The X-Box is here -- Are you ready? ;)

[Wraith]

--"Context-dropping implies I'm not providing exact quotes of people I'm responding to"

Okay, so you don't know what context dropping is. Unfortunately, the webpage I've seen with the best summary doesn't seem to be up any more, so here's an example from it:

Context-dropping is ignoring the context a statement is made in. Generally, this is an assumed context that is readily apparent to everyone involved, including (especially) the person doing the context-dropping. For example, if I were to say "Ice is cold" and you were to reply "No, it's nowhere near absolute zero", this is a fine example of context-dropping. My comment was, and quite obviously so, meant in a human context. Compared to human temperature, and our comfort range, ice is cold. The counter-argurment ignores this to go off on a tangent that is totally inapplicable to the argument at hand.
Your "It's not a ten Gig drive" argument is a perfect example of this.

--"MS is going to (at least initially) sign lots of contracts with developers to try to get the Xbox to be "exclusive" for a game."

But what's the developer's motivation for agreeing to this? One of the X-Box's big pushing points (one you've brought up many times) is how easy it's supposed to be to port over to PC (or for PC developers to work with it). Why sign something that means you can't make a lot more money for a little more work?

Wraith
Create a system any fool can use and only a fool will want to use it

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Very rarely are first generation titles improved upon by leaps and bounds when the second and third generations arrive.

Er...Compare early PS1 game graphics to the modern ones. Compare launch PS2 graphics to games like FFX.
As the developers know how to tweak their code to run best on a console, graphics improve greatly. Known fact.

But again, you're being ambiguous here. 'Titles' as in game titles or consoles? I thought your original comment was on consoles...

I'll see if I can't dig up some more screenshots of launch titles, especially the ever gorgeous NFL Fever.

RTCW isn't a game of "players", it's mainly about environments. I assumed, since both the RTCW shots and the Halo shots involved nice outdoor images, that the comparison would be as fair as possible.

RTCW's outdoor scenes are nice, but they're much smaller in scale than Halo's. It also couldn't handle about 30-40 high-quality models on the screen at any given time (like Halo can). Not to mention the model quality is inferior, also.
RTCW looks nice, but it's not AS nice.

That's not the issue, the issue is the quality of the graphics that you see, PC and Xbox. In any event, you're right, but computers generally are used for more than videogame playing purposes.

That's not the only issue, Wiglaf.
To do tons of really advanced graphics work, you need to rely on a highend video card being installed on said PC. Those high end graphics cards cost more than consoles themselves...and then once you do have a smaller market of people with GeForce 3s/4s, etc, you have to fund support costs because of the nature of how PCs work.

The advantage of consoles is the exact same hardware is on every machine. This is much more useful from a developer's perspective, you can crank things to the max. With the PC, you have to find the middleground. Make it look nice, but also make it run on lower end hardware. That's RTCW (and to some extent, Halo). Games like DOA3 are prime examples of what you can do with the graphics engine of the Xbox (and it can only get better with time). Those type of graphics (especially the hair effects and hugely geometrically complex levels) are not possible on any existing PC hardware. The only setup that could MAYBE run it at 15fps is the GeForce 3 + 1.53GHz Athlon. And that costs a lot.

It's not logic, it's fact, judging by those screenshots and the few others I'm hoping to get sooner or later.

Oh, so now picture quality is 'fact' and absolute?
Then see my above comments on it, it's FACT, Wiglaf.

Besides, the picture quality on a high end video card is much greater than that of the average home TV.

It's also a great deal smaller.
And it's also FAR harder to play multiplayer (ie: 3 of your friends to play with at a party or something) on a PC.

I keep saying this again and again, but you are simply too dense to comprehend it: PCs and Consoles are good at different things. They both have their values, that's why I have both.

In any event, Gamecubes and PS2s are cheaper and have different types of games (generally, so far, ones with less depth and more wide ranging appeal) than the PC market does. So, they're popular.

They're cheaper than what? PS2 is not cheaper than the Xbox. Gamecube is...and they're all a great deal cheaper than a PC.

But again, that's not really the point. The point is some games are best on consoles, some are best on the PC.

The Xbox is the most powerful console out there (this is fact, again, Wiglaf). So seeing as I've already got a PS2 in the house, why wouldn't I get the Xbox? Compliments a home theatre system quite nicely, plays kickass games, great fun.

Context-dropping is ignoring the context a statement is made in. Generally, this is an assumed context that is readily apparent to everyone involved, including (especially) the person doing the context-dropping. For example, if I were to say "Ice is cold" and you were to reply "No, it's nowhere near absolute zero", this is a fine example of context-dropping. My comment was, and quite obviously so, meant in a human context. Compared to human temperature, and our comfort range, ice is cold. The counter-argurment ignores this to go off on a tangent that is totally inapplicable to the argument at hand.
Your "It's not a ten Gig drive" argument is a perfect example of this.

Actually, Wraith, let's turn this around for a second.
MY comment was the Xbox's HD is 8 gigs (Ice is cold).
YOUR comment was essentially "technically it's 10 gigs on some consoles" even when the box can't use it (No, it's nowhere near absolute zero"
You've got it all backwards.

But what's the developer's motivation for agreeing to this? One of the X-Box's big pushing points (one you've brought up many times) is how easy it's supposed to be to port over to PC (or for PC developers to work with it). Why sign something that means you can't make a lot more money for a little more work?

Most powerful console, easier development tools than the other consoles, large installed base of high end equipment. Additions like a hard drive on ALL consoles, ethernet on ALL consoles, etc. always good.

Much of the games, if they are being released later on the PC, are being done so a while after the Xbox version comes out (again, games like Halo).

No matter how you look at it, the Xbox is a very good console to develop for. Especially when compared to the PS2 (which is supposedly a real pain in the ass to develop for). The Gamecube is also pretty easy to develop for (it uses OpenGL, IIRC) and a mainstream CPU architecture. But then again, it lacks things like a HD, ethernet, and Dolby Digital 5.1.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Originally posted by Asher
You should be thankful that Microsoft is losing $110 on every Xbox sold, then.

Idiots!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zer0_T0lerance
Idiots!

You would think that, wouldn't you.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Originally posted by Asher
You would think that, wouldn't you.

I don't think. I know.

[Asher]

The only idiots here are you and Wiglaf.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Originally posted by Asher


The only idiots here are you and Wiglaf.

Oh, really. Prove it, loser.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zer0_T0lerance
Oh, really. Prove it, loser.

Well, you just called Microsoft idiots for selling their console at a loss. Which would also mean Sony is a bunch of idiots for doing the same thing.

Then if you want further proof you can look at every comment you've made in this thread, too.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

btw, you should check out the Apolyton Death Match thread.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Originally posted by Asher
Well, you just called Microsoft idiots for selling their console at a loss. Which would also mean Sony is a bunch of idiots for doing the same thing.

They are.

Originally posted by Asher
Then if you want further proof you can look at every comment you've made in this thread, too.

That doesn't prove anything. C'mon Asher, you can do better that, wimp.

[Asher]

You have NO clue how businesses (consoles in particular) work, and you still try to call MS an idiot for taking a loss on the hardware sales. MS should hire you, that way you can stop them from doing things that don't make money as soon as you sell it.

You are the ultimate analyst, great work!

[Wiglaf]

First generation titles aren't very much improved later on. Look at the N64 - nothing big. Look at the PS2 - not much. Look at Dreamcast - only slight.

Consoles and computers have their uses. I'm not arguing that.

Whenever I want to see if a console will last long, I use this simple formula. You can't argue this one.

(Buttons on the controller) X (Number of built in 56k modems) X (Number of consoles company has released in the past that have sold more than 50,000 in their first week) + (State of Economy - [-100, depression], [-50, recession], [300 better)] / (Amount of times the color white or blue are on case or controller in different amounts and sections) / (Number of Letters in Company Name of Publisher) / (year of console release minus 666 minus 999) / (number of positive screenshots provided by preview and review sites on launch titles) . If the number is above 95, it's a good buy.

Works every time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
First generation titles aren't very much improved later on. Look at the N64 - nothing big. Look at the PS2 - not much. Look at Dreamcast - only slight.

PS2's is nothing big?!
Maybe you and Zero_Tolerance can make your own analyst firm, I'm sure you guys would do great in the real world.

(Buttons on the controller) X (Number of built in 56k modems) X (Number of consoles company has released in the past that have sold more than 50,000 in their first week) + (State of Economy - [-10, depression], [-5, recession], [3 better)] / (Amount of times the color white or blue are on case or controller in different amounts and sections) / (Number of Letters in Company Name of Publisher) / (year of console release minus 666 minus 999) / (number of positive screenshots provided by preview and review sites on launch titles) . If the number is above 95, it's a good buy.

Works every time.

Just so you know, by your formula, the Playstation 1 would have been a complete and utter flop.

[Wiglaf]

PS2's is nothing big?!
Maybe you and Zero_Tolerance can make your own analyst firm, I'm sure you guys would do great in the real world.

THE DIFFERENCE IN SECOND GEN TITLES (GAMES) FROM FIRST GEN ONES IN TERMS OF GRAPHICS IS NOTHING BIG.

Sorry, I've said it four times, and anyone who claims I'm stupid and misses something like that...argh. professional communist, by any chance?

Just so you know, by your formula, the Playstation 1 would have been a complete and utter flop.

You didn't even calculate it.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Originally posted by Asher
You have NO clue how businesses (consoles in particular) work, and you still try to call MS an idiot for taking a loss on the hardware sales.

Well at least Nintendo and Sega are not stupid enough to do such a thing!

Originally posted by Asher
MS should hire you, that way you can stop them from doing things that don't make money as soon as you sell it.

As long as Microsoft continues to use predatory business practices, I'll never work for them as long as I live. I don't know what it is, but it just sounds so sinful.

Originally posted by Asher
You are the ultimate analyst, great work!

Why, thank you?!