Printable View
What i cant understand is HOW on earth they sell 3x3.2 ghz proscessors with the huge ram and the inscane graphics card for £279?
Do you know how much it costs to get a equal PC?
So its obvious that the PC hardware industry is selling their products WAY more expensive than they worth.
Also we all know they ONLY price "benefit" of PC's compared to the well protected consoles... ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:
Hellenes
No, it's because the ones in consoles are shoddily made. All part of a big conspiracy so they keep breaking, thus making the owners constantly buy new ones, thus bringing in more money for the company.
I like rambling on...
I know that microsoft was losing money on the first Xbox whenever they sold one. They got the money back by selling $50 games.
Crazed Rabbit
Sony traditionally loses money on the hardware in the first half of a console's lifespan. Even they don't want to compete in pricing with microsoft now...
Microsoft is going to sell the 360 at a fraction of its true value. However, they'll probably raise the amount they make per game (currently $10 of every xbox game sold goes automatically to microsoft iirc).
Also, it's often cheaper to mass produce. Consoles sell way more than normal hardware products.
Hardware, software. Lots of things a pitiful console doesn`t have. :duel:
And generally you are limited with what you can do with a console - while a PC is (much closer to) unlimited in possibility.
A console is destined to be a game machine, and you can't make money off it like you can with a PC (with programming, graphics design, etc).
OT: Are there any truth to the rumors I heard about putting Linux on old Xboxes?
YES THERE IS, YOU CAN DO IT!
From what I hear the 360 will support a massive online community where you can download music videos, and the like.
I'm not sure if its true, but if it is, it has just a smuch potential than a pc but without the problem of software crap out.
I´d say the more complexity a console has, the higher the chance of bugs sneaking in, just like it is with PCs.
And I still refuse to buy any console.
Oh are you missing out! So many great games that you will never play, pc-gaming lost me a long time ago, last game was medieval. Face it. There is a lot more originality to be found on the console, and a nice TV screen + decent sound setup is just more of an experience then hanging before your pc, feels like work ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, I´m a student at a university now and I can´t afford very much right now, trust me, besides my bed, the computer is the best place to be in my flat right now...~D
Well, I´d like to get a nice sofa and stuff, but I´m waiting for the state to support me with money, my parents just can´t support me in the long run...
Yes, I live in Germany in the middle of Europe where companies and jobs are screwed and even people from university can end up without a job...~:handball: but that´s backroom material~D
On topic I´d like to know some good, non-fantasy games that are available on console and not for PC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Funny, my case is just the same, beside the bed, the pc is the place (also studying).
About games - a lot of racing games uh, and of course Spartan Total War :bow:
You´re LCPL-Skafs[PARA], aren´t you?~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Spartan is fantasy IMO, though it may be fun anyway, but racing games are too boring for me in the long run.
Well I could of course recommend a crapload of titles but I hate poor people ~;)
Non fantasy, that kind of complicates things, you won't find a game like the total war series, or civilisation on a console. There are some realistic shooters, but not as many and as good as on pc. Sounds like you are where you belong ~:)
Hey! How did you know me secret identity? Yes that's me. Do you play AA as well, and under what name?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Does KarlKarolinger tell you anything?~;) ~D
You´re in my buddylist for some time now, you talked about AA and your clan some time ago, so after some research...~D
Hey lol! I just played with you today then, in Urban Assault.
That was not just coincidence...~;)
hey husar, why don't you go here: www.parachute-regiment.co.uk and enlist ~:)
I remember it was like yesterday when Microsoft was in the whole "Software, not hardware!" phase.
Consoles are heavily subsidised.
Mass production of the same hardware in the same configuration drastically drops the price. Particulary when you add in 3rd world labour costs for a console compared with say a local mum and pop computer store that builds a custom order PC.
Xbox linux, xbox clusters, xbox webfarms have all been done...
I posted this in the CoD2 thread, but I will state it hear to as it is relivant...
The Walmart where I live has a XBOX 360 in a demo cabinet and what ever the price and whether the components and cheap or not, I saw and played CoD2 and it looked just the same as on my PC (AMD64 +3200, 6800GT and 1GB RAM)... Though I would have to run them side by side to really spot any differences (dynamic lights maybe?!??!)...
Anyway, that has made me feel pretty confident about getting one (that and the fact i already have a HDTV)...
Only problem is that I have not preordered and EBGames at least is stating that if you have not already pre-ordered don't expect to get one before 2006!!
Luckily I live in a province with less population density. So my EB has only worked for the first 2-3 days of 360's. I get paid on Tuesday so I can have the 574.99 needed to buy it.
