Consoles cost the same, and technology gets better so do their games. The same GPUs sold to PC users power the 360/PS3
You can't buy the PS3's GPU and stick it in a computer. Nice try though, doofy.
You said ... "No. I don't think he did, as it wasn't mentioned in his post. Having an online "arcade" does not mean its competing with a 360 or PS3.
This is a computer, not a video game console."
And this was the reply "He was asked to describe next 'true Commodore' and detailed a machine with lntel Atom CPU which can't even play 720p video files, let alone 1080p 360/PS3 games. I can surf the net on my phone ditto for email/facebook/twitter/youtube/buy crap off ebay.
People play games and watch HD content on 360 for far less....."
Yes, I sure did say that. And your reply still fails to accomplish anything. You ever browse the net on a 360? Who the hell cares about HD content being watched. Srsly. Is that all you can talk about is HD content?
You realize you have quoted me talking about the online arcade and you fail to actually talk about that in your hamfisted replies? Thus, the fail button was hit in full force! :roflmao:
Nothing about a throwback to anything which you made up, it's was about a spiritual successor to the Amiga. The whole point was that a spiritual successor to the Amiga today would...
Anything trying to recreate the days of old is a throwback, flid. Lrn2English. Sorry you think the solution is an OMGPOWERHOUSE. If it's a little laptoppy device, I wouldn't want that much hardware sitting over my crotch anyways. Too hot. Not comfortable. I don't like swampcrotch while I am computering.
I didn't imply anything beyond the fact that a mobile phone has enough CPU power to do all these things you are limited to doing on an Atom based machine. You made a lame attempt to imply I said that (and failed).
So what you mean then is all netbooks should be sold off and people should just get mobile phones to putz around on the internet. They're more cutting edge, amirite?
I didn't attempt to imply anything. You just don't know how to read. I like how you create implications from a two sentence comment. Quaaludes much, maaaan?
I think you just make such wacked out comments and replies that you don't even know what you are trying to say anymore.
2. Did people watch streaming movies/TV shows via their NES/Genesis or PC-XT/AT then in your imagination?
Imagination? Christ, learn how to process a far fetched example made to point out how stupid something you say is. It's interweb debating 101, guy.
Nope so why ask if the Amiga did? Again you were trolling. All people did was play games on consoles and do office work on PCs so all the Amiga had to do in the 80s/90s was play similar games and run similar office software as PCs for less. As a PS3 and 360 both happily play 1080p video and you can't buy non HD TVs anymore I expect it from a 'new Amiga' successor too, naturally, as high end PCs easily playback 1080p too.
Not trolling. Trolling would mean I am the only one pointing out that you are mental. I am just pointing out that your requirements are dumb. You keep flailing around talking about HD content when that isn't even the ultimate point to any of this. Also, you should stop bringing video game consoles in to a computer debate, as nowadays the comparison is not so simple.
Many computing-folk don't give a flying damn about 3D games and are more concerned with what they can do productivity wise. You DO know the Amiga had tons of productivity stuff right? Music, Video, Art. Stuff you can't do on your rofl360. You're looking at this all wrong.
Amiga did everything a PC/Genesis did for 2.5 times the cost of a Sega Genesis/Megadrive even 4 years after the A1000 launched years before the Genesis. Show me a PC for 2.5x cost of the cheapest 360 that can play Alan Wake in 1920x1080x60fps in DX10 even today 4 years after 360s launch date then?
Amiga didn't have FM music, stock multi button controllers, a good port of Street Fighter, etc. etc.
What is with the 2.5x cost thing. You're arguing that something cost more to do the same thing as something cheaper and I am not sure what the point of that is.
But, the 360 has some slow-down issues in extreme 3D games. Texture pop-in, and other things. So it isn't like the thing is an epic gaming machine.
But again this argument is stupid. The 360 is specialized mass produced hardware built to do specific things, hence the cost being so low. It also has a cheap-as-hell, tiny as shit hard drive that basically stores save game data and music. You should learn how to make intelligent comparisons my man.
It's clear to see the difference between SD and HD quality video on your average 20" monitor/17" notebook screen.
I don't give two shits about HD, and neither do alot of people. Notepad++ doesn't look any crisper in HD, and neither does the command line, or visual studio. HD is meaningless for normal computing. How high-def do you need your fonts to be?
and for videos, yeah, whatever, it looks nicer. You don't remember how much nicer it looked later. You just remember what it was you watched. You watch a VHS and then you watch a DVD of the same thing, you won't remember the stunning quality increase 5 hours later. It's superficial. It always has been, and always will be.
besides if I want to watch HD videos, I'll watch them on my 72" tv. Not my dopey little monitor.
4. You said PCs are not expensive today.
They're not expensive today. Especially compared to how much they used to cost. So you can take your "being a bit more intelligent" comment, and shove it. Get a clue while you are at it.
over compensating hardware listing.
It is clear you haven't actually TRIED any of this, as this machine I have sitting in front of me:
AMD dual core 4800+ (overclocked)
2GB RAM
6800GS x2 SLI'd
the rest of the important stuff.
can play PS3 quality games. It runs Oblivion on full settings. That's a PS3/360 game. It plays Tomb Raider Legend and Anniversary on full settings, and again that is a PS3 / 360 game.
shall I continue, or are you done being a moron?
The machine was built like 5 years ago, and cost nothing. The video cards were 65$ each. 6800GS's running SLI, pulls some insane nonsense off. I was pulling 60 FPS in Vanguard Saga of Heroes at launch. That was nearly unheard of.
You realize the 360 and PS3 are OLD now. They are a fraction of their launch price. Likewise, comparable OLD hardware can be bought at a fraction of their launch price. Good Job.
Did you fail Maths at school then?
Nah, I have a degree in math. That was cute though. Kind of like that other time you made a similar insulting line of comments and I shoved it down your throat so hard you never replied to it, probably out of shame. Keep the arrogant/ignorant twiddle twaddle to yourself.
Because to me it looks like a PC of similar capability to a 360 is at least 5x as much...same as in 1989/1990 with a 286 vs Genesis console then.
Yeah, it looks like that to you since you're too daft to realize you can get 5-6 year old hardware for pennies, and have it outperform a 360/PS3.
Do you understand this concept? Do you see how dumb it is to compare todays hardware to 5+ years ago's standards?
Let me assist you. This concept has been around for ages. Before my time even:
see?
5. There are no overheating issues with the latest high-end ATI/Nvidia cards or the Intel Quad Core Extreme or i7 CPUs. So your claim an all-in-one PC solution overheating is based on what exactly? Cost is the only issue with choosing to not buy a PS3/360 for HD gaming.
You cram enough crap into a tiny box, it will over heat. There are no overheating issues with new cards and CPUs in properly installed machines with adequate ventilation. Your mileage may vary if you jam it into a little wedgeboard. Have you ever built a computer? The new gear still GENERATES heat. It isn't designed to function well when jammed into a dinky space, crowded in there with the rest of the components.
6. Console games and PC strategy games were far more expensive than Amiga disk games in the 80s here. NES/Genesis games cost 40-50 bucks and PC games cost the same. Amiga games were 20-25 bucks. Do some research next time.
I did do research. I have an Amiga game with a 70$ price sticker still on the box. and a PC one. Durrrr. Shadow of the Beast was 34.99 GBP at launch right? That's comparable to the Genesis version's price. From late 80s conversion rate standards.
The bargain bin games don't count. Action 52 much?
So no, there is a difference to how it was, today you can get a console or get a PC costing 5x as much to play the games in the same quality. Your alternative choice is non existent.
blah blah blah. Until you have done accurate side by side comparisons of quality, you are just talking out of your ass.
2.5x the cost of the 360 at launch, or the cost of it now? I can get one for <100$ right now. You should think your durpalurp comments through before you hit the post button, and forever commit to looking like a dingus.
