RangerXML
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 6,402
Sounds to me like a "because we can" excuse.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Microsoft Explains XBL Price Hike
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
Sounds like this says "We're charging more because people will pay it." And they apparently will. I support Microsoft on this. I do not support the service, and will not pay for it.
Most Xbox games run at 720p or less with little or no AA/AF.
Virtually any computer made in the last several years would probably need nothing more than a $50 video card to handle that.
A couple of PS3 games run at less than 720p (RDR) but didn't know any 360 games do. Well, not including the retro games you can buy. I remember reading that Microsoft said that all new games for 360 must run at a minimum of 720p. They rescinded that requirement?
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
No, it was UPSCALED to 720p. The majority of games for both consoles are ~540p upscaled to 720 or 1080. There are scant few games that are true hd content in the console realm.
The multiplayer gaming is peer-to-peer. Some games offer dedicated servers (I'm aware of EA) but those are paid for by the developer. What you're paying for with your $50/$60 per year is... oh wait, nothing.
The only servers Microshaft runs are the ones that allow you to log in and pay for games and DLC. I call that a cost of doing business, not a $60 per year service. Oh, and some messaging and VoIP that you can get for free with their competitors (Steam and PSN).
CoD 4 and MW2 run at 1024x600. The hilarious part is that both of those games have a highly-optimized and old (Quake 3-based) engine. There are probably others as well.
Even the flagship Halo 3 runs at 640p as confirmed by Bungie
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/30/bungie-talks-halo-3-640p-issue/
It would not take much of a computer to run at that resolution.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
When early in HL2 pre release time valve leaked just such a plan. However it was met with massive out cries and they went with the usual model. So not it is not off the table. Also valve has stated before they admire and wish to get something like WOW where people gladly pay $10 per month.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
I should also say that while some people who are computer literate on [H] complain millions of noobs will gladly plop it down and that is the only thing that matters. I vote with my money I don't touch consoles I only buy games where I like the business model. If you charge me a subscription then all the content must be free.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
PS3 and XBOX360 games cost the same...even though one is on a cheaper dvd9 and one is on a more expensive bluray.
RangerXML
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 6,402
Remarkable considering what the PS3 is suppose to represent in terms of technology, real shame. Removing backward compatibility, "Other OS", USB ports and memory card readers; only a shadow of the original console launched. Cost wise, I can see where xbox is the real winner, build economically from the get go, even improving and adding USB ports. Not to mention xbox was charging for MP from the start with xbox LIVE. Microsoft may have been loosing money on the console itself, but no where near as much as the PS3 and charging at every turn and now raising the price on their LIVE service. As I said before, "because we can."
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
I'm guessing they removed the backwards compatability from the new models (the old ones have kept it) because including a second processor and graphics chip (then later just the graphics chip) made it more expensive. Plus there are sitill quite a few ps2s sold (in japan about a year ago the ps2 was outselling the xbox 360).
The memory card readers were kind of pointless to start with as it has USB ports, and getting raw giant photos off a camera isn't great. Plus it adds money for something pointless.
The other OS was removed because of the piracy scares (plus I don't know of anyone that used it).
I'm not sure what you mean by USB ports, as the new consoles have them, and before there was always 2 versions, one with 4 and one with 2. The newer ones all have 2. Removing that would have shaved off about...50c.
But sony makes money on all new ps3 sold (the slims) you can probably blame cheaper build price, but more likely economies of scale and such. But microsoft still lost money on the original xbox 360 (it was quoted as $75/$125 per console depending on if it included a HDD or premium pack etc.) even though it was cheaper parts and build. Then after the redesign they are apparently still losing money per console (probably the reason for live and the DVD licence costs of $10 per game DVD).
You have to remember that sony are a hardware manafacturer, with it's own factories so things probably cost less for them to make.
vsboxerboy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2005
- Messages
- 3,661
Yeah, but the cost PER USER goes down as they get more users. I highly doubt it is the other way around. Plus, since a lot of games are peer-to-peer, bandwidth usage probably doesn't even scale (approximately) linearly with the number of users.
Team Obi Juan
Your Local Postmaster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,276
But my point is that if attention went back to PC gaming, it wouldn't be any cheaper for the consumer to have to keep up with video cards that are good enough to play the latest and greatest game. You can say that the "consolization" of the video gaming industry saves money, at least on the hardware end of it.
You would have to upgrade your video card about as often as you upgrade a console (as long as you stick to console quality graphics). So you would not save any money. Not to mention PC games usually cost $10 less than their console counterparts. Throw in free online/DLC plus backwards compatibility that goes back upwards of 20 years.....well you see what I'm saying.
Besides the new Fusion/Sandy Bridge CPU/GPU hybrids should provide better than console graphics without even needing a separate video card.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
Reason #1205702750270520 why I don't own an Xbox and have no plans on ever owning an Xbox, i'd rather enjoy the PC's multiplayer than that, and in the interest of full disclosure, I own a PS3, BUT, I do not play multiplayer games on it, I play it solely for the exclusives and the really good single player games that are multiplatform.
I would not pay $99 a month to play multiplayer on console when I can do it on PC for free.
I would not pay $99 a month to play multiplayer on console when I can do it on PC for free.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
shit, sorry i mean $99 a year, not $99 a month, sorry.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
What costs $99 a month? XBL is going up to $60 per Year, which is incidentally $60 more than I'm willing to pay. Long live PC
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
the consumer does not have to upgrade they could upgrade at the same cycle I have a 6 year old computer that I use to play almost all modern games. The frame rates are not the greatest on some titles but it is funny that they are generally still less laggy then what I see on friends consoles. I personally use it as an extra computer and choose to use something much nicer. You can turn down graphics settings in PC games in case no one knows that. But with a console you have no choice to upgrade your system and no choice to play highly demanding games with amazing graphics if you want too.
The way I see it if you add up all the costs of a console and just apply that to a PC you would have one less device to screw around with and there would be more development. However I have learned in life most people are to short sighted to see that instead it is all about the low buy in price so most companies try to make a model where they subsidize a product then over charge you for the services and supplies. Think printers consoles and so on.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
i brain farted when i wrote that, I meant to say $99 a year.
i would never pay that much for Xbox live, all it is is a glorified matchmaking system and a game browser
it does nothing that a PC can't do for free.
NOTHING, NOTHING!!
that's just M$$$$$$ making money appear out of thin air
now that's a neat magic trick.
