why did i wait so long to get an xbox
- Thread starter jas72
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
I own all current gen consoles, and I still play my PC more.
I just don't understand the issue really. I mean, if you prefer one platform then what's the point in slagging off others? It's down to personal taste, and all the arguments I've seen so far have been silly/exaggerated.If only everyone else was as reasonable as you
In the end the people with multiple platforms win out because they get to enjoy the most exclusives and have the most fun, so maybe it comes down to jealousy? I just don't understand fanboyism at all.
As I keep saying I love both my PC and my Xbox 360 Elite and I play on them both a great deal, it's loads of fun and I enjoy exclusives on both. Both have their strengths and both have huge weaknesses but in the end they're both there to suit whichever moods I might be in and neither cost the earth.
Last edited:
I know, I'm of the exact same viewpoint. I've been fortunate enough to usually have multiple platforms but even if I didn't, I can't see myself buying into the 'my console's better than yours' mentality. I can see too many advantages in different consoles at different times.
Aye. I don't have all platforms, missing PS3 and Wii, because they just don't suit me for various reasons.
I don't however feel the need to come out with exaggerated rubbish about the PS3 and Wii, and if I do make a constructive criticism about them I can actually accept that the PC and Xbox 360 also have their flaws.
If more people did this I'd probably visit this forum more often, but unfortunately in most cases here it's "my platform is win and every other platform sucks in every way, shape, or form and you're stupid to buy one."
Which works ok for some games, some not so well, but also kills one of the main advantages PCs have over consoles - that they can look stunning at a super high res with aa/af and high detailed textures. Once you start compromising on settings you end up with something that looks no better than the console versions, yet you've still paid 1000 pounds for the privilege.
To keep the cutting edge advantage people go on about so much on forums like this you need to be upgrading at least every 12 months.
I'm beginning to get tired of hearing this nonsense, and you don't need to upgrade every twelve months to keep your PC in good gaming condition either. I could easily get along with the lowest Core 2 Duo and an X1950Pro, which would still be about on-par with the Xbox 360, but I choose to spend more (~£550-600) because I like to get the most out of my games if possible and play them how the developers envisioned them.
I paid about 500 quid for my brand new Core2Duo setup last December, come this December I've upgraded one thing, the graphics card to a 8800GT which cost £165.
So much for £1000 pounds every 12 months?
Also BTW I won't be upgrading anything else until December 2008 most likely, unless quad core suddenly becomes a top priority, if I upgrade anything it will likely be the GPU which won't be much more than £300, that's IF I even bother.
and you forget, a PC doesn't just play games or play films/divx whatever.
So much for £1000 pounds every 12 months?
Also BTW I won't be upgrading anything else until December 2008 most likely, unless quad core suddenly becomes a top priority, if I upgrade anything it will likely be the GPU which won't be much more than £300, that's IF I even bother.
and you forget, a PC doesn't just play games or play films/divx whatever.
I bet you made a penny back from selling your old graphics card too, it's not expensive to upgrade.
I bet you made a penny back from selling your old graphics card too, it's not expensive to upgrade.
£100.
Bonus, £65 upgrade.£100.
For how long, though? In a year or two, 360 games will still be being made for the 360's hardware. By now developers will be squeezing even more out of the machine and games will look better than ever before. On the pc, games will be being developed for the latest and greatest hardware around and a 1950, C2D rig will be lucky to tread water (it's already struggling today). By the time you've dropped settings to get to playable framerates, I would be very surprised if games looked or ran nearly as well as those appearing on the 360/PS3. It's always been this way - comparing hardware doesn't work when comparing pcs to consoles.
Last edited:
In a year or two 360 games will be taking shortcuts so that the 360's hardware can keep up, in fact it's already happening now. I remember when Halo 2 came out and it had a ridiculous "snap-in" effect when the level of detail increased as you got closer to things, and Halo 3 has already had to compromise on resolution.
So, in essence, Xbox 360 games will probably look rubbish in two years time. That won't stop me from playing them, but my personal computer will upgrade (cheaply, I might add) over time to keep games looking sharp whereas I'll be waiting for the next console if I want the visuals to stay pretty.
Not to mention that even if I did have the lowest Core 2 Duo and X1950Pro, I'd have a much bigger back catalogue of games than I do on my Xbox 360 as the PC platform is persistent and pretty much 100% backwards-compatible.
Like I said; There's strengths and weaknesses in both platforms, and if you have to exaggerate to make your point, well... That does just speak volumes about your character, in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
That's sidestepping my point. Yes, in one or two years the 360 will have trouble keeping up with pcs, but only those running shiny new hardware. A 1950, C2D will be having even more trouble as pc games will be designed for considerably more powerful hardware. If an 8800gtx can stuggle with Crysis today, what can we expect in 2 years time?
