![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Xbox Next Specs
- Thread starter reddhaus
- Start date
RancidWAnnaRIot
EspantaPajaros
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,033
lesman said:
The nintendo revolution will have VGA...
Hate_Bot said:
Yeah, see the IGN FAQ.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p1.html?fromint=1
There are the hard facts and all the big rumors.
One guy claims (rumor #2, page 5) to have seen it and sketches it, but I don't believe that rumor. It looks made up, and the name he claims (Nintendo 21?) sounds ridiculous.
The hard facts are on the first page.
1) No touch screens on the controller
2) Will ship sometime in 2006
3) Possible microphones, Satoru Iwata said they were thinking about it.
4) Revolution will use IBM processors and ATi graphics cards.
5) It will have built in wireless, either 802.11b or 802.11g.
6) It will have online play, most likely free and based on the DS's online service.
7) It can hook up to a computer monitor.
8) It will be backwards compatible with GameCube games.
9) They have just started sending out dev kits.
That's all we know for absolutely sure. All else is rumors.
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
Actually, they said it will hook to a computer monitor, they didn't specify DVI or VGA.
I'm suspecting DVI, since:
A) DVI to VGA adapters are $5- Apple even includes it with their DVI systems- so they could include that.
B) DVI is a necessity for projectors and LCDs! Whoohoo!
What I don't like is that MS has said ( I need to find the link again ) that the next Xbox will have two ports in front and one in back. I want four in front. I hated having to buy an adapter for my PS2. I think it is scummy to have less then four. Unless the two can have a splitter on it or something.
They had better not be pulling a 3DO (the console, not the company), and make the addtional controllers plug into the main controllers. I hated that too.
They had better not be pulling a 3DO (the console, not the company), and make the addtional controllers plug into the main controllers. I hated that too.
Dallows said:
Stay in present tence and you can answer my question. Obviously you can question what is best when you look only to what can be and not what is.
What do you get for 50? A year of the best online setup for consoles. Like I said, if you don't like it, don't use it.
As for all the "I loves me my Gamycuber!" This thread is about the next offering from MS. I enjoy a game or two on the Gamecube, but this ain't the thread for it.
And I can see why you say the support isn't there yet, for two of the consoles anyway:
Xbox online games-106
PS2 online games-55
GC online games-4.
Don't fault LIVE becuase the others didn't even make an a good attempt at offering the buying public a chance to play online with a console.
Praxis said:
I am saying it is better than what the others offer. Regaurdless of the 50 dollars for a year of it. You are also not paying per game, ala PS2, and you can actually play online unlike GC(save for 4 titles). And lets lament over 50 dollars becuase it doesn't wipe our rears also. That is like asking what is so good about oxygen...you know, other than the whole keeping you alive thing. You cast aside the servers and voice, and ask me what else it offers.
Obviously you both have never played on it. So why damn it in favor of choices that don't exsist?If the 50 is scaring you. Then just devide all your online Xbox games by the 50 dollars and you get your value there. Oh wait, you already said you don't even have an Xbox. You shouldn't talk anymore.
The facts are xbox is going to be the slowest then gamecube then ps3. I not sure about if gamecube is faster than ps3 but most likely it probably will be. Those xbox 2 specs are overhyped. Another thing is that when xbox 2 comes out there will be already dual cores possibly out and they will be higher than 4ghz.
For me, i am a nintendo person
Always liked the mario/zelda games since the first nintendo.
For me, i am a nintendo person
Always liked the mario/zelda games since the first nintendo.
Haha, you are awesome tiny. You're attention to detail is amazing. You note that both I and Praxis have never played on xbox live, but we have. What the hell does owning an xbox have to do with anything? I had my share of time playing on an xbox and that's one of the reasons I don't own one. You still have yet to give me any good reason to believe xbox live is the best. Just because people say it is you go with them. I want facts, not games that support it. And what's this paying per game on the ps2 that you speak of? Show me a game that requires this aside from like final fantasy which runs off a square maintained server.
Ballz2TheWallz
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,352
lol xbox live has texts,voice messages,game invites,BROADBAND ONLY!!!!!W00T . more support, headset support in all games, not all games have MS hosted servers infact not even halo2 does. see what halo2 does is test everyones bandwith and ping then decides which box to set the server up. generally when you see the blue connecting to game screen pop up and come back and someone has left it set up a new server instead of just dropping everyone out of the game.