In general whatever a console can run a PC can run, and after a couple of years graphics are significantly better on a PC. Then again, it's getting to the point where the main improvement of graphics is in the details. The generation of consoles after the next one should last a long time.
They have these new fangled Xboxes built in Asia, right?
Nope, the next generation will have powerful physics cards, so instead of 10 or a 100 objects on screen that you can interact with, there will be 10,000 or 100,000 objects you can interact with...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
The graphics card say what the object looks like.
The physics card says how it moves/interacts/blows up.
a physics card? sounds funny, but isn´t that something CPUs are supposed to do? I mean the get better anyway and as soon as they have a quattro-core or so, we can use a core for physics.~;)
They are developing physics processors/cards for PCs, it's only a matter of time before the games start allowing them to accelerate with the hardware. AGEAI is one of the first, here's an article from ExtremeTech from E3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1817922,00.asp
I'm sure about 1993 someone said something similar about graphics. I've heard of the physics cards working in 2 directions. 1 a hardware card with a PPU (physics prcessing unit) and P-ram, the other software to use a core in a multi-core system. If you think about it every PC sold today is a dual cored machine. It has a CPU and a GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I've also heard tell of a company that is researching an AI card for Gaming PC's.
So by like 2010 we could be buying PC's with a CPU, a GPU, a PPU, and a AIPU. But with a multi-core system you could still only have a GPU in an expansion card.
Do not forget soundcards.
Soon those ultra fast, high-resolution laser mice will need their own Mouse-processing-unit as well(as soon as they reach the resolution of modern photo-scanners~D ).
But having some advanced physics in games can never be wrong, it´s just the additional costs that scare me.
Sounds like an Amiga Redux. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
I think consoles will move more towards PCs, the Xbox already is a PC redux, so neither will win the 'war', they'll just merge at some point.
If you need 3 or 4 specialized cards to insert into your pc that you can't use for anything but gaming, you might as well buy a console.
All MS has to do, produce a keyboard and mouse for the 360 plus a XBOX version of MS Office (word and excel) and the PC is suddenly redundent in 80% of homes...
And if/when they do that PC's will have come full circle. They started out 25 years ago as little gadgets that jacked into you TV.
Especially with HD TV...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
Probably be a complete disaster for Microsoft though. Companies would give up this whole paying £200 for MS Office and XP (plus the machine) and just get a load of XBox 360s and HD TVs.
If Microsoft did that, do you really think the XBox price would remain the same?
They'd just do what Sony did. Put all the 360 hardware in a new box with some other doodads call it a media center and triple the price.
They'd have to charge a hefty price for that as remember, they still make most of their money out of windows/officeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
That would ruin the purpose of making it a console. What next, keyboards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Im going to say Nope again there, the next generation will likely have very little hardware whatsoever, and will simply be a thin client terminal device to which content is delivered in realtime (much like cable TV). All processing will be centralized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Watch the first company try and fail. Then buy shares in whoever does it next. Sega were the first to try it (and only, as far as i am aware) they tried it in the early 90s, way ahead of its time when a fat pipe was 9600 baud. Obviosuly destined to fail. EDIT - and that wasnt realtime either, content was delivered and then played.
Terminal servers... could work and it would certainly cutdown on piracy and cheating... really all you are doing is sending input and the central servers pump back screenshots... would even allow upgrading of the hardware easier. All you would need is a Credit Card, a NIC card and a controller.
Do you believe it's even close to technically viable though? I was under the impression that current HDTV streams over cable were compressed to all get out, and that any hardware capable of encoding HD in anything close to real time is unbelievably expensive. Getting a setup that could get user input, transfer it across the lines, run the program at a superserver, render it, then encode it for transfer across the cable lines and send it back seems like it would be either unfeasably expensive or have such high latency as to be unplayable. Neither are exactly conducive to a business model.
In case you weren't being sarcastic, there already is (or was ?) a keyboard for the Xbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalmoxis
Not until the next generation of network connection becomes available to the general public, I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening soon (of course with these things, you can never be sure, look at the cell phone boom).Quote:
Originally Posted by fret
I'm hoping consoles will start getting more RAM, that is imho the biggest limiting factor in console games these days.
That was the PS2, Madcatz made a plethora of 3rd party gear for it. USB keyboards and mice, and even a neat rig that was a combination of PS2 controler and keyboard. It took all the letter and character keys from a standard keyboard and put it in the middel of a PS2 controller.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
They don't need more ram. PC's use Gigs of ram because they have to run the game and windows at the same time. They only need their indicated max amount when booting, loading, or saving. When running they only need maybe 1/3 of their minimum. Console operating systems are designed not to be resource hogs like Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I don't know about that, while you are essentially correct that the Console will not be running aload of extra processes, games are getting big...Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
On my PC the BF2 processes alone runs at approx 600MB RAM usage (with the system running at around 850MB usage overall). And that does not take into account what it uses on the 256MB Gfx card memory... The 360 has 512MB to share between CPU and GPU so could it ever support something as complex as BF2 (I mean we are going to get BF:Modern Combat rather then BF2 on the 360 so the issue is a little moot)?
The thing is, are the most demanding games on the PC today already too much for the 360 to handle? Or can the code be optisimed to run on the console and cut down on extrainous memory usage??
BF2 is out now for PS2 and Xbox, all be it with lower player limits in online multiplayer. It will come out for the 360 in due time. I've seen the amount of ram when just running that certain games use. I hate to alt tab out of HL2 once and it was using about 70 Megs of ram (according to the task manager) while not loading or doing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
To answer your opening question, on technical feasability, the answer is absolutely. It could be set up in a bespoke manner today and work well enough to prove that, theoretically, the technology is competent and cheap enough for it to be a commercial success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phatose
If you were to expand the question to ask, Do we have the infrastructure in place to deliver the services today?, the answer would then be a resounding no... in the year 2005. Bandwidth is expanding the world over faster than China's bank balance, the average internet connection speed in Japan is greater than 24Mbps.
Your concerns over latency and the like are all valid points, today. Saving any major distasters with the current wave of new systems, the next console generation will likely be launched sometime around 2013-2015. By this time the average net connection will likely be approaching or in excess of 1Gbps, the connected world will be so radically differant then its difficult to comprehend. Just as it is difficult to comprehend such a system being feasable only having current technology and infrastructure to base your reasoning on.
Imagine comprehending World of Warcraft in 1995 when it took 4 hours and cost $30 in phone tarrifs to download three Doom WADs from a bulletin board.
- It took approx 25 years to get from Space Invaders to Doom 3.
- Space Invaders could be delivered in this centralized manner with todays technology and connection speeds, quite easily.
- Work this bullet point out for yourself.
That 3 stage premise detailed above is all that is necessary to prove that it is very possible.
On your final comment, "Neither are exactly conducive to a business model."
Poor gameplay and lots of latency etc are of course not conducive to a business model, hence the reason the current generation has not gone this way, because if they did it would still be ahead of its time.
Absolute control over piracy is the only issue that matters on this subject at the corporate level, that alone is already a big enough driving force to push though these changes...as soon as the infrastructure is in place to deliver the service, you can gaurantee the service will be delivered in that manner.
Sega TV was the first acorn of this sown in 1994. The Steam game delivery system from Valve is the next (and very succesful) step of the next major revolution in interactive entertainment delivery. A major transition that the world will have to go through in order to reach the thin client centralized system will be that of changing the way content is delivered. Once that revolution has happened and the dust has settled, the switch from delivering content, to delivering the product realtime will be the next natural step.
Thankfully, ive never attended an EA board meeting, yet i can gaurantee you on my life that they have forseen it, discussed it, agreed its the future, and are merely waiting for the MCI Worldcoms of this world to lay enough black fibre around the place to make it a reality. And if the MCI's dont lay it fast enough, people like EA will start to force the issue.
Dont get me wrong, I hate the prospect of this happening more than anyone, it will reduce choice, with ever fewer but higher budget titles being broadcast for longer periods of time.
But, happen it will. Bookmark this page and look back at the naysayers an nonbelievers in 10-15 years time, if you can draw yourself away from your generic gaming terminal that is :)
Sorry about the lenght of that waffle!
EDIT - a quick not about those cable streams. Cable sounds great, it makes you think you have a whizzo super modern pipe connection to your home. Unfortunately, cable means your home is connected to a box down the road somewhere by a piece of bog standard coaxial cable, and the box down the road is connected with its whizzo super modern pipe. Thats probably part of th ereason for that compression. I believe the current maximum bandwidth that can be sent through coax is 8mbps. But dont quote me on that.
I would say it could happen a lot quicker if the companies could see the benefit.
Piracy is a major one for the companies.
The end user could see huge benefits in not having to upgrade hardware.
You could have a per month fee and connect to any game on the other end. With the game designers getting an amount for unit of time a user is playing the game.
If they make the console/modem generic enough that it could access many different end systems like PCs to online games then that model would succeed far faster based on previous open source models... at least until the technology matures.
