Ms next console should leave pc graphics trying to catch up for a year or two.

Well you could see the 360 has been ahead of PC graphics for over a year now...no game on PC has yet to pass Gears of War,IMO anyways.That will sood change with Crysis though.

killab2oo5

Several games have passed that particular title. All there is to Gears graphics is overdone normal mapping and small areas. Stalker kills it for sure.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

Well you could see the 360 has been ahead of PC graphics for over a year now...no game on PC has yet to pass Gears of War,IMO anyways.That will sood change with Crysis though.

Runningflame570

Several games have passed that particular title. All there is to Gears graphics is overdone normal mapping and small areas. Stalker kills it for sure.

Ive only seen Stalker screenshots,I thought the graphics were nothing special.The lighting especially was beautiful,the best lighting Ive ever seen,other than that I would say Gears.Not being a fanboy...thats just my honest opinion.killab2oo5

The character models are really bad in stalker by comparison, pretty much everything else is superior (at least on high settings).

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

No_worrys_mate

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]Ive only seen Stalker screenshots,I thought the graphics were nothing special.The lighting especially was beautiful,the best lighting Ive ever seen,other than that I would say Gears.Not being a fanboy...thats just my honest opinion.Runningflame570

The character models are really bad in stalker by comparison, pretty much everything else is superior (at least on high settings).

[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

Danm_999

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Who said their going to re-upgrade their 360, I simply said if they develop their cpu them selfes in house and per haps just get a few people from Ibm, Intel to help them out then it can lower the costs of the 720 which means they can focus on other areas like more ram and a better gpu.No_worrys_mate

Well, I don't know if English is your 1st language, because if it isn't I apologize for saying it's extremely difficult to comprehend what your saying. I assumed you wouldn't be so flippant as to not consider the possibility that PCs would also have advanced when the 720 was released and that consoles will never catch up to PCs in terms of hardware due to their static nature.

Secondly, You dont make sense, It like the Wow users, If your not level 70 you dont have an opinion, But it dosent still mean i cant kick you arse, Thirdly- As far as im concerned and what ever elese you say its all rubbish and you dont know anything, The only people ill trust is the people who are behind the Cpus, Gpus of Ms, Ati and Ibm.

No_worrys_mate

Ok, you do that. I'm not patronizing you because your not Level 70 with Epic Tier 3 gear, I'm patronizing you because repeadtedly you've displayed a complete lack of understanding and inability to back up your confusing assertions with any sliver of evidence.

I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.No_worrys_mate

Question: Since when is Microsoft more proficient at engineering CPUs than IBM, Intel, and AMD? Since when were they a hardware company, anyway?

Here's a news flash: IBM custom designing a CPU for you is better than designing on yourself. Period.

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]so whens this new MS console coming out? I want to know the exact date that they'll drop 360 support.Runningflame570

Knowing them? 2009

Zing!

Who said their going to re-upgrade their 360, I simply said if they develop their cpu them selfes in house and per haps just get a few people from Ibm, Intel to help them out then it can lower the costs of the 720 which means they can focus on other areas like more ram and a better gpu.No_worrys_mate

Well, I don't know if English is your 1st language, because if it isn't I apologize for saying it's extremely difficult to comprehend what your saying. I assumed you wouldn't be so flippant as to not consider the possibility that PCs would also have advanced when the 720 was released and that consoles will never catch up to PCs in terms of hardware due to their static nature.

Secondly, You dont make sense, It like the Wow users, If your not level 70 you dont have an opinion, But it dosent still mean i cant kick you arse, Thirdly- As far as im concerned and what ever elese you say its all rubbish and you dont know anything, The only people ill trust is the people who are behind the Cpus, Gpus of Ms, Ati and Ibm.

No_worrys_mate

Ok, you do that. I'm not patronizing you because your not Level 70 with Epic Tier 3 gear, I'm patronizing you because repeadtedly you've displayed a complete lack of understanding and inability to back up your confusing assertions with any sliver of evidence.

[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

Danm_999

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Im not talking about power really, My main reason for this topic is to show that Ms could have a bigger jump in power next gen then this and that the top teir game aka Crysis would be able to come to consoles next gen before the pc dances of into the sun set, Obviously hermits will come in here big and mighty with numbers but i couldnt give a toss and from what ive seen its taken two years for the 360 to be not able to play a pc game and we dont know for shure it cant.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

No_worrys_mate

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Im not talking about power really, My main reason for this topic is to show that Ms could have a bigger jump in power next gen then this and that the top teir game aka Crysis would be able to come to consoles next gen before the pc dances of into the sun set, Obviously hermits will come in here big and mighty with numbers but i couldnt give a toss and from what ive seen its taken two years for the 360 to be not able to play a pc game and we dont know for shure it cant.