. more support, headset support in all games, not all games have MS hosted servers infact not even halo2 does. see what halo2 does is test everyones bandwith and ping then decides which box to set the server up. generally when you see the blue connecting to game screen pop up and come back and someone has left it set up a new server instead of just dropping everyone out of the game.Tiny said:I am saying it is better than what the others offer. Regaurdless of the 50 dollars for a year of it. You are also not paying per game, ala PS2, and you can actually play online unlike GC(save for 4 titles). And lets lament over 50 dollars becuase it doesn't wipe our rears also. That is like asking what is so good about oxygen...you know, other than the whole keeping you alive thing. You cast aside the servers and voice, and ask me what else it offers.
If the 50 is scaring you. Then just devide all your online Xbox games by the 50 dollars and you get your value there. Oh wait, you already said you don't even have an Xbox. You shouldn't talk anymore.
Firstly, PS2, you DON'T PAY, not pay per game.
Secondly, I asked a legitamite question; what's different about it that's worth the money. I'm not being a fan-boy, I just want to know WHY the XBox fans say its so great. A number of PS2 games have voice chat IIRC already (Socom II even came with a headset IIRC). The servers is one benefit (it automatically makes the guy with the fastest connection host), but its only a small benefit since I usually just join the low ping servers anyway.
So what are the real benefits worth $50? Or is it just *slightly* faster than the rest? Instead of shouting, "You don't even have an XBox so why do you care??!!" just answer the question.
Well Ballz2thewallz your effort is noble. But everything you listed aside from maybe broadband only the ps2 does. Not all games have MS hosted servers, I can't think of any worth mentiong, but again, I don't own an xbox so I must have no idea what I'm talking about. Putting aside the number of games here for a moment lets focus on the features it offers. I found that the whole 1 game, 1 server, 1 time only deal with halo2 was beyond bullshit. there's no reason why there can't be more servers that have map rounds and stuff like that, that don't actually end and cause me to find another server everytime. I'm sure there a few out there like that, BUT thanks to xbox live and halo2's poor implementation, I can't find those servers on my own but have to rely on the "choose for you" ideal.
Xbox live is the best online service.....the others don't even compare. And when you're done paying your fees for each game on PS2, it'll be well over the 50 bucks a year that you'd pay for Xbox live. Whats good about it is universal stat tracking....you can get all your info and info on the games you've played online from a central hub, and many other resources from the developers websites, etc. This may not be LIVE specific, but the fact that nearly every single Live enabled Xbox game has more online function and features than any online enabled PS2 game makes it worth it alone, IMO. If you wanna have an online console experience, Xbox is the no-brainer choice, guaranteed. Plus it's just so much more stable than online PC gaming (IMO-and yes, I game online with BOTH the Xbox and PC, and have done so for a long time). It's much more protected, and very little can go wrong.Dallows said:
EDIT: and you want an answer why Xbox live is so good? No one should have to say anything about that, as the numbers have already decided...if online is so great with PS2, then I'm sure the numbers of PS2 online gamers would be far greater than they are now, and far greater than they are on Xbox....which they're not. Theres MANY more PS2's out there in homes across the world, much more than there are Xboxes....but Xboxes online numbers wupp the shit out of PS2s.
lesman said:
Look, all we're asking is, when you say "XBox Live is the best online service"...WHY do you say that?
Please don't tell me that "universal stat tracking" is worth $50, because I get it free in Battlefront for PC and DON'T EVEN USE IT.
What are the things that makes it way better than the others?
I'm curious to see how Nintendo's new service will compare.
Many PS2 games are pay to play online....a fact which led me not to game online with the PS2....plus, the Xbox live enabled games are generally better than the PS2 live enabled games....plus the fact that you get downloadable content and updates seals it for me.
Praxis said:
I wonder, will it be the R5** series going into it?
Most likely
(Odd also, that both Xbox and the next Nintendo, are using the same graphics company)
ign said:
Whoa, if system one is the actual system... it would be one hell of a system...
Dallows obviously you are here to flame and troll, that is sad. You admit to not owning and Xbox and not wanting an Xbox. So you will never want Xbox Live to begin with. So why flame me for saying it is the best and requesting of me to provide you with a reason to buy it? That is stupid. The fee is the adapter to even get online. The fee is the per month for the RPG. The fee is the Harddrive. You can't discount the adapter fee because that is needed to play online (and at one time the adapter was 50 dollars, I know, I bought one for my PS2)(and the price of LIVE has stayed constant). And the FF game is on PS2, so you can't discount the fees for that or the harddrive, just because you may not want it.
Praxis. Same as Dallows, it is tollish to come into an Xbox thread and demand that others convince you that LIVE is better than the rest. You have stated you don't own an Xbox. So you are in the same boat as Dallows. You don't own one, you don't have a need/want for LIVE. So nothing I say or show you is going to convince you to believe otherwise. Coming in with that attitude is trollish. You can't compare consoles and PC's, or maybe you can if you want to be stupid. Your choice. LIVE is the best. Why?
Those are just some of the things that make LIVE so good. Sure, you and Dallows will just cast most of the above aside saying that non of it is so great and you can get it on your computers, or you don't think it is worth $50 a year. But that is just trolls being trolls. *sigh*
Anyway, so instead of me trying to convice you two to buy something you have no interest in, no intention of buying ever, or even have an intrest in using. Why don't you two tell me why the offerings from Sony and Nintendo offer better online service? Why are those two offerings better than LIVE? Why don't you step up and prove me wrong when I say LIVE is the best console online service to date? Because you would rather me list things? That way you can just dismiss them with the lame excuse of "I don't use it", "I don't think it is worth the money", or "I can get that on my PC and I don't even use it, so that doesn't matter".
Yeah, that is what I thought.
Praxis. Same as Dallows, it is tollish to come into an Xbox thread and demand that others convince you that LIVE is better than the rest. You have stated you don't own an Xbox. So you are in the same boat as Dallows. You don't own one, you don't have a need/want for LIVE. So nothing I say or show you is going to convince you to believe otherwise. Coming in with that attitude is trollish. You can't compare consoles and PC's, or maybe you can if you want to be stupid. Your choice. LIVE is the best. Why?
- Stat tracking
- Voice chat
- Custom Tournaments
- Custom Leagues
- Gamer Tags
- Content downloading (from roster updates to maps, missions, characters, vehicles, skins, quests, and more. Sure a few are needed to be payed for, but 95% of the content is free)
- Aware Friends List(you can see when they are online, and what they are playing. Send invites)
- You can link your GamerTag to your computer(so even when you are not playing, you can see what your friends are doing and how you stack up against others)
- LIVE AWARE is now in a lot of games. (so even when playing a non LIVE game, your friends can still send you requests and you can easially see what they are playing)
- Broadband only, no more dealing with the 56kers.
- when you have friends over, they can play online with you. At the same time. Not possible on the other two.
- One interface for all the above.
Those are just some of the things that make LIVE so good. Sure, you and Dallows will just cast most of the above aside saying that non of it is so great and you can get it on your computers, or you don't think it is worth $50 a year. But that is just trolls being trolls. *sigh*
Anyway, so instead of me trying to convice you two to buy something you have no interest in, no intention of buying ever, or even have an intrest in using. Why don't you two tell me why the offerings from Sony and Nintendo offer better online service? Why are those two offerings better than LIVE? Why don't you step up and prove me wrong when I say LIVE is the best console online service to date? Because you would rather me list things? That way you can just dismiss them with the lame excuse of "I don't use it", "I don't think it is worth the money", or "I can get that on my PC and I don't even use it, so that doesn't matter".
Yeah, that is what I thought.
Tiny said:Dallows obviously you are here to flame and troll, that is sad. You admit to not owning and Xbox and not wanting an Xbox. So you will never want Xbox Live to begin with. So why flame me for saying it is the best and requesting of me to provide you with a reason to buy it? That is stupid. The fee is the adapter to even get online. The fee is the per month for the RPG. The fee is the Harddrive. You can't discount those because those are needed to play online. And the FF game is on PS2, so you can't discount the fees for that or the harddrive, just because you may not want it.
Praxis. Same as Dallows, it is tollish to come into an Xbox thread and demand that others convince you that LIVE is better than the rest. You have stated you don't own an Xbox. So you are in the same boat as Dallows. You don't own one, you don't have a need/want for LIVE. So nothing I say or show you is going to convince you to believe otherwise. Coming in with that attitude is trollish. You can't compare consoles and PC's, or maybe you can if you want to be stupid. Your choice. LIVE is the best. Why?
- Stat tracking
- Voice chat
- Custom Tournaments
- Custom Leagues
- Gamer Tags
- Content downloading (from roster updates to maps, missions, characters, vehicles, skins, quests, and more. Sure a few are needed to be payed for, but 95% of the content is free)
- Aware Friends List(you can see when they are online, and what they are playing. Send invites)
- You can link your GamerTag to your computer(so even when you are not playing, you can see what your friends are doing and how you stack up against others)
- LIVE AWARE is now in a lot of games. (so even when playing a non LIVE game, your friends can still send you requests and you can easially see what they are playing)
- Broadband only, no more dealing with the 56kers.
- when you have friends over, they can play online with you. At the same time. Not possible on the other two.
- One interface for all the above.
