RUMOR: Next xbox release fall 2010, released with project Natal

[DragunovHUN]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so. Console games will always run for the entire life of that console. There are no system specs, no number crunching or ah crap goota go buy more ram b4 i can run this properly moments. There is also no overkill. IE wow fallout 3 sure runs way better then ur shitty 360 cause i have 8gigs of ram dual 9800gtx's, a liquid niotrogen cooling system, and a power core that runs on unicorn tears. Oh and btw my monitor costs just as much as your system LOL @ your 1080 resolution. Enough already. Console games will be sub par at launch and push the system to the brink in its final days. It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

No, i'm not mising the point, YOU are. Wow. May i suggest that you READ the posts before you switch to console wars mode? The guy said the PS3 is sooooo damn high-end nothing commercially available can get anywhere near it. I merely pointed out how ridiculous of a statement that is.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so. Console games will always run for the entire life of that console. There are no system specs, no number crunching or ah crap goota go buy more ram b4 i can run this properly moments. There is also no overkill. IE wow fallout 3 sure runs way better then ur shitty 360 cause i have 8gigs of ram dual 9800gtx's, a liquid niotrogen cooling system, and a power core that runs on unicorn tears. Oh and btw my monitor costs just as much as your system LOL @ your 1080 resolution. Enough already. Console games will be sub par at launch and push the system to the brink in its final days. It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

No, i'm not mising the point, YOU are. Wow. May i suggest that you READ the posts before you switch to console wars mode? The guy said the PS3 is sooooo damn high-end nothing commercially available can get anywhere near it. I merely pointed out how ridiculous of a statement that is.

I second this.

 

[FallenRainbows]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Or a computer?

And as for comparing computer to consoles; Its not hard to 1up the PS3 just expensive for the consumer; Sleek new design and a nice new shiny Graphics card among some other essentials... like decent cooling.

 

[richasr]

I can see Nintendo releasing a new console in that time, or not that long after, but not Microsoft... as has been said, maybe an upgraded 360 but I'm doubting it myself. We're starting to see more and more games take advantage of the consoles, and until it's reached it's potential, what is the point in advancing the technology?

Anyway, the Wii, as has been said before, is very gimmicky, in my opinion, and hasnt lasted as well as the 360 or PS3 even, watching the Project Natal video just shows that, if it reaches it's full potential, it could blow the Wii out of the water.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so. Console games will always run for the entire life of that console. There are no system specs, no number crunching or ah crap goota go buy more ram b4 i can run this properly moments. There is also no overkill. IE wow fallout 3 sure runs way better then ur shitty 360 cause i have 8gigs of ram dual 9800gtx's, a liquid niotrogen cooling system, and a power core that runs on unicorn tears. Oh and btw my monitor costs just as much as your system LOL @ your 1080 resolution. Enough already. Console games will be sub par at launch and push the system to the brink in its final days. It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

No, i'm not mising the point, YOU are. Wow. May i suggest that you READ the posts before you switch to console wars mode? The guy said the PS3 is sooooo damn high-end nothing commercially available can get anywhere near it. I merely pointed out how ridiculous of a statement that is.

I second this.

There was nothing "Console war" about what i said. It's actually the opposite. I took time to actually expalin the fact that consoles are simply the economical choice. As opposed to "pffft your shit gets raped."

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so. Console games will always run for the entire life of that console. There are no system specs, no number crunching or ah crap goota go buy more ram b4 i can run this properly moments. There is also no overkill. IE wow fallout 3 sure runs way better then ur shitty 360 cause i have 8gigs of ram dual 9800gtx's, a liquid niotrogen cooling system, and a power core that runs on unicorn tears. Oh and btw my monitor costs just as much as your system LOL @ your 1080 resolution. Enough already. Console games will be sub par at launch and push the system to the brink in its final days. It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

No, i'm not mising the point, YOU are. Wow. May i suggest that you READ the posts before you switch to console wars mode? The guy said the PS3 is sooooo damn high-end nothing commercially available can get anywhere near it. I merely pointed out how ridiculous of a statement that is.

I second this.

There was nothing "Console war" about what i said. It's actually the opposite. I took time to actually expalin the fact that consoles are simply the economical choice. As opposed to "pffft your shit gets raped."

Well fair enough, but it's not me you should be quoting, it's DraganovHUN. I have no opinion on this one just yet.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

Don't take it personal, i just quoted the first general box i could find.

 

[veloper]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so.

Sure you can compare consoles to PCs and you could keep playing bad looking games on both the atari 2600 and an IBM 8086, ***FOREVER*** if you wanted to.

Lifespan isn't even remotely interesting.
Lifecycle is.
5 years between console generations. You can choose to buy the new console or to stay behind. It's little different from having to upgrade PCs for better gfx.

It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

Actually buy a few games for the system and going PC becomes much cheaper.
Console games retain their value much longer: after 6 months E60 VS E30 on the PC, up to the point where even a rare NES cartridge still has some value, but a PC game from the 90s is abandonware.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

I don't have enough money for a new console so they can fuck that idea right off.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so.

Sure you can compare consoles to PCs and you could keep playing bad looking games on both the atari 2600 and an IBM 8086, ***FOREVER*** if you wanted to.

Lifespan isn't even remotely interesting.
Lifecycle is.
5 years between console generations. You can choose to buy the new console or to stay behind. It's little different from having to upgrade PCs for better gfx.

It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

Actually buy a few games for the system and going PC becomes much cheaper.
Console games retain their value much longer: after 6 months E60 VS E30 on the PC, up to the point where even a rare NES cartridge still has some value, but a PC game from the 90s is abandonware.

Both vaild points. I'd continue but don't wanna get in trouble for going off topic

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I think its way too early, especially considering then Sony would have to release something more powerful than its' PS3 to compete, and since machines like that are only found at NASA...

Dude, the damn thing has 512 mb SHARED memory and an old Nvidia GPU. Most high-end PCs would absoloutely rape the PS3 despite the fairly beastly processor it has. NASA my @$$

Right cause it's a PC. And PC hardware releases monthly at this point with new vidcards about every quarter or so. So yea...That's why pc's can be opened and are meant to be upgraded and cost thousands of dollars for a high end one. You can't compare a pc to a console.

Your missing the point here. people buy consoles with a ten year lifespan so they don't have to upgrade a pc every 2 or so.

Sure you can compare consoles to PCs and you could keep playing bad looking games on both the atari 2600 and an IBM 8086, ***FOREVER*** if you wanted to.

Lifespan isn't even remotely interesting.
Lifecycle is.
5 years between console generations. You can choose to buy the new console or to stay behind. It's little different from having to upgrade PCs for better gfx.

It's fair to say that consoles are the economic choice.

Actually buy a few games for the system and going PC becomes much cheaper.
Console games retain their value much longer: after 6 months E60 VS E30 on the PC, up to the point where even a rare NES cartridge still has some value, but a PC game from the 90s is abandonware.

Both vaild points. I'd continue but don't wanna get in trouble for going off topic

Take it as far as you wish my friend, no restrictions ;¬)