We do know for sure it can't. Crytek has said so.

And Crysis really isn't the first game consoles can't do, I imagine they'd struggle with SupCom, STALKER or even WOW BC.

[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

Danm_999

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Im not talking about power really, My main reason for this topic is to show that Ms could have a bigger jump in power next gen then this and that the top teir game aka Crysis would be able to come to consoles next gen before the pc dances of into the sun set, Obviously hermits will come in here big and mighty with numbers but i couldnt give a toss and from what ive seen its taken two years for the 360 to be not able to play a pc game and we dont know for shure it cant.

We do know for sure it can't. Crytek has said so.

And Crysis really isn't the first game consoles can't do, I imagine they'd struggle with SupCom, STALKER or even WOW BC.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

killab2oo5

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Im not talking about power really, My main reason for this topic is to show that Ms could have a bigger jump in power next gen then this and that the top teir game aka Crysis would be able to come to consoles next gen before the pc dances of into the sun set, Obviously hermits will come in here big and mighty with numbers but i couldnt give a toss and from what ive seen its taken two years for the 360 to be not able to play a pc game and we dont know for shure it cant.

We do know for sure it can't. Crytek has said so.

And Crysis really isn't the first game consoles can't do, I imagine they'd struggle with SupCom, STALKER or even WOW BC.

Nope, the 360 would struggle massively with WoW, it's a very RAM intensive game and requires a lot of HDD space (and it's ever growing due to the expansion and new content). Not to mention the lack of KB/M support.

Graphically it'd have no issues.

[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

Danm_999

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Im not talking about power really, My main reason for this topic is to show that Ms could have a bigger jump in power next gen then this and that the top teir game aka Crysis would be able to come to consoles next gen before the pc dances of into the sun set, Obviously hermits will come in here big and mighty with numbers but i couldnt give a toss and from what ive seen its taken two years for the 360 to be not able to play a pc game and we dont know for shure it cant.

We do know for sure it can't. Crytek has said so.

And Crysis really isn't the first game consoles can't do, I imagine they'd struggle with SupCom, STALKER or even WOW BC.

Come on Wow Bc, Are you real, I think the 360 would struggle at Sc just because its cpu based but i still think that Staker is capable, I dont know how well it would look but i still think it would look good and run good but anyways i think theirs better looking games than stalker coming out anyways.

Come on Wow Bc, Are you real, I think the 360 would struggle at Sc just because its cpu based but i still think that Staker is capable, I dont know howwell itw ouldlook but i still think it wouldlook good and run good but anyways i think theirs better looking games than stalker coming out anyways.

No_worrys_mate

Yes, I'm for real about WoW. It wouldn't be a GPU or CPU issue, it'd be a RAM/HDD/Input issue.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

Yeah but 2 year old hardware is able to run Geow so this gets back to my first argument, Wheres the games that i cant play that arnt cross platform with the 3602 years later, And hopefully Ms knows what their doing and create a better console for cheaper because of the cpu being done in house and being able to play cross pc/360 games longer, What im saying is they could of made a better system and we would of been able to play Crysis on consoles with no trouble and this is one way they can do it for next gen.

Danm_999

So can the PC though. Epic called the 360 a low to mid range PC. The fact that Gears of War runs on the 360 is not because the 360 is more powerful, simply because they chose to put it there.

Also, no, even if there was a better GPU in the 360 Crytek says it can't run Crysis on consoles because they lack the HDD and RAM to run it's dynamic gameplay.

Im not talking about power really, My main reason for this topic is to show that Ms could have a bigger jump in power next gen then this and that the top teir game aka Crysis would be able to come to consoles next gen before the pc dances of into the sun set, Obviously hermits will come in here big and mighty with numbers but i couldnt give a toss and from what ive seen its taken two years for the 360 to be not able to play a pc game and we dont know for shure it cant.

We do know for sure it can't. Crytek has said so.

And Crysis really isn't the first game consoles can't do, I imagine they'd struggle with SupCom, STALKER or even WOW BC.

Nope, the 360 would struggle massively with WoW, it's a very RAM intensive game and requires a lot of HDD space (and it's ever growing due to the expansion and new content). Not to mention the lack of KB/M support.

Graphically it'd have no issues.

So Wow Bc is more needs more Ramthan Oblivion?, Hd space shouldnt be an problem and if it was on the ps3 it would have Br, But the major reasons imoits not on their isbecause of the internet but i think the ps3 and i think 360 handle both keyboard and mouse support.

[QUOTE="Tasman_basic"]Yes their other CPUs have been great successes haven't they?No_worrys_mate

Ibm made it not Ms, Which means profits go to Ibm.

I was mostly going with how they've never done it before so to get excited inst such a good idea. Also Intel made the Xbox chip IBM only made the 360 chip so well /lexlutherWRONG

As for input, while the PS3 supports the KB/M, it's not standard. And the 360 doesn't support it at all. As well, console players wouldn't be able to use things like custom UIs, or programs like Vent or TS, essentially to WoW.

It's not going to work as is.

Danm_999

EDIT:Found it.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

As for input, while the PS3 supports the KB/M, it's not standard. And the 360 doesn't support it at all. As well, console players wouldn't be able to use things like custom UIs, or programs like Vent or TS, essentially to WoW.

It's not going to work as is.

killab2oo5

The problem then of course is that WoW for 360 would need KB/M standard.

And KB/M is considered the most basic and inefficient method of communicating in WoW alongside voice chat.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

As for input, while the PS3 supports the KB/M, it's not standard. And the 360 doesn't support it at all. As well, console players wouldn't be able to use things like custom UIs, or programs like Vent or TS, essentially to WoW.

It's not going to work as is.

Danm_999

The problem then of course is that WoW for 360 would need KB/M standard.

And KB/M is considered the most basic and inefficient method of communicating in WoW alongside voice chat.

P.S.-Just for the record,I have no hopes at all for WoW going to 360,only thinking possibilites.WoW on 360 isnt impossible.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

As for input, while the PS3 supports the KB/M, it's not standard. And the 360 doesn't support it at all. As well, console players wouldn't be able to use things like custom UIs, or programs like Vent or TS, essentially to WoW.

It's not going to work as is.

killab2oo5

The problem then of course is that WoW for 360 would need KB/M standard.

And KB/M is considered the most basic and inefficient method of communicating in WoW alongside voice chat.

P.S.-Just for the record,I have no hopes at all for WoW going to 360,only thinking possibilites.WoW on 360 isnt impossible.

Never said it was, I said it would struggle massively, and be impossible in it's current form.

But even if they did get it working, playing WoW on a 360 or PS3 would suck beyond belief, so much so people would probably get it on PC. Let's face it, it doesn't require a very good PC to run.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

As for input, while the PS3 supports the KB/M, it's not standard. And the 360 doesn't support it at all. As well, console players wouldn't be able to use things like custom UIs, or programs like Vent or TS, essentially to WoW.

It's not going to work as is.

Danm_999

The problem then of course is that WoW for 360 would need KB/M standard.

And KB/M is considered the most basic and inefficient method of communicating in WoW alongside voice chat.

P.S.-Just for the record,I have no hopes at all for WoW going to 360,only thinking possibilites.WoW on 360 isnt impossible.

Never said it was, I said it would struggle massively, and be impossible in it's current form.

But even if they did get it working, playing WoW on a 360 or PS3 would suck beyond belief, so much so people would probably get it on PC. Let's face it, it doesn't require a very good PC to run.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

As for input, while the PS3 supports the KB/M, it's not standard. And the 360 doesn't support it at all. As well, console players wouldn't be able to use things like custom UIs, or programs like Vent or TS, essentially to WoW.

It's not going to work as is.

killab2oo5

The problem then of course is that WoW for 360 would need KB/M standard.

And KB/M is considered the most basic and inefficient method of communicating in WoW alongside voice chat.

P.S.-Just for the record,I have no hopes at all for WoW going to 360,only thinking possibilites.WoW on 360 isnt impossible.

Never said it was, I said it would struggle massively, and be impossible in it's current form.

But even if they did get it working, playing WoW on a 360 or PS3 would suck beyond belief, so much so people would probably get it on PC. Let's face it, it doesn't require a very good PC to run.

What I'm saying is, you'd need to find a way around consoles RAM bottlenecks, because you can't necessarily optimize the game in some sections (I'm thinking the Vaelastrasz fight, you just need RAM), you'd need to find a way to ameloriate the large content space required with small and sometimes non existant console hard-drives, you'd need to support KB/M standard with each copy and you'd need to find a way around the lack of custom UIs and use of TS/Vent that makes WoW playable.