// and stop accusing me of exagerating
There are many people here to spend silly money on their pcs and a £1000 upgrade is hardly unusual. Nor is said upgrade not lasting longer than 12 months 
// and stop accusing me of exagerating
There are many people here to spend silly money on their pcs and a £1000 upgrade is hardly unusual. Nor is said upgrade not lasting longer than 12 months
Last edited:
Right now a C2D X1950Pro setup is actually not that bad, and I have no doubt people who aren't fussy would still get a lot of use out of such a system in 12 months time. In fact, I have a friend who has only just upgraded to an X1950Pro from a 9800Pro, which is about five years old, so if people today are still gaming on five year-old hardware your argument falls flat on its face.
A GTX doesn't struggle with Crysis unless you try to run it at max, and it's common knowledge that Crysis was developed with future hardware in mind. You're talking about the exception to the rule here.
All entirely the fault of the person upgrading, not the platform.// and stop accusing me of exagerating
If you upgrade intelligently you can do it for a grand total of £50-200 (depending on how many components you wish to upgrade) per year, some people can even string that out to 2-3 years if they aren't so fussy and, as I've already shown, there are people still using five year-old hardware. The Steam survey would shock you.
The only reason I upgrade my hardware so often and even consider using top-spec stuff is because a.) I use it for more than gaming and b.) I am an enthusiast and overclocker. People like me are not representative of the PC gaming platform, or your average PC gamer, so keep this in mind.
Last edited:
That's wasn't my point. I'm still using an X800xt. My point was that one of the main advantages pcs have over consoles is the improvements more advanced hardware can bring. If choose not to upgrade for years that's all good, but games won't be looking or running better than their console counterparts and you won't be seeing these improvements. Put simply, a gaming rig that isn't upgraded regularly struggles to keep up with cheaper consoles.
I wish Crysis was the exception to the rule btw. It's the most obvious example at the moment, but we've seen the same thing happen with games like Oblivion and Far Cry over the years. I've seen a quad core 8800gtx brought to its knees in Crysis - struggling to maintain 20 fps - and settings weren't at max. NWN2 runs like a dog on even beefy systems.
Again, I think we're talking about different things here. I know you can get by on tiny upgrades. The Steam survey only shows that people are happy playing old games on low/medium settings (i'm one of them).
So really all you've said here is that eventually a PC needs an upgrade. We all knew this and the same applies to consoles, how many games still get made for the Xbox? Just so happens that the development cycle is faster for PCs, but it doesn't mean you have to upgrade. You can miss many cycles if you choose to.
I ran Crysis on my 8800GTX and I run it now on my 8800GT, and it runs just fine because I run it in settings that I know my system can handle (1680x1050 all high with 4xAA on the GTX, all high 0xAA on the GT).
Oblivion was a console port, so I think we all know what was wrong with that, and I don't know what was wrong with Neverwinter Nights 2 but I did avoid it because of performance issues. That said, some games simply do have performance issues, or are you truly saying that you have absolutely fine frame rates when playing games like Mass Effect and Perfect Dark Zero??
How about we look at the performance in some other popular games on the PC, such as: Half Life 2 (plus CSS and TF2), Battlefield 2, Call Of Duty 4, World Of Warcraft (and other MMOs), The Witcher, and so on?
I wasn't just demonstrating that you can get by on tiny upgrades, I was also demonstrating that you're exaggerating how much upgrades and new systems actually cost.
Last edited:
That sums it up pretty nicely. Even if you're modest with upgrades it can cost considerably more than a console to maintain a gaming rig for the same amount of time. If you dont upgrade it will struggle with games while consoles breeze along (aside from the few 'Mass Effects and PDZs', which are in the minority).
The Source engine is the exception. I wish more developers would take a leaf out of Valve's book at release games that look and run well on hardware that's a few years old. CoD4 and BF2 ran pretty well, but still require fairly modern components to match the 360 versions, and Crysis represents everything I see wrong with pc gaming these days and why I no longer choose to upgrade.
Yes the console will breeze along for longer because the games won't develop much, if at all, graphically as I already showed in the cases of Halo 2 and especially Halo 3. You can't really call it progressing if the games barely do.
Also why is Crysis is not in the minority but Mass Effect and PDZ are? Bias much?
You've not noticed that Call Of Duty 4 and Battlefield 2 look better on PCs then.
In fact if you take Xbox 360 level graphics hardware like 7900 Series and X1800 Series cards then you'll see that they look better on the PC regardless. Oblivion, despite its flaws, looked better on the PC thanks to mods while still running okay on my X1800XT 256MB and had the added bonus of antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.
I can apply this to pretty much any cross-platform game to be honest but I still choose my platform on genre.
Last edited: