Pretty Bold Statement - Page 2

Null · 05-25-2003, 12:48 AM

An xbox is strickly games. PC is a lot more.

and btw. PC... 2.66 GHZ, Geforce 4 GFX card, Sound Blaster Audigy X sound card. 19inch monintor and more. Under 1000, thats mine.

And not reached main stream? you go online on xbox, you'll find 10 times as many players per game playin online for PC. Much of the time, people are just now getting these online games for consoles. like EA sports games for example. They been online for years on PC, and a WHOLE lot more people playing them.

another reason for how many people play online games on PC, you DONT need a top of the line computer to do it. Almost every game you can play on a crappy computer. PC games have options to turn down stuff that eats up CPU so they can be played. and i know your going to say you dont want to play games with dumbed down graphics. and i like wise feel that way (then again i dont need to dumb down anything) But some players online actually dumb them down on purpose to get an advantage. theres ways in certain games that turning graphics on totally ugly make it easier to do some thigns.

And its not about how many people play.... Theres so much more can be done online that isnt there on consoles yet. People still play the old games like the original Quake online. because theres still new modes and downloads and levels and things being made for them to play. i mean they literately never end.

being able to make your own servers for the games and all that stuff.... i mean even the Pay to Play online games. Ultima Online, or Ever Quest. soon games like FFXI.. you can play them for free by getting let into someones private server where everyone there plays the game without the online costs for it.

Consoles just arent there yet.

As far as im concerned, AS OF NOW, console online gameing is just a mulitplayer mode where your oponent is in another home. (and insome cases pay extra fee's just to play them.) not true online gameing.

bobcat · 05-25-2003, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGame
That's not in the states....

I doubt you can find a CPU (with Monitor and sound) that can run the complete high end games of today in it's full glory for anything less than $1,500 US...

$1,500 is an Xbox, Xbox live, and 25 full priced games... see my point? If I'm going to spen the $$$ for a PC mainly for gaming, it's just blocking me from getting a MUCH wider list of games for other consoles. Is PC worth it? Like I said, I'm not risking the Money to find out.

geez.

My tower (atm prolly valued @ $1000 AUD) can play pretty much anything.

Well then I see your point. Too bad I won't be able to kick ur ass @ Warcraft

Stonecutter · 05-25-2003, 01:04 AM

This is what happens when you dont read everything.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stonecutter
takes something that few could have on a computer (super fast, all the time, voice chat, gaming) and gives it to everyone for 50$ and an xbox.

THAT's revolutinary.

PC gaming is so small. Xbox took the some of the best things about pc gaming and gave them to a MUCH bigger audience.

Null · 05-25-2003, 01:06 AM

how is that revolutionary? your paying the montly fee for broadband. so they already have a computer to go online with.

then add ANOTHER payment just to play only games?

if your going by that.... then PS2 puts the rev in revolutionary. they give it to you with no extra cost.

and the online audience for PC games is not small. not by a long shot.

One Winged Angel · 05-25-2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stonecutter
This is what happens when you dont read everything.

THAT's revolutinary.

PC gaming is so small. Xbox took the some of the best things about pc gaming and gave them to a MUCH bigger audience.

I disagree. Your just trying to defend the XBox as much as you can. It's not revolutionary if XBox has online play for $50 a year (also after a year it's $11 or $12 a month). Online play has had all of the voice chat, all time, super fast. The only difference is that XBox is a console and not a PC. If ur not interested in buying a PC then an XBox can be an alternate choice, but calling their online play revolutionary is a bunch of bull****. PS2 had their network set up before the XBox. So if calling anything revolutionary, it would be the PS2.

TheGame · 05-25-2003, 05:07 AM

I think DC should get the credit for being the foirst console with strong online gaming support... Ps2 simply improved on DC, and Xbox took it even a step fursther.

I think that voice chat in home consoles is a must, I mean, you only have two hands, two will be on the controler, so the keyboard is only an annoyance.... mainly in games where you have to make quick decisions and Communication is key.

bobcat · 05-25-2003, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGame
I think DC should get the credit for being the foirst console with strong online gaming support... Ps2 simply improved on DC, and Xbox took it even a step fursther.

I think that voice chat in home consoles is a must, I mean, you only have two hands, two will be on the controler, so the keyboard is only an annoyance.... mainly in games where you have to make quick decisions and Communication is key.

keyboard and mouse is very important in playing FPS/Strategy games, but I'm sure most of you already knew that

Shadow_Link · 05-25-2003, 09:04 AM

Hmmmmmm...

Quote:

takes something that few could have on a computer (super fast, all the time, voice chat, gaming) and gives it to everyone for 50$ and an xbox.

Wait a second. Not all people who have an Xbox have broadband, most probably have dial up. THAT was a mistake, limiting the service to BB only customers. You may say that they should get with the times, or, they'll slow down everyone else, but who the f**k has any right to say that? Some people either don't have the money, and some people's telecom providers may not offer broadband in their area. MS should have catered for those without BB.

Bond · 05-25-2003, 10:05 AM

You know what is funny, Stonecutter made one simple comment, which you may disagree with, but did anyone actually read what the topic is?

Lets look at the actual topic, which is Miyamoto making a remake of Pac-Man and re-inventing multiplayer gaming.

Give me a break.

By the way, One Winged Angel, an extra year of Xbox Live is only $50.

You're really good at making up numbers though.

Perfect Stu · 05-25-2003, 10:24 AM

Miyamoto's new 'revolutionary multi-player games' are a joke, plain and simple.

As for arguing over who has the best online service, I couldn't care less...I'll just stick to actually PLAYING THE GAMES like Battlefield 1942, Midnight Club II, and look forward to upcoming games like Madden 2004, Tiger Woods 2004, Gran Turismo 4, Halo 2, Half Life 2 etc. etc. etc.

Joeiss · 05-25-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobcat
keyboard and mouse is very important in playing FPS/Strategy games, but I'm sure most of you already knew that

I like using a controller for Shooting games... But I haven't really played a FPS on PC, so I guess I don't know what I am missing out.. lol.

Oh, and bobcat. I don't know how much I pay for broadband. My parents pay for that, so whatever. I don't have an HDD because it is not out yet for North Americans, and I only have the NA... Which was like 60 bucks Canadian.

TheGame · 05-25-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobcat
keyboard and mouse is very important in playing FPS/Strategy games, but I'm sure most of you already knew that

lol... now if a person has never played PC games how would they know that? I have played a FPS with the mouse and keyboard, but I didn't like it.... why? Because I wasn't used to it. There are people in the world who prefer a controler.

-EDIT-

ah Joeiss, your post would have looked a lot better right after my post, not before it

GameKinG · 05-25-2003, 02:32 PM

Yeah, I have found myself better with a controller in FPS.

One Winged Angel · 05-25-2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bond

By the way, One Winged Angel, an extra year of Xbox Live is only $50.

You're really good at making up numbers though.

http://www.fragland.net/?page=newsitem&nid=5049

Quote:

Curiosity and a low entry price have helped Xbox Live sales so far. The software catalog hasn't had a true standout, though. Microsoft hoped to counter this by releasing the eagerly anticipated (and online-enabled) "Halo 2" right around the time initial subscribers came up for renewal - but development delays have pushed that game into 2004.

Gamers are disappointed, but the delay could conceivably work in their favor. Analysts and other industry followers have been working on the assumption that Microsoft was planning to charge a $9.95 monthly fee for Xbox Live after the first year. Recently, though, a buzz has been growing that the company could alter that pricing plan, perhaps cutting the price to just $50 for a one-year subscription

they were planning to charge $10 a month, but now they are considering $50 a year. So don't say I make up numbers :P

Bond · 05-25-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Microsoft has officially release details on its pricing plan for Xbox Live. A one-year renewal or subscription fee has been set at $49.99 while the monthly subscription fee has been set at $5.99. Microsoft has also revealed that the voice communicator will sell separately for $29.99 and that the full Xbox Live starter kit, which includes a one year subscription as well as a communicator and pack-in games, will be priced at $69.99.

I posted this a few days before E3 in the Xbox forum.

You can argue all you want, but you're wrong.