If you could overcome all those hurdles, I suppose it'd work. But those hurdles can't be overcome IMO.

What I'm saying is, you'd need to find a way around consoles RAM bottlenecks, because you can't necessarily optimize the game in some sections (I'm thinking the Vaelastrasz fight, you just need RAM), you'd need to find a way to ameloriate the large content space required with small and sometimes non existant console hard-drives, you'd need to support KB/M standard with each copy and you'd need to find a way around the lack of custom UIs and use of TS/Vent that makes WoW playable.

If you could overcome all those hurdles, I suppose it'd work. But those hurdles can't be overcome IMO.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]What I'm saying is, you'd need to find a way around consoles RAM bottlenecks, because you can't necessarily optimize the game in some sections (I'm thinking the Vaelastrasz fight, you just need RAM), you'd need to find a way to ameloriate the large content space required with small and sometimes non existant console hard-drives, you'd need to support KB/M standard with each copy and you'd need to find a way around the lack of custom UIs and use of TS/Vent that makes WoW playable.

If you could overcome all those hurdles, I suppose it'd work. But those hurdles can't be overcome IMO.

killab2oo5

Well I don't think your soloutions are adequate. Blizzard games are very well optimized, they can't optimize any further when consoles have RAM bottlenecks.

And you didn't give a way to get the past the lack of user made content and outside voice chats.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]What I'm saying is, you'd need to find a way around consoles RAM bottlenecks, because you can't necessarily optimize the game in some sections (I'm thinking the Vaelastrasz fight, you just need RAM), you'd need to find a way to ameloriate the large content space required with small and sometimes non existant console hard-drives, you'd need to support KB/M standard with each copy and you'd need to find a way around the lack of custom UIs and use of TS/Vent that makes WoW playable.

If you could overcome all those hurdles, I suppose it'd work. But those hurdles can't be overcome IMO.

Danm_999

Well I don't think your soloutions are adequate. Blizzard games are very well optimized, they can't optimize any further when consoles have RAM bottlenecks.

And you didn't give a way to get the past the lack of user made content and outside voice chats.

EDIT:

An even better example...Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory for both Xbox and PC compared.CT was,IMO,the best looking game on Xbox.

Xbox/PC(minimum)

64MB RAM/256MB RAM

-Requies 4x more RAM...at minimum,I havent played CT on PC but wouldnt doubt that the Xbox version would look better than the PC version at low settings.

733-Celeron/PentiumIII 1.4GHz

-Again...another significant difference,the PC needs 2x the speed than the Xbox.Ofcourse,clock speeds dont really matter now adays,but I think we both agree that a PentiumIII 1.4GHz leaves a 733-Celeron pretty far behind.

DirectX 8.1/DirectX 9.0c

I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.No_worrys_mate

the moment m$ relased the specs for it, it would be a whole gen behind intel/amd and thats 6 months before the system even comes out, same goes with the gpu, m$ is a software company and has no chance against the big guns in the chip market

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate

Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.

one problem, intel owns the cpu market and m$ has nothing in it, a first time cpu would cost them a fortune as oposited to very little for a old intel cou that would leave it light years behind

I had the 7 day trial for WoW...i NEVER EVER EVER met ANYONE who "voice chatted",never even heard of it.killab2oo5

Oh my! The 7 day trial. I'm sorry sir, I didn't realise the level of experience and authority you must have when dealing with WoW.

Ok, enough sarcasm. Let me lay it down for you. In the 7 days you played, ie the lowbie levels, you wouldn't have got to Level 60 (or 70 now). When you get there, where the majority of players are, and where you spend the vast majority of your playing time, you need voice chat to coordinate PvP and PvE scale encounters. Ask anyone in the higher levels who PvPs frequently or PvEs raid encounters. Voice chat is invaluable.

Why cant 360 users voice chat?We have mics?Why cant we,like in every other MMO,just type?killab2oo5

Because you can't access the services 95% of all players are going to be using for voice chat, Ventrillo and TeamSpeak. Blizzard offers NO internal voice chat, it's all managed by external programs used for the majority of PC online gaming which XBL and PSN simply cannot connect to. Sure, maybe if Blizzard felt good enough to set up voice chat internally for you (which they wouldn't) or XBL hosted if for you, you could only voice chat with other 360 players. Completely defeats the point.

Also...why do you think consoles will need as much RAM?Just an example...on PC,the minimum requirements for Halo was 128 MB system ram(2x as much as Xbox's 64mb),DirectX 9(xbox uses DX7 or 8...cant remember),and a 933MHz Pentium-III processor(Original Xbox had a 733MHz Celeron(coppermine based)...yes the Xbox's processor is MUCH weaker than a Pentium3 in all areas,and lets not forget that Halo:CE on Xbox did look better than on PC at minimum settings(I have both versions...you could download a Halo demo im sure to see for yourself.)What makes you think such requirements on PC will be need with consoles?Ill find more examples.

EDIT:

An even better example...Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory for both Xbox and PC compared.CT was,IMO,the best looking game on Xbox.

Xbox/PC(minimum)

64MB RAM/256MB RAM

-Requies 4x more RAM...at minimum,I havent played CT on PC but wouldnt doubt that the Xbox version would look better than the PC version at low settings.

733-Celeron/PentiumIII 1.4GHz

-Again...another significant difference,the PC needs 2x the speed than the Xbox.Ofcourse,clock speeds dont really matter now adays,but I think we both agree that a PentiumIII 1.4GHz leaves a 733-Celeron pretty far behind.

DirectX 8.1/DirectX 9.0c

killab2oo5

Because WoW is an extremely RAM intensive game, GameSpot admits it in their own performance guide, "World of Warcraft still loves memory".

You will not need as much as the PC true (since your not running an OS), but you'll need a comparible amount, problematized by the bottlenecks a console faces in that department (it's one of the reasons Crytek says Crysis itself cannot work on consoles).

While those other games have been well optimised for consoles, WoW is already very well optimised, as is limited by the fact that developers really cannot account for most of the online activities in optimisation, and that it is an MMMORPG (the extra M is another Massive, because frankly it's so much bigger than every other MMORPG) is part of the reason it needs more RAM than your average game.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

I had the 7 day trial for WoW...i NEVER EVER EVER met ANYONE who "voice chatted",never even heard of it.Danm_999

Oh my! The 7 day trial. I'm sorry sir, I didn't realise the level of experience and authority you must have when dealing with WoW.

Ok, enough sarcasm. Let me lay it down for you. In the 7 days you played, ie the lowbie levels, you wouldn't have got to Level 60 (or 70 now). When you get there, where the majority of players are, and where you spend the vast majority of your playing time, you need voice chat to coordinate PvP and PvE scale encounters. Ask anyone in the higher levels who PvPs frequently or PvEs raid encounters. Voice chat is invaluable.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"] Why cant 360 users voice chat?We have mics?Why cant we,like in every other MMO,just type?Danm_999

Because you can't access the services 95% of all players are going to be using for voice chat, Ventrillo and TeamSpeak. Blizzard offers NO internal voice chat, it's all managed by external programs used for the majority of PC online gaming which XBL and PSN simply cannot connect to. Sure, maybe if Blizzard felt good enough to set up voice chat internally for you (which they wouldn't) or XBL hosted if for you, you could only voice chat with other 360 players. Completely defeats the point.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"] Also...why do you think consoles will need as much RAM?Just an example...on PC,the minimum requirements for Halo was 128 MB system ram(2x as much as Xbox's 64mb),DirectX 9(xbox uses DX7 or 8...cant remember),and a 933MHz Pentium-III processor(Original Xbox had a 733MHz Celeron(coppermine based)...yes the Xbox's processor is MUCH weaker than a Pentium3 in all areas,and lets not forget that Halo:CE on Xbox did look better than on PC at minimum settings(I have both versions...you could download a Halo demo im sure to see for yourself.)What makes you think such requirements on PC will be need with consoles?Ill find more examples.

EDIT:

An even better example...Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory for both Xbox and PC compared.CT was,IMO,the best looking game on Xbox.

Xbox/PC(minimum)

64MB RAM/256MB RAM

-Requies 4x more RAM...at minimum,I havent played CT on PC but wouldnt doubt that the Xbox version would look better than the PC version at low settings.

733-Celeron/PentiumIII 1.4GHz

-Again...another significant difference,the PC needs 2x the speed than the Xbox.Ofcourse,clock speeds dont really matter now adays,but I think we both agree that a PentiumIII 1.4GHz leaves a 733-Celeron pretty far behind.

DirectX 8.1/DirectX 9.0c

Danm_999

Because WoW is an extremely RAM intensive game, GameSpot admits it in their own performance guide, "World of Warcraft still loves memory".

You will not need as much as the PC true (since your not running an OS), but you'll need a comparible amount, problematized by the bottlenecks a console faces in that department (it's one of the reasons Crytek says Crysis itself cannot work on consoles).

While those other games have been well optimised for consoles, WoW is already very well optimised, as is limited by the fact that developers really cannot account for most of the online activities in optimisation, and that it is an MMMORPG (the extra M is another Massive, because frankly it's so much bigger than every other MMORPG) is part of the reason it needs more RAM than your average game.

EDIT:Your only gonna repeat yourself...or move on to some other topic because you can disprove my "statements" like everyone else does...and like youve been doing,so im out.x_x I might check back later tomorrow.

Haha are you joking or something? Lazy_Boy88

[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.imprezawrx500

Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.

one problem, intel owns the cpu market and m$ has nothing in it, a first time cpu would cost them a fortune as oposited to very little for a old intel cou that would leave it light years behind

All i know is thats what Ms said, It could be where they make them up in house on old intel or ibm cpus which i gather is the case, Its probaly that with Ms out sourcing the 360s cpu? this gen.

PC's do not onyl run a background OS,theres virus protecters,firewalls..you get the point...why again would consoles need all this RAM?O.o Splinter:Chaos Theory needed 4x more RAM on PC than on Xbox just to run it on low settings.Like ive been saying...WoW could definately run on 360 and PS3.killab2oo5

As I've said, MMORPGs, particularly WoW, aren't exactly like Splinter Cell. I've told you this repeatedly, and if you want to do some independant research, go ahead. You'll find that WoW is a very RAM intensive program on PC, which will translate onto consoles due to the nature of the software.

The Crysis thing also...you "hermits" say that you dont need a top of the end PC(expensive) to run Crysis...saying it can run fine on VERY dated PC's,but when its brought up that it can be done on a consoles(they ARE much better than low end PC's)you all get very defensive.x_x I dont even believe the "Crysis can be dont on consoles" arguement anymore due to just that.If its possibly on low-end PC's at DX9 and still looks and runs beautifully like every other "hermit" says,its very much possible on consoles.killab2oo5

Hermits are saying what Crytek is telling us. Crytek is telling us that 2-3 year old computers can run Crysis. They also said it can't run on consoles.

So it's what developers telling us, not Hermits. Of course, Crytek later revised Crysis could be done, as long as it wasn't a direct port and changed about (think from Far Cry to Far Cry Instincts, irrelevant since the engine CAN be used on consoles), but the point still stands.

EDIT:Your only gonna repeat yourself...or move on to some other topic because you can disprove my "statements" like everyone else does...and like youve been doing,so im out.x_x I might check back later tomorrow.

killab2oo5

Your one to talk. FPS and TPS are completely different to MMORPGs, yet you expect to refute all the irrelevant evidence you've provided. I'm not going to.

As well, you never addressed my point about voice chat services properly (you just said your 7 day experience told you it wasn't necessary lol), you never looked at the problem of HDDs, and you never really touched the problem of the prevelance of the KB/M.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

EDIT:Your only gonna repeat yourself...or move on to some other topic because you can disprove my "statements" like everyone else does...and like youve been doing,so im out.x_x I might check back later tomorrow.

Danm_999

Your one to talk. FPS and TPS are completely different to MMORPGs, yet you expect to refute all the irrelevant evidence you've provided. I'm not going to.

As well, you never addressed my point about voice chat services properly (you just said your 7 day experience told you it wasn't necessary lol), you never looked at the problem of HDDs, and you never really touched the problem of the prevelance of the KB/M.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

PC's do not onyl run a background OS,theres virus protecters,firewalls..you get the point...why again would consoles need all this RAM?O.o Splinter:Chaos Theory needed 4x more RAM on PC than on Xbox just to run it on low settings.Like ive been saying...WoW could definately run on 360 and PS3.Danm_999

As I've said, MMORPGs, particularly WoW, aren't exactly like Splinter Cell. I've told you this repeatedly, and if you want to do some independant research, go ahead. You'll find that WoW is a very RAM intensive program on PC, which will translate onto consoles due to the nature of the software.

The Crysis thing also...you "hermits" say that you dont need a top of the end PC(expensive) to run Crysis...saying it can run fine on VERY dated PC's,but when its brought up that it can be done on a consoles(they ARE much better than low end PC's)you all get very defensive.x_x I dont even believe the "Crysis can be dont on consoles" arguement anymore due to just that.If its possibly on low-end PC's at DX9 and still looks and runs beautifully like every other "hermit" says,its very much possible on consoles.killab2oo5

Hermits are saying what Crytek is telling us. Crytek is telling us that 2-3 year old computers can run Crysis. They also said it can't run on consoles.

So it's what developers telling us, not Hermits. Of course, Crytek later revised Crysis could be done, as long as it wasn't a direct port and changed about (think from Far Cry to Far Cry Instincts, irrelevant since the engine CAN be used on consoles), but the point still stands.

Crysis cannot be done on console.

An FPS on rails using the engine with cut down graphics and gameplay elements, with an autoaim chucked in for the kiddies could run on console. But it would not be Crysis.

You could call it 'Crysis Lite'

I'm going to go ahead and stick one of these (MISREAD) each time you've misread me and decided my argument for me so you find it easier to answer back.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Hermits are saying what Crytek is telling us. Crytek is telling us that 2-3 year old computers can run Crysis. They also said it can't run on consoles.

So it's what developers telling us, not Hermits. Of course, Crytek later revised Crysis could be done, as long as it wasn't a direct port and changed about (think from Far Cry to Far Cry Instincts, irrelevant since the engine CAN be used on consoles), but the point still stands.

killab2oo5

No, I proved Crysis in it's current form cannot be done on consoles. I proved the CryEngine 2 can be done and consoles, therefore a spin off is possible. MISREAD

Sawanother postafter posting in another topic...First...I made my point saying the 360 has been ahead of the PC...because Gears is the best game out on any console right now.killab2oo5

Well this is really poor logic. By Epic's own admission the 360 is a low to mid range PC. Just because Gears of War is the best looking game doesn't mean the 360 is ahead of the PC.

You said Stalker beats Gears...I told you Ive seen screens and overall Gears is better(just shortening)...killab2oo5

Excuse me, I never said that. I said the 360 would struggle running STALKER (my basis was that it had open ended and larger scale gameplay, with visuals comparable to Gears, thought not better. MISREAD

eh,so you move on to talking about how kb/m isnt supported on consoles...thenWoW and w/e else cant be done on consoles...killab2oo5

No, the TC said there weren't any games on PC that couldn't be done on consoles. I answered back by saying games like SupCom and WoW would be problematic on consoles. I never said they couldn't be done, though I did say they couldn't be done as things were. MISREAD

after hours of "debating" were now onto Crysis.O.o Who always starts the new topic?You.killab2oo5

I didn't start the new topic of Crysis, I used Crysis as an example in my larger argument about console bottlenecks in RAM and HDD. If you see a point in my argument, decide to focus on that point, then accuse me of changing the topic, you've got a problem.

Ive said,I know 3 times...Ive yet to hear of voice chatting over WoW.I have alot of "pc gaming" friends...when in particular whos a WoW freak,none of them mentions voice chatting.Care to show evidence of the 95% using voice chat?killab2oo5

Again. MISREAD. You claim you know a lot about WoW because you have a friend and went on a 7 day trial. Well, I played for over 2 years, I think I've got you outstripped in the knowledge of WoW department.

Now, I never claimed 95% of WoW players use voice chat. That'd be stupid of me. What I said was, 360 players:

can't access the services 95% of all players are going to be using for voice chatDanm_999

This means 95% of players who voice chat in WoW either use TS or Vent, not that 95% of WoWers use voice chat.

And FYI, yes I did make up the figure that 95% of voice chat on WoW is TS/Vent, but really 100% of chat programs can't be used on 360.

Now the HDD's...ive told you...WoW is ONLY 10GB big,I have 11GB on my HDD.You can reformat your HDD(I heard) so that you do get the full 20GB's.It could also be noted on the retail box of how much space you would need.Dont they do this with every PC game?(Were only speaking possibilities)Danm_999

Fine if you've got a 360 Elite or Premium PS3, not if you have a Core or Premium 360 or Basic PS3. That was my point, most of the different console configurations would have about half of their HDDs consumed by WoW, and it would grow in size with each patch and expansion.

The KB/M thing...I already linked you to (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/747/747585p1.html). Also,its not hard for Microsoft to just make an update for 360's to support KB/M,right?I mean...they released an update for 1080p to be supported...it cant be much harder.Danm_999

The reason Blizzard isn't going ahead with WoW on consoles is in part that these aren't standard. They aren't even official. WoW utilizes KB/M as the most basic form of interface, if your asking them to release a game on the premise that everyone will switch to a non-standardised and unofficial interface, your joking.

And if the firmware update is so easy, why hasn't it already been done?

Ive touced up on evelrything youve brought up atleast three times,Danm_999

Nope, you never discussed the lack of custom UIs or mods that make the game bearable. Guess you didn't understand that one so you decided to gloss over it.

and then you just change the subject again.Oh yeah,the voice chat thing.Since were speaking possibilites,is it hard for Microsoft to release an update for the support of chatrooms also?Danm_999

Again, I've never changed the subject, I've only responded to the TC, and then responded with you when you decided to cherry pick one of my points and argue against it.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

So it's what developers telling us, not Hermits. Of course, Crytek later revised Crysis could be done, as long as it wasn't a direct port and changed about (think from Far Cry to Far Cry Instincts, irrelevant since the engine CAN be used on consoles), but the point still stands.killab2oo5

Crysis can be done on any console - hell, even the DS...but only if the game was ported to a crappy engine with none of its awesome features. It wouldn't be a direct port - it would, however, be the same 'game'...but why would you want a dumbed down port missing half of its features?

[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate

Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.

Err, what?

Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.

Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.

Firstly- Who said Ati, Secondly- You think ati is a not for profit company, Thidly- I havent seen a game really to show up Geow yet after 1 and half years after the 360 launch so why isnt it possible, Fourthly- Ms made their minds up to develop their cpus, Its obviously going to be cheaper and im shure they know what they are doing, Lastly- You say they dont have the power, What is that, You dont know the in sides and outs of Ms to say what Ms can do or can not.

GeoW isnt the technical marvel that people make it out to be. lets take a quick look at that, notice how at any given time, there are only about 1-2 guys on screen. the character models are good, but look at the draw distance, it sucks. next is game length, short and shallow. the physics are terrible, walk over a dead body, its in one of the game videos i saw, they rolled the body like it was a rag doll just by walking over it. online is pathetic at best. take a system that cant handle graphics like that, and you have to give up some things to make it happen. you give up draw distance, game length, the amount of things that can happen on screen, physics and online.

Crysis is going to blow this out of the water, and if you ask me stalker looks better than gears easy. MS cant make their own hardware, period. they just cant do it.

Ms cant do it you say?, Am i talking to a brick wall or something, Its already been annouced that they are doing their cpu in house, Secondly Crysis is coming out two years after Geow, Thirdly- Whos says stalker looks better than Geow, What you, Oh ok, Yeah whatever man, So basicaly you going to diss a game because it doesent take place on a huge map, I cant be bothed go into the rest because you going into things that dont matter, I mean online rubbish, What the hell is that, If your talking about gameplay wise then i agree with you but it hasnt got anything to do with system hardware, Game length wtf, Yeah hardware has something to do with that, Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Crysis is coming out in Q4 of 2007, that's 1 year after the release of GeoW. It's not like PC hardware isn't capable of running games that look much better than GeoW, it's that all the game that do look better got delayed in 2006, and put off until 2007. GeoW is a very good lookin game, yet it pays for it in certain areas, like the other poster said. It has very small, linear maps. There are very few enemies on screen compared to other games. The game's physics are laughable. The online portion of the game only allows 8 players, not that this is bad, but that's all it could handle withouth FPS dropping to an unplayable level. Do you think consoles could run SupCom or Medieval2:TW at max settings (there are thousands upon thousands of characters on screen at once)? I don't think so, considering high-end PC's even have a hard time doing it.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

EDIT:Your only gonna repeat yourself...or move on to some other topic because you can disprove my "statements" like everyone else does...and like youve been doing,so im out.x_x I might check back later tomorrow.

killab2oo5

Your one to talk. FPS and TPS are completely different to MMORPGs, yet you expect to refute all the irrelevant evidence you've provided. I'm not going to.

As well, you never addressed my point about voice chat services properly (you just said your 7 day experience told you it wasn't necessary lol), you never looked at the problem of HDDs, and you never really touched the problem of the prevelance of the KB/M.

Gears is the best looking game, but like I said in my other post, it pays for it in other areas. I could make the best looking game out there, that would blow Crysis out of the water. It would only take place in a 5*5 room with nothing but walls and 1 character model. But it looks photo realistic! Therefore, it's the best looking game........right?