Bandwidth Place 2

Xbox 360, Part I: Aiming For The High Definition and Multimedia Promised Land

http://www.twitchguru.com/2005/11/18/xb ... index.html

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13104

ROFL, yea right... the whole article is full of shit.

PS3 is gonna pwn it, as much as i dont want it to

Looks to be an awsome system but I would NEVER pay that price for a gaming console. I figure once the games come out that take full advantage of the system, then maybe the price will be down to a resonable level.

If that ever happens, they speculate that the original xbox has yet to be pushed to its limits. 400$ IMO is not to much for a gaming console, but they get you with a 10$ hike on new retail games (60$ instead of the current 50$). That and to even fully take advantage an HDTV would be necessary.

Im waiting for PS3... but thusfar both compaines have maid equally retarded moves.

360

Launching all over the world at the same time

Will be backwards compatablie but user will need optional HDD and a downloaded software patch from the internet for each game.

Rumours of extreme shortages at launch due to stores takeing way to many pre-orders and the international launch.

Wont play Blu-Ray or HD-DVD out of the box at launch ( A BIG and COSTLY mistake IMO )

Properitary format is DVD-9.... really limits the 360 IMO. We may see multi disk games again.



PS3

Launching a year ahead of the competition

Rumored to cost 500$ for a barebones kit

Rumored to have technology that will register a retail copy of a game to your console specifically. More over the game will try to register itself every time its placed in a PS3 console and if it can't correctly register with the first PS3 it was placed into the unit will shut down. Now im thinking that the only possible way for this would be to have an online database that collects all of this info, and for that to work every machine would have to be connected to the internet every time the owner wanted to play.
This would elimenate reselling, borrowing, renting, and perhaps even pirateing PS3 games. (IF they do this, I WILL NOT buy a PS3)

Sony got themselves into a whole bunch of shit over the DRM protected music cd's. They infected government and military computer systems. I wouldnt be supprised if it nearly crippled sony.

PS3 will have a Blu-Ray player, but who knows if that will be the dominate format.

Sony's too big to be crippled lol... :]

but..
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20051104

Haha, I remember that Ctrl-Alt-Del comic. Fairly new one too. I laughed my ass off reading that.


I probably won't go about buying any of these consoles. At least not within a year or so of their release. I'll wait for the first price drops, if I get any of them.


PC games are just better. For most games at least. Cough, FPS and RPG, cough.


But Call of Duty 2 looks bad ass on XBox 360, haven't seen it on PC yet. If it makes me shit, then I'll get it with my new compy. 0_0

Oh yea, I'm back at the forums again bitches, probably for good this time around.

Anyone who spend more then $150 on ANY gameing system (excluding computers) needs to GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING with themselves.

Its not wonder why the poverty level keeps increesing and kids keep getting fatter.
SHEESH

Hehe, good call with the kids getting fatter aspect of it. LOL.


Console games are very fun for multiplayer when the other players are at your house. 4 people huddled around a TV is great. That's why I dislike the console online multiplayer stuff. Leave PC games to do that.

I have COD2, its better on a good PC. I dont think >150 is too much to spend on a console and most kids who do have them pay for them by themselves. Parents would spend maybe 50-100$ on a console be it handheld or otherwize.... why do you think the gameboy sold so well over the atari lynx... lynx was 200$ and game boy was 60$. The lynx was 5x the machine but parents didnt wana foot the bill for alot of reasons. I speculate the biggest one being that if they had more then one kid, each kid would want their own, and 120$ is alot better then 400$.

Kids get fat thesedays because their lazy bastards, you can finger whatever non-physical activity that they do, but the bottom line is its the kids fault and not an inanimate object.

Consoles are good for some things, sports and fighting games. And the nice thing about a console is that 2 years after its release you wont need to go get a faster CPU, some more RAM, a bigger HDD and a nicer GPU. If I had to pick either the computer would win because it does more then play games and although the price to performance ratio is in the consoles advantage a computer can do more. Alot more.

2005 wrote:I have COD2, its better on a good PC. I dont think >150 is too much to spend on a console and most kids who do have them pay for them by themselves. Parents would spend maybe 50-100$ on a console be it handheld or otherwize.... why do you think the gameboy sold so well over the atari lynx... lynx was 200$ and game boy was 60$. The lynx was 5x the machine but parents didnt wana foot the bill for alot of reasons. I speculate the biggest one being that if they had more then one kid, each kid would want their own, and 120$ is alot better then 400$.

Kids get fat thesedays because their lazy bastards, you can finger whatever non-physical activity that they do, but the bottom line is its the kids fault and not an inanimate object.

Consoles are good for some things, sports and fighting games. And the nice thing about a console is that 2 years after its release you wont need to go get a faster CPU, some more RAM, a bigger HDD and a nicer GPU. If I had to pick either the computer would win because it does more then play games and although the price to performance ratio is in the consoles advantage a computer can do more. Alot more.

#1 I could care less on what the #1 big seller of anything was. It was my opinion.

#2 Being lazy is only half the reason. Not getting out doing physical activities is the other half. I can remember playing pretend with sticks and toys to the same type of activity virtually done in cyber world, be-it multi-player or single player (on or off line). Which do you think burns more calories, playing cyber games or playing outside? I’m not saying “never play cyber games”, but I think it's taken over.

Video games have nothing to do with it. If they were sitting at home watching TV it would be the same. Regardless of what their doing instead of doing physcial activites its the same. TV, video games, just sitting around, listing to music, going out to the movies, out to eat. All these things are the culprit... that and the PARENTS who allow that type of lifestyle. Parents have to provide food for this children, but they dont have to provide McDonalds. Childen dont need to sit in front of the TV or PC for 6-8 hours daily, and they dont have to be driving 2 blocks away either.

Video games are nothing more then a medim for the lazy ness.

I still don't think its all lazyness. All the stuff we mentioned is OK in moderation. Going to the movies is fine because most movies are about 2 hours long, then go play. As for saying video games have nothing to do with it, your wrong. Vedio games should have nothing to do with it but the kids who complaine they are being restricted, or who are getting all the games they need to play 24/7 is what makes video games have something to do with it.

Yea, I'm joining Directive's team on this argument.