It would be similar to watching a movie over the net that you can interact with... so same download stream with a slightly higher upstream load. So if you can watch cable TV you could watch an interactive cable Video game and send commands backupstream... :bow:
It could be tested now with PCs as they can emulate a thin client.
The way VoIP has matured in the last 5 years and the way Video VoIP is comming about there is a healthy indication that the tech is actually here.
The question of how ownership impacts sales is there though. Games are expensive, and a lot of people will only buy a few a year (I'm sure there are statistics about this somewhere), if people have to buy a monthly fee, and if that fee is much higher than they would have paid with the current system, they will lose a lot of consumers. I know I won't buy games at any cost, and I know I'm not alone in this :knight:
Also, there will always be piracy, with steam there was even a system that allowed you to download the game without having paid for it, from the valve servers themselves.
Those were the mod version of CS and DOD. Both of which you had a right too if you paid for HL1.
Until there are no more destabilised states (like Greece in an extent) with loose morals towards piracy. (Its generally accepted in Greece that you dont have to buy an original game ONLY if you want to play MP) piracy will be rampant.
States that have no antiwarez laws, or the authorities are tolerant (Russia) to warez distribution. The increasing internet speeds wont save the PC games industry they will be its doom. Now it takes you 3-4 days to download 3-4 gig of ONE file (you can download many simultaniously) and thats with a 200kbps internet connection.
In UK where I study 8mb broadband costs £27,99 can you IMAGINE how the warez industry will explode if we get at 1gbps speeds?
The only way to go is to ensure massive ignorance of computer functions by the public since by teaching them how it wokrs you teach them how to crack software.
Its the massive ignorance of console tweaking that keeps the console gaming industry afloat. Can you imagine if everyone knew how to install a mod chip? Or save WHOLE games on the HDD?
Of course there is the speculation that Sony supports piracy under the table to outsell MS. If a console can be pirated then EVEN the poorest person can buy it since after the initial purchase there is no expense.
But my biggest QUESTION remains:
HOW IN EARTH THEY SELL HARDWARE OF £2799 cost for £279?
Maybe the Hardware doestnt cost that much?
Hellenes
Sony has just been forced to stop putting some anti-copying stuff on their music CDs. Not only was it illegal (they didn't tell you about it properly), MS now counts it as spyware, it's impossible to remove, and even more to the point, doesn't actually stop 9/10 programs copying music anyway.Quote:
Of course there is the speculation that Sony supports piracy under the table to outsell MS. If a console can be pirated then EVEN the poorest person can buy it since after the initial purchase there is no expense.
For a big loss. They make the money through games. £10 a game? Plus it won't cost that much, economies of scale and all that. But I suspect they will still make a pretty big overall loss.Quote:
But my biggest QUESTION remains:
HOW IN EARTH THEY SELL HARDWARE OF £2799 cost for £279?
Maybe the Hardware doestnt cost that much?
That is probably the crux of the whole issue. If a consumer had to buy a lump of plastic and paper thats awkward to fit in your pocket every time they wanted to watch the TV, they would throw the damn thing out the window. Imagine the clutter after 40 years avid gogglebox whatching.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
You are applying todays market forces and trends to a future technology and culture.Quote:
Games are expensive, and a lot of people will only buy a few a year (I'm sure there are statistics about this somewhere), if people have to buy a monthly fee, and if that fee is much higher than they would have paid with the current system, they will lose a lot of consumers.
Monthly fee? ...Yes.
Permenant access to every game 'broadcast' in your 'package'... yes
New games will cost extra on your bill for the first x months, then get broadcast on one of the free channelss included in your package.
Im going to pay the 3$ a month for 6 months for the Civ 4 channel cause i want to play it, but i'll leave the Final Fantasy XII channel until its on a freebie cause im not that interested.
In my package i have all new FPS game channels (the really expensive part of the package, like sports or movies on cable)
Turn to channel 997 for Afghanistan Total War.
Turn to one of the star wars channels who are doing 1 hour demos of the soon to be released Battlefront 5 from 8pm till 9pm every Sunday in November.
800,000,000 subscribers worldwide....yes.
Another major revolution the games industry has to go through to survive is mass market penetration, like Hollywood, where the product can cost a $billion, yet the public can see it for a few dollars.
If you give the scenario due consideration, it should become clear that there really isnt a viable alternative should this not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnin...rel_q1_06.mspx
That is how they afford it to begin with. It then gets cheaper with time.
Probably, I'm not questioning that someone will try it, someone certainly will. However I do question whether it will be successful (at first) and WHEN it will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by fret
The ownership economy is fading away as it is, it will be an interesting development I think, though not one I'm going to enjoy from a user's perspective ~:handball: