Gameplay > graphics, but when you release a system that's weaker than...

#41EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 8:58:10 AM
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
kissdadookie posted...
dylanbrandon286 posted...
KrisIsLyra posted...
...last gen's competition, that's going to cause serious problems. Why oh why did Nintendo get the cheapest and crappiest RAM they could find? At this rate, the only multiplats that the Wii U will get will be with the Vita.


Please tell me in what category it is worse then the PS3 and X360. I have both, and I have a gaming rig, so I know great graphics.

Don't worry, ill be waiting.


Let's all agree that the Wii U is no gaming PC set up. It's doesn't even hold a candle to a budget gaming PC set up that can be built for around $500-$600 shall we? That's going to be what the next Sony and MS boxes will turn out to be. So for all practical purposes, Wii U sits very comfortably with the current PS360 and will most probably do well for the year or two transitional period after the next Sony and MS boxes come out.


Lol. The next game consoles are not going to be on par of a gaming PC. I seriously don't know what leap people are expecting with the next Xbox and the PS4. The rumored specs indeed indicate that they will be more powerful than the Wii U but it won't be this huge generation leap and won't be worlds ahead of the Wii U as people are predicting unless the consoles are expensive at release.


DId I say HIGH END gaming PC? No, I said BUDGET gaming PC which you and I can build for $500-$600 dollars RETAIL PRICING FOR COMPONENTS. Sony and MS are obviously going to get huge component discounts thus bringing the cost for them to build a similar machine down dramatically. Now, this is important because a BUDGET $500-$600 GAMING PC which you and I can build RIGHT NOW, COMPLETELY smokes what can be done with current PS360/Wii U. That's how far we've come in technology. Also, remember that Sony and MS are going to have machines that will come in at roughly $400-$500 and they will be aiming to at best, break even on the machines AND they don't have to support a tablet controller, in other words, a machine that will retail around that price gives them A LOT OF ROOM to put in pretty robust hardware (and it's already pretty much a fact that MS and Sony will be using off the shelf commodity parts for their next machines rather than going with custom designed components).


Wouldn't you think that Sony and Microsoft would be looking to make profit first after selling at a loss the majority of this generation? This is why I don't believe the generation gap will be as large as you and others state. Hell, it's not as if this generation is even BAD.

And I'm sorry but I find $400-$500 dollars to be worth paying for a game console. Just my opinion. As a person who didn't even purchase the PS3 or 360 until they hit their $300 dollar price point, I feel $400- $500 dollars is entirely too much for a game console. At that point, you're getting into the range where you can build your own PC by just adding a couple hundred dollars more. Consoles should be based as they have been. Off of great games at affordable prices.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#42FoppePosted 11/21/2012 9:02:14 AM
I don't know...
The Mario Galaxy games didn't look that bad...
And those games were running on a system with a slower CPU, a slower GPU, a slower discreader, only 88 MB RAM that's slower than WIi U's RAM, etc.

It's not that much slower than the Xbox 360 RAM speed, so it wont be a major difference.
2 seconds longer map loading time?
Waiting one extra second before that enemy pops up around the corner?

If the game is built for Wii U, then we will not even see a difference in the game.
Consoles have always had differences in hardware, and the developers have always been forced to optimize the code specificly for each system.
Last gen we saw tons of bad PS3 ports that could have been better if they had spent a extra week optimizing the code for the PS3 system. Does that mean that the PS3 was weaker than the Xbox 360?
No, it means that programmers are lazy, and they have lost their "we are gamers that love to make games" spirit that they had in the past.

No, whining about the hardware wont help anything. What we need is better programmers.
---
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
#43kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 9:05:26 AM(edited)
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...

Wouldn't you think that Sony and Microsoft would be looking to make profit first after selling at a loss the majority of this generation? This is why I don't believe the generation gap will be as large as you and others state. Hell, it's not as if this generation is even BAD.

And I'm sorry but I find $400-$500 dollars to be worth paying for a game console. Just my opinion. As a person who didn't even purchase the PS3 or 360 until they hit their $300 dollar price point, I feel $400- $500 dollars is entirely too much for a game console. At that point, you're getting into the range where you can build your own PC by just adding a couple hundred dollars more. Consoles should be based as they have been. Off of great games at affordable prices.


They will make profit easily after the first year or two if they are using COMMODITY parts that YOU AND I would use to build a BUDGET gaming PC which will cost us $500-$600 to build. Even such a modest machine would completely blow away the current PS360/Wii U from a HARDWARE perspective. From a HARDWARE perspective, the leap in technology is pretty huge (that BUDGET gaming PC is easily 4-6 times more robust than the current PS360/Wii U).

See, you're assuming that it will cost Sony and MS the same as it cost them for the PS3 or 360. However, you need to remember that those machines were built with bespoke components. This time around, it's rumoured to be that Sony and MS are essentially going to just repackage PC parts into a home console (this makes it cheap because again, look at what YOU AND I can build for around $500, which would cost SOny and MS significantly less to build the same thing). If Sony and MS aims at bringing out consoles that costs $400-$500, the hardware is going to be phenomenal because they can get a WHOLE LOT of good hardware for a machine that sells for that price. They would also easily break even (as opposed as selling at a loss like the 360 and PS3 initially did). So yeah, VERY easy for them to give us very powerful hardware AND be able to reach positive profit margins after a year or so without losing much money in the period before that (because they can sell at cost).

Here's the thing, the hardware will be robust, the question is will devs take advantage of the hardware, but nonetheless, it's going to be powerful hardware because they can EASILY build very powerful hardware that is to be sold at $400-$500.
#44Tasty_mePosted 11/21/2012 9:05:16 AM
Yes this tc is a troll I'm reporting him now
#45EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 9:11:54 AM
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...

Wouldn't you think that Sony and Microsoft would be looking to make profit first after selling at a loss the majority of this generation? This is why I don't believe the generation gap will be as large as you and others state. Hell, it's not as if this generation is even BAD.

And I'm sorry but I find $400-$500 dollars to be worth paying for a game console. Just my opinion. As a person who didn't even purchase the PS3 or 360 until they hit their $300 dollar price point, I feel $400- $500 dollars is entirely too much for a game console. At that point, you're getting into the range where you can build your own PC by just adding a couple hundred dollars more. Consoles should be based as they have been. Off of great games at affordable prices.


They will make profit easily after the first year or two if they are using COMMODITY parts that YOU AND I would use to build a BUDGET gaming PC which will cost us $500-$600 to build. Even such a modest machine would completely blow away the current PS360/Wii U from a HARDWARE perspective. From a HARDWARE perspective, the leap in technology is pretty huge (that BUDGET gaming PC is easily 4-6 times more robust than the current PS360/Wii U).

See, you're assuming that it will cost Sony and MS the same as it cost them for the PS3 or 360. However, you need to remember that those machines were built with bespoke components. This time around, it's rumoured to be that Sony and MS are essentially going to just repackage PC parts into a home console (this makes it cheap because again, look at what YOU AND I can build for around $500, which would cost SOny and MS significantly less to build the same thing). If Sony and MS aims at bringing out consoles that costs $400-$500, the hardware is going to be phenomenal because they can get a WHOLE LOT of good hardware for a machine that sells for that price. They would also easily break even (as opposed as selling at a loss like the 360 and PS3 initially did). So yeah, VERY easy for them to give us very powerful hardware AND be able to reach positive profit margins after a year or so without losing much money in the period before that (because they can sell at cost).

Here's the thing, the hardware will be robust, the question is will devs take advantage of the hardware, but nonetheless, it's going to be powerful hardware because they can EASILY build very powerful hardware that is to be sold at $400-$500.


And that still goes back to my opinion that consoles are not worth it in that price range. If I can build that within $500 AND upgrade over time to make it a better PC, why even bother with consoles? My experience and power will make it better than anything on the market over time.

It doesn't matter to me anyway because I'm most likely going to purchase both the PS4 and the next Xbox anyway but not at the price of between $400-$500 dollars. Most likely after a price drop if that's the case. Firm believer in consoles should be based off of great games at affordable prices. Not consoles trying to become gaming PCs.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#46kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 9:16:34 AM
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...

Wouldn't you think that Sony and Microsoft would be looking to make profit first after selling at a loss the majority of this generation? This is why I don't believe the generation gap will be as large as you and others state. Hell, it's not as if this generation is even BAD.

And I'm sorry but I find $400-$500 dollars to be worth paying for a game console. Just my opinion. As a person who didn't even purchase the PS3 or 360 until they hit their $300 dollar price point, I feel $400- $500 dollars is entirely too much for a game console. At that point, you're getting into the range where you can build your own PC by just adding a couple hundred dollars more. Consoles should be based as they have been. Off of great games at affordable prices.