Those are just some of the things that make LIVE so good. Sure, you and Dallows will just cast most of the above adside saying that non of it is so great and you can get it on your computers, or you don't think it is worth $50 a year. But that is just trolls being trolls. *sigh*
Anyway, so instead of me trying to convice you two to buy something you have no interest in, no intention of buying ever, or even have an intrest in using. Why don't you two tell me why the offerings from Sony and Nintendo offer better online service? Why are those two offerings better than LIVE? Why don't you step up and prove me wrong when I say LIVE is the best console online service to date? Because you would rather me list things? That way you can just dismiss them with the lame excuse of "I don't use it", "I don't think it is worth the money", or "I don't own an Xbox, so that doesn't matter".
Yeah, that is what I thought.
He totally just said it...there's your fees....adding up to much more than the 50 bucks shelled out for Xbox Live service..he also told you what makes it better...Sony and Nintendo's online strategy BLOWS compared to Xboxes...simple as that...it's really not an opinion thing....it's factual...
Just so you don't think I've cowered away from you post all I'm going to say is that you will get your answer in time. However I am in class right now and am looking to devote my full attention to answering as best I can. This way you get a much better response than me just simply saying whatever comes to mind as I try to type here and focus on my class at the same time.
Ok, dude, whatever...we dont need your "answer"....we've already stated the xtremely obvious...and the FACTS....READ-FACTS....come on, man, be sensible.
EDIT: I just re-read your post...yeah, focus on class, a petty argument like this is not worth failing or anything.
EDIT: I just re-read your post...yeah, focus on class, a petty argument like this is not worth failing or anything.
Oh, yeah...listen don't mean to be an ass or anything, if I have sounded like one, I'm just going with my own opinion, the hard facts, and Lives status, which is great, so just to bury the hatchet, no hard feelings, and I'm done here now, so, whatever your future in this thread may hold, let it be good, and good luck to all of you!Dallows said:
Tiny said:
NO. What is stupid is to take things for granted. Someone tells you, "This and this is better," an intelligent person asks, "Why?" instead of saying, "duuhhh, okay."
And if the person refuses to answer, you DON'T BELIEVE THEM UNTIL THEY DO.
That's called intelligence and not believing everything you hear, buddy. It is NOT trollish.
THANK YOU FOR FINALLY ANSWERING ME.
That is all I was asking. I wasn't making this into a PS2 vs GC vs XBox thing, I was asking, WHAT ARE THE GOOD FEATURES? WHY IS IT BETTER? and you call me a troll. Brilliant.
Anyway, thanks for the list.
Dallows said:
I know why you chose PS2's online over Xbox. You don't have an Xbox. That makes the choice pretty easy I'd say.
And everything on that list can be found by two things...ONE, using the product. TWO, using the interent to research the product. The second would be something and intelligent person would find easy. To bad I had to do it for you huh? I guess I shouldn't assume that someone knows about a product before they say another product trumps it. My bad.
Well, look, I have to admit that XBox Live definitely has the best features (THANKS FOR FINALLY TELLING ME WHAT THEY WERE, after calling me a troll for asking, sheesh).
Personally, I'd still go with whatever free services are there for the next gen consoles. Not because I don't like XBox live, but here's my reasoning.
* Stat tracking - I never use it.
* Voice chat - most have it.
* Custom Tournaments - I never use it.
* Custom Leagues - I never use it.
* Gamer Tags - They all have it
* Content downloading (from roster updates to maps, missions, characters, vehicles, skins, quests, and more. Sure a few are needed to be payed for, but 95% of the content is free) - This is because of the XBox's hard drive, not really the online service. If any of the next gen consoles have HDs, they'll all have this capability. Since the XBox 2 won't have an HD, it probably won't unless the memory cards are big.
* Aware Friends List(you can see when they are online, and what they are playing. Send invites) - This is cool.
* You can link your GamerTag to your computer(so even when you are not playing, you can see what your friends are doing and how you stack up against others) - Useful, but a bit of a gimmick
* LIVE AWARE is now in a lot of games. (so even when playing a non LIVE game, your friends can still send you requests and you can easially see what they are playing) - again, a handy bonus
* Broadband only, no more dealing with the 56kers. - Most have this
* when you have friends over, they can play online with you. At the same time. Not possible on the other two. - Cool, but are you sure it's not possible on the other two? It depends on the programmers, doesn't it?
Now, the feature list DEFINITELY beats the other services. But on my PC, I have most of these things- and I hardly use them. So for me, *personally*, I'd be paying $50 for a bunch of cool goodies that I hardly use. So while it is better than the others, the others do everything I care for, so it's not worth the extra money.
If I had an XBox I would probably use XLink Kai just because I'm a cheapskate While the extra features are nice, most of them are things I personally would not use often, so for me personally it wouldn't be worth the extra money.
