS/productivity software, server management and the like.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 May 24 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
I know at the time the Arcade launched, it was still more expensive to buy that plus a 20GB HDD than it was to buy the 20GB Xbox bundle, but I think either the Arcade price or the 20GB HDD price had dropped by the time my brother bought his, because he got the Arcade, since he wasn't planning on playing online, and later bought a 20GB HDD and the total amount paid was in line with the 20GB bundle. Maybe he got one or both during a sale.
____________________________
Banh
#150 May 24 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,066 posts
I think the original Core/Arcade reflect the old console market. Play the game off the disc. Even after the PS3 release, the idea of installing games to your HDD was not a "this is good for everyone" idea, it was a "This is a forced thing because of certain limitations". The current HDD-Free slim model appeals to a different console user. The one that just wants to play their disc game. With 4GB internal flash to take game patches and some DLC. And that's the thing with the 360, because of the DVD drive, installation is not a requirement for disc games. It's been a while since I've installed games to my 360 HDD, but I'm pretty sure it is not an in game menu option like the PS3, it's at the dashboard, entirely optional. And while it's optional for some PS3 games, many of my PS3 games automatically start installation as soon as I load the game for the first time. The load time differences I've noticed between my games I've played on the 360 pre/post install have been relatively minor. The biggest difference is not having the whirr of the DVD drive during playing.

One thing I think I remember reading about the X1 release that I actually liked was how buying the retail disc enables you do download the game. Much like Steam activated disc games. An added benefit of the whole digital distribution and account linked games I'd say.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#151 May 24 2013 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'd be really interested in seeing their profits for Windows 8, from launch to now, next to their profits on Xbox Live for one year.

Both would likely be dwarfed by their business industry profits: business OS/productivity software, server management and the like.


I bet. I'm just wondering about the public consumer side of things. I doubt Windows 8 sales have been all that huge. Actually, I doubt their business 8 sales have been awesome, either. I'm sure that'll change in time, but it hasn't been out long enough to be worthwhile for companies to switch.

TirithRR wrote:
I think the original Core/Arcade reflect the old console market. Play the game off the disc. Even after the PS3 release, the idea of installing games to your HDD was not a "this is good for everyone" idea, it was a "This is a forced thing because of certain limitations". The current HDD-Free slim model appeals to a different console user. The one that just wants to play their disc game. With 4GB internal flash to take game patches and some DLC. And that's the thing with the 360, because of the DVD drive, installation is not a requirement for disc games. It's been a while since I've installed games to my 360 HDD, but I'm pretty sure it is not an in game menu option like the PS3, it's at the dashboard, entirely optional. And while it's optional for some PS3 games, many of my PS3 games automatically start installation as soon as I load the game for the first time. The load time differences I've noticed between my games I've played on the 360 pre/post install have been relatively minor. The biggest difference is not having the whirr of the DVD drive during playing.

One thing I think I remember reading about the X1 release that I actually liked was how buying the retail disc enables you do download the game. Much like Steam activated disc games. An added benefit of the whole digital distribution and account linked games I'd say.


I can't agree, because I literally never once saw the installation requirement even mentioned as a con, precisely because it always meant faster load times.

I'd bet a **** of a lot of cash that the VAST majority of people don't even know about any technical differences between formats, gamers included. As in, nearly no one. Most gamers now probably just think of Blu Ray is a better HD DVD format, and would have no clue of anything else.

As for the disc -> download feature, that's just something that I would consider absolutely central to this generation. If they PS4 doesn't offer that as well, it would be ridiculous. In that same vein, the ability to install the full game from the disc should also be a possibility, so you don't need to always run from it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CST
amicotayu, idiggory, Jophiel, Shojindo, Anonymous Guests (47)