They will make profit easily after the first year or two if they are using COMMODITY parts that YOU AND I would use to build a BUDGET gaming PC which will cost us $500-$600 to build. Even such a modest machine would completely blow away the current PS360/Wii U from a HARDWARE perspective. From a HARDWARE perspective, the leap in technology is pretty huge (that BUDGET gaming PC is easily 4-6 times more robust than the current PS360/Wii U).

See, you're assuming that it will cost Sony and MS the same as it cost them for the PS3 or 360. However, you need to remember that those machines were built with bespoke components. This time around, it's rumoured to be that Sony and MS are essentially going to just repackage PC parts into a home console (this makes it cheap because again, look at what YOU AND I can build for around $500, which would cost SOny and MS significantly less to build the same thing). If Sony and MS aims at bringing out consoles that costs $400-$500, the hardware is going to be phenomenal because they can get a WHOLE LOT of good hardware for a machine that sells for that price. They would also easily break even (as opposed as selling at a loss like the 360 and PS3 initially did). So yeah, VERY easy for them to give us very powerful hardware AND be able to reach positive profit margins after a year or so without losing much money in the period before that (because they can sell at cost).

Here's the thing, the hardware will be robust, the question is will devs take advantage of the hardware, but nonetheless, it's going to be powerful hardware because they can EASILY build very powerful hardware that is to be sold at $400-$500.


And that still goes back to my opinion that consoles are not worth it in that price range. If I can build that within $500 AND upgrade over time to make it a better PC, why even bother with consoles? My experience and power will make it better than anything on the market over time.

It doesn't matter to me anyway because I'm most likely going to purchase both the PS4 and the next Xbox anyway but not at the price of between $400-$500 dollars. Most likely after a price drop if that's the case. Firm believer in consoles should be based off of great games at affordable prices. Not consoles trying to become gaming PCs.


Then stick with your PC. However, the general video gamer, we like the convenience of playing on our TV with less hassle with having to configure our system. We like the fact that we can watch a movie on our machine, then use Netflix, then Hulu, then pop in a game, then download a new game, all from the comfort of our living room with minimum set up and just a small controller.

You're like the type that refuses to acknowledge all the benefits of a Apple product just based on the spec sheet. That's fine, but you're an outlier.
#47sockroxPosted 11/21/2012 9:25:12 AM
I can't watch a movie from my computer, or download games... or.. even hook it up to a 60 inch HDTV and use it?

Plugging in one wire is hard?
What?

I own EVERY current Gen system, even some past, I also own a Gaming PC that more or less eats EVERY game I throw at it.

So, you are saying its less work to ... play on an xbox?

What?
#48JackalfoxPosted 11/21/2012 9:32:31 AM
gumbyxcore99 posted...
i don't understand all these people attacking the ram. like did ram ever matter to anybody before they found out the wii u had some slow ram?


... Are you daft, or do you just appear that way to people for fun?
---
Now Playing - Assassin's Creed III (360), Assassin's Creed (360), Call of Duty: Black Ops II (360)
#49kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 9:39:21 AM
sockrox posted...
I can't watch a movie from my computer, or download games... or.. even hook it up to a 60 inch HDTV and use it?

Plugging in one wire is hard?
What?

I own EVERY current Gen system, even some past, I also own a Gaming PC that more or less eats EVERY game I throw at it.

So, you are saying its less work to ... play on an xbox?

What?


Yes, it is hard, incredibly hard for MOST PEOPLE. It's not simply plugging in a wire. Just dealing with what resolution to use is like a complex rocket science question for the general consumer who plays video games.

Yes, plugging in a console is MUCH easier than hooking up a PC to your TV. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.
#50SolisPosted 11/21/2012 9:39:33 AM
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
And I'm sorry but I find $400-$500 dollars to be worth paying for a game console. Just my opinion. As a person who didn't even purchase the PS3 or 360 until they hit their $300 dollar price point, I feel $400- $500 dollars is entirely too much for a game console. At that point, you're getting into the range where you can build your own PC by just adding a couple hundred dollars more. Consoles should be based as they have been. Off of great games at affordable prices.

But that's the real difference: if a console starts out expensive, it can eventually become cheap enough that almost anyone can afford it. If a console starts out with very weak capabilities however, then it will have that burden for the entire rest of its existence and games will be negatively affected from launch onwards.

Sure, they could've made the PS3 only marginally more powerful than the PS2 and launched it for $300, but then what would even be the point of getting a new console when it's practically just as capable as one you already have that cost less?
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review