Again, not saying XBox Live sucks or PS2 online is better, just that I'd take the free one with online play over the better one that charges. Just for ME. Most of you guys probably use the extra features.
Personally, I'd still go with whatever free services are there for the next gen consoles. Not because I don't like XBox live, but here's my reasoning.
* Stat tracking - I never use it.
* Voice chat - most have it.
* Custom Tournaments - I never use it.
* Custom Leagues - I never use it.
* Gamer Tags - They all have it
* Content downloading (from roster updates to maps, missions, characters, vehicles, skins, quests, and more. Sure a few are needed to be payed for, but 95% of the content is free) - This is because of the XBox's hard drive, not really the online service. If any of the next gen consoles have HDs, they'll all have this capability. Since the XBox 2 won't have an HD, it probably won't unless the memory cards are big.
* Aware Friends List(you can see when they are online, and what they are playing. Send invites) - This is cool.
* You can link your GamerTag to your computer(so even when you are not playing, you can see what your friends are doing and how you stack up against others) - Useful, but a bit of a gimmick
* LIVE AWARE is now in a lot of games. (so even when playing a non LIVE game, your friends can still send you requests and you can easially see what they are playing) - again, a handy bonus
* Broadband only, no more dealing with the 56kers. - Most have this
* when you have friends over, they can play online with you. At the same time. Not possible on the other two. - Cool, but are you sure it's not possible on the other two? It depends on the programmers, doesn't it?
Now, the feature list DEFINITELY beats the other services. But on my PC, I have most of these things- and I hardly use them. So for me, *personally*, I'd be paying $50 for a bunch of cool goodies that I hardly use. So while it is better than the others, the others do everything I care for, so it's not worth the extra money.
If I had an XBox I would probably use XLink Kai just because I'm a cheapskate
While the extra features are nice, most of them are things I personally would not use often, so for me personally it wouldn't be worth the extra money.Again, not saying XBox Live sucks or PS2 online is better, just that I'd take the free one with online play over the better one that charges. Just for ME. Most of you guys probably use the extra features.
Hate_Bot said:
Okay, even though I play mostly GameCube only at this point, even I have to admit, there are practically no online games for GC. Except Mario Kart DD, but I'm not going to run out and buy a network adapter for $50 for one game.
The Nintendo Revolution looks EXTREMELY promising, though. Apparently GameSpy is doing the free online. While the GameSpy Arcade interface for the PC sucks, their embedded stuff (like in UT2k4, Battlefield, Star Wars Battlefront) is good- nice server chooser, good features, very stable servers. And since they already have contact lists and stuff...it could be a free competitor to XBox Live
We can only hope it's done right.Good question...
Tiny said:
What the heck is wrong with you? I asked a simple question, "What makes XBox Live better? Everyone keeps telling me it is, I want to know why." Oh no! I'm the big bad flame war starter, who thinks the GameCube and PS2 online options are better! I'm a big bad fan-boy!! Oh no! Praxis is a bad person!!!
Geez. Learn to read posts before you brand anyone asking questions a XBox-hating fan-boy!
bonkrowave
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
To be honest, It seams like as soon as your mention any company, especially Microsoft, there are always those that are blinded by their own bias and generalizations, that will reflexively, spew out whatever thought is currently on their mind in a vein attempt to somehow reinforce their fan boyish views, regardless of the truth.
Its a losing battle, they will never come to reason regardless of the information you have to back it up.
Tinfoil hats for teh win !!
Its a losing battle, they will never come to reason regardless of the information you have to back it up.
Tinfoil hats for teh win !!
Praxis said:Geez. Learn to read posts before you brand anyone asking questions a XBox-hating fan-boy!
I notice you didn't put that in quotes. Good one.
Anyway. The Xbox2's harddrive is optional, and yes it is needed to have downloadable content. But at least they now give you an option. Don't like LIVE, don't buy it and you don't then need the HD. Yeah, so boo on MS for giving people choices. BOOO!! HISS!!
Hate_Bot said:
I'd guess so.
MS is copying the opposition again, I guess
There is one thing this does tell us, though. They're both using the same types of processors and graphics cards. That means that, if the Nintendo Revolution comes out a couple months after the XBox 2, it will have newer versions of the same hardware, and can therefore be assumed to be more powerful.
PS3 will probably be the most powerful, overall. But we'll see.
No kidding
Actually, either of them would be. System 1 and 2 are both equally powerful processor wise, and graphics card wise, except 2 will require multithreaded games while 1 will do single threaded games.It also makes sense to go with G5's, since it guarantees backwards compatability with the G3's in the GameCube.