Am I missing something here?

Clarkson said:
I think taking TV's/monitors/peripherals into account here is stupid.

For a mere comparison, we should be saying £200 for the console as it is, against £xxxx for PC hardware on a new build.
Click to expand...

It's not stupid at all. I'm comparing like for like and what my situation was.

I did not own a TV before getting the Xbox, I did everything on my monitor (which is a stunning display).

The point was, say you had nothing, you'd just moved to a new house or something and you wanted to either experience gaming on a 360, or gaming on a PC. What are you gonna do? Look at a 360 case and imagine the game? You need a TV. Just like when building a machine you need a monitor.

And the new arguement is that to experience 360 gaming (from scratch) it's gonna be around 600 quid. To experience mid-range to high PC gaming it's gonna be around 1,000, but the difference is quality is just ridiculous
 
OP if your missing something then i suggest a visit to specsavers asap:p

But seriously GFX isnt what the 360 is based on...some of the games look graphically very good but honestly id rather have a game that gives me mucho enjoyment through gameplay and Halo Reach and all the previous Halo's have given me that in abundance.
 
Agree with i-bert, the point is being missed.

You are slating the 360 and its technological capablities basically. The 360 in itself costs £200, as opposed to £xxx/xxxx for all the hardware needed to make a computer work.

It is irrelevant what you have to pay for eveything including games and extra bits and bobs. The 360 and its technology comes in at £200, and thus that is the price that should be considered.
 
Clarkson said:
Agree with i-bert, the point is being missed.

You are slating the 360 and its technological capablities basically. The 360 in itself costs £200, as opposed to £xxx/xxxx for all the hardware needed to make a computer work.

It is irrelevant what you have to pay for eveything including games and extra bits and bobs. The 360 and its technology comes in at £200, and thus that is the price that should be considered.
Click to expand...

The base core machine comes in at £200. Which is ****ING useless without the other stuff.

What's so hard to understand about that?

You need the game. You need the Live sub (to play multiplayer). You need the freakin' TV. Without those things the console does nothing.
 
OK, if we're comparing like for like, and you've bought a 32" TV to play the XBOX on, wouldn't you need a 32" monitor to play the PC games on? I think a 32" monitor is going to take quite a chunk out of, what did you say the PC cost was, £1000?
I got my TV for a fair less than £200 as I recall.

Also, you can get an XBOX 360 S 250GB with 3 games for £210, why did you add £80 for 2?
You could argue that you don't get to pick the games, but this is the same with the graphics card that comes with free games example the OP used.

And obviously there's the age of the XBOX. If you'd spent £1000 on a PC back in the days when the XBOX was new (Nov 2005), how would that be fairing these days?
You'd probably be looking at an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (at best) and an ATI X1000 or Nvidia 7000 graphics card, which would only support DirectX 9.0c. Wonder how well that'd run Bad Company 2 these days.
 
AdladUK said:
The base core machine comes in at £200. Which is ****ING useless without the other stuff.

What's so hard to understand about that?

You need the game. You need the Live sub (to play multiplayer). You need the freakin' TV. Without those things the console does nothing.
Click to expand...

You don't NEED the £200 machine to play the game, THATS WHAT YOU BOUGHT.

You don't need to buy another game and a Live sub to play Halo Reach, THATS WHAT YOU BOUGHT.
 
i-bert said:
You don't NEED the £200 machine to play the game, THATS WHAT YOU BOUGHT.

You don't need to buy another game and a Live sub to play Halo Reach, THATS WHAT YOU BOUGHT.
Click to expand...

Oh jeez. One last time then I'm done with this. Driving me nuts.

My whole point is what the average consumer would pay today to experience 360 gaming. I am that average consumer. I walk into a retail store and to buy a new 360 it will cost me £200, unless I get the ****ty 4GB model which no one wants.

I knocked off the 2nd game and it still came to £540.

And yes, you do need a Live sub to play Reach multiplayer, which is what the majority of people (including myself) get it for in the first place
 
AdladUK said:
Oh jeez. One last time then I'm done with this. Driving me nuts.

My whole point is what the average consumer would pay today to experience 360 gaming. I am that average consumer. I walk into a retail store and to buy a new 360 it will cost me £200, unless I get the ****ty 4GB model which no one wants.

I knocked off the 2nd game and it still came to £540.

And yes, you do need a Live sub to play Reach multiplayer, which is what the majority of people (including myself) get it for in the first place
Click to expand...

But playing on Live doesn't improve the graphics, which is what we are talking about.

And the average consumer already owns a TV.
 
i-bert said:
Lets get back to the original question which was

"Am I missing something here?"

Yes....a decent TV.:D
Click to expand...

And then I will again ask what basis do you have for saying this TV is ****?

I did my research and everyone who wrote a review praised it. I just played a movie and it looked awesome.

So what's wrong with it? Is it because it doesn't have a Samsung logo on it? I'd bet it's probably a Samsung LCD anyway, just branded different
 
i think you really are 5 years too late to be making this comparison. the 360 still likes great on a big screen, btw, infact i reckon it looks better on a 50" 1080p screen than it does on something like a 24" monitor. The reason and cause for which are somewhat irrelevant, but that's my experience.

AdladUK said:
And then I will again ask what basis do you have for saying this TV is ****?

I did my research and everyone who wrote a review praised it. I just played a movie and it looked awesome.

So what's wrong with it? Is it because it doesn't have a Samsung logo on it? I'd bet it's probably a Samsung LCD anyway, just branded different
Click to expand...
the panel is quite literally only half the tv. Samsung and sony used to share panels but the sonys always came out on top because they use superior processing. F&H stuff is good for the price but everything they produce IS bargain basement stuff, like my F&H satnav.
 
james.miller said:
i think you really are 5 years too late to be making this comparison. the 360 still likes great on a big screen, btw, infact i reckon it looks better on a 50" 1080p screen than it does on something like a 24" monitor. The reason and cause for which are somewhat irrelevant, but that's my experience.
Click to expand...

If you're sat 50FT away that may indeed be the case
 
i-bert said:
Yes....a decent TV.:D
Click to expand...

The TV is not going to improve the graphics which is being output by the console.

The TV he has is more than adequate for console gaming. If he upgraded to the best 32" LCD TV that money can buy, it would make little difference to the visual experience.

I have absolutely no doubt that if he borrowed a Pioneer Kuros and then showed the poor images, the console brigade would come up with another reason...rather than just admit that a £200, 5 year old xbox is not as good as a mid/high end PC.
 
AdladUK said:
Well unfortunately, as a few people have already said in here, when you scale something up you lose quality and the only way to compensate that is to sit further away
Click to expand...

which is why some people are blaming it on the tv;) get it now? if you sit huddled right in front of a small screen that is what will happen. I said i reckon the 360 looks better on my 50pz80b then my 24" dgm for a reason - because i compared them both at ideal viewing distances. the 360 looks *better* on my plasma.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom