The Big Bad Console Thread - Sway your Station with an Xboner !

Utnayan_sl said:

Sorry I should clarify. Anyone that purchases a launch day edition console * This generation * not any other product, not any other mix, not targeting early adopters for any other technology (Which these consoles are not early adoption when it's a product revision on-going for the last 20 years) needs to have their head examined.

1) The games themselves will be upscaled until design teams take advantage of the hardware. Minimum of 2-3 years. And really. People here were actually comparing Call of Duty games as the basis for graphical improvements... 50 developers from the original Crysis on PC just jumped off a cliff at reading that. Good work at killing cool Europeans.

2) Hardware design/engineering flaws which have continued to hamper quality for the first 1-2 years of any given console. IE: Better to wait for the first revision.

3) Price will be reduced easily within that time frame, probably twice over.

4) The library of either system for the initial launch and beyond when looking at exclusive games reminds me of a one man golf clap in a 500 gallon trash can.

Click to expand...

All that shit sounds like typical early adopter risk. With the exception with me not knowing what prices being reduced twice over means. If it costs $400 in US at release are you suggesting it'll cost $200 in three years?

re: crysis, I agree that crysis was waaaaay ahead of the curve, but decrying my usage of the most popular FPS as a benchmark to compare graphical improvements is misunderstanding the point.

Xarpolis_sl said:

You're preaching to a quire of 1. Congratulations on that.

Click to expand...

The quire in the sixteenth chapel is the best.

Ut will be the first to get the steam box though. Even though he already has a PC.

/\ Nope. I'll be the first to get Steam O/S. I already have a Steam Box in my living room that I already built.

Tuco_sl said:

All that shit sounds like typical early adopter risk. With the exception with me not knowing what prices being reduced twice over means. If it costs $400 in US at release are you suggesting it'll cost $200 in three years?

re: crysis, I agree that crysis was waaaaay ahead of the curve, but decrying my usage of the most popular FPS as a benchmark to compare graphical improvements is misunderstanding the point.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The point being that PC development used to advance the industry more so than any console movement. The reason why games continued to get better was because of that. And lowest common denominator didn't exist. Crysis drove better looking games. Far Cry, drove better looking games. Regardless of platform.

The reason for the angst is that because of how the tables have turned, consoles are now leading development of games. And we areleading that development with using technology that is already three fucking years old before it even hits the stores.Resulting in under-utilizing PC technology which is slowly, but surely, stagnating advancement in development, which in turn interferes with me seeing cool new gameplay mechanics, more immersion, and an overall better gaming experience. Instead, I end up slowly not giving a shit. Which is happening as a direct result of a push development scenario with using the lowest common denominator of hardware to keep the lowest of dev costs tied to a multi-platform game launch, and it is impacting the quality of games everywhere.

About the only frame of reference I can give at this point is Chris Roberts. The guy simply did not develop anything until PC's were ready to handle the type of world he wanted to create. From immersion, graphics, sound, game play, multi-player, you name it... If Chris Robert's were an Activision or another console developer at this point, we would see a privateer on rails upscaled to 900p with "Next generation Wing Commander!" hyped all over the fucking box. At least there is still one person pushing the boundaries so we continue to advance. Instead of doing as little as possible for the most gain as possible until the industry crashes.

Nintendo needs to get the fuck out of the console business and just sell handhelds and games for the other consoles. Then profit $1 billion in sales for the next mario wahteverthefuck.

Utnayan I think you're conflating the opinions of "Should I get a PS4?" with "Should gamers in general be interested in a PS4?". You also seem to base a lot of your opinions on the idea that the steam box is going to come out and crush consoles while revolutionizing gaming. This is a very naive opinion.

Tuco_sl said:

Utnayan I think you're conflating the opinions of "Should I get a PS4?" with "Should gamers in general be interested in a PS4?". You also seem to base a lot of your opinions on the idea that the steam box is going to come out and crush consoles while revolutionizing gaming.

Click to expand...

It will. And it isn't a naive opinion. You know I would never stand behind such a comment in the times I have posted here if I didn't 100% truly believe in it.

Valve is about to turn this entire industry upside down. Microsoft is looking to get out of the console business entirely. Once Sony sees what Valve is doing they will construct the same mechanism. Faster than they said Motion Control for the Wii was a gimmick and than poured billions of dollars into their own Kinect and Move applications within a year.

Sean_sl said:

I really should be ignoring you, but this is blatantly wrong. The PS4 utilizes brand new architecture and is a prototype for AMD's hUMA platforms and has the ability to heavily utilize GPGPU Compute and its GPU and custom busses are basically built around that. Once people learn to use this shit it will be a huge boon to both the PS4 and PCs with GPUs capable of utilizing it.

Click to expand...

Sure it will. Just like 3DNOW, MMX, and Cell were supposed to revolutionize CPU utilization correct?

/\/\ Haha

Sean_sl said:

This is technology that AMD isheavilyinvested in. I guess if you want to call AMD's GPU technology bad, then go ahead.

Click to expand...

And they also heavily invested in 3DNOW. Here, this is before your time.

3DNow! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!

And Sony and IBM were heavily invested in Cell. How did that work out for them?

Quit reading shit about unified memory pools and thinking it is the end all be all for development.

Noodleface_sl said:

AMD has to do something right, because their CPU technology is terrible.

Click to expand...

Per core performance? Maybe. But they are way ahead of Intell in intergrated graphics on their CPUs in which Intell is trying to catch them for the mobile and handheld markets. folks, the PC is dead or about to die. It is being replaced with handheld devices. No one is buying PCs anymore except companies which need them and maybe gamers.