Did MS have any other option but to release now?

PioRow

Active Member
I know people have said that the current xbox still has plenty of life left in it and that the 360 has come along to soon, I believe that the xbox is till a very viable console and in a perfect world could of continued for another 18 months but I don't think Microsoft had any other option but to release the 360 now.

They had three option, release the 360 before the PS3, at the same time or after. Releasing after wouldn't be a good idea, a lot of people would of committed cash to buying a PS3 and wouldn't even contemplate buying another console. If they release at the same time then they force gamers into a choice between the PS3 and the 360. Even xbox fans who own both a PS2 and a xbox might side with the PS3. Only a small percentage of the people who buy consoles would buy both at launch. A far bigger percentage would buy both if they were released a decent time apart. Launching at the same time would mean the 360 would always trail the PS3.
So Microsoft's only option was to release the 360 before the PS3. They probably guesstimated that the PS3 would hit Japan in early to mid 2006 and hit the states for Christmas 2006. Now I get the impression that in Japan Christmas is big but not as big as it is in the USA and Europe in terms of a buying period. I think you can launch a console outside the Christmas period in Japan and still sell millions of consoles. But in the USA/Europe the best time to release a console is pre Christmas. So if MS assumed the PS3 would hit the states in Christmas 2006 that only gave them Christmas 2005 as a time frame to release the console.
I believe MS had no choice but to release their console now, they had to set a cut off point for the technology to get it on shelves for Christmas 2005. If this meant being slightly less powerful than the PS3 then so be it. I don't think this power difference will matter, by the time the PS3 launches with some games, the second generation of 360 will be launched and look very nice compared to PS3 1st gen games which by the sounds of it wont be utilising the cell technology to its full potential. And by the time the PS3 hits the USA it will be launching with mainly 1st gen PS3 games and the 360 will probably release some 3rd gen games which will probably out perform the PS3 graphically. Obviously the PS3 will catch up quickly with some awesome looking games but not at time of release.

With regards to the world wide release this is where Microsoft are in a unique situation. The majority of all previous consoles had the largest market share in Japan. Nintendo and sega in their hey day were big in the USA but just as big if not bigger in Japan. The xbox's biggest market is the states and Japan is very small. If they released the machine in Japan first it would p*ss of the USA and probably push a lot of people to the PS3. The console wouldn't make the big impact that MS need. Plus there would most likely be thousands of spare units sitting on shelves. So they have to hit the states first, but they realise how important Japan is, they need to have a market presence if the 360 is going to succeed. So that means Japan and the states at the same time. But then that would mark Europe down as a unimportant market and Europe is bigger than Japan for the xbox. Bit of a dilemma, they need to launch in all three territories at the same time. They probably weighed up the pro's and cons and thought it was better to have sold out signs every where and have people lusting over the 360 rather than people looking at the PS3 release date and waiting for that.
 

jedi-jae

Active Member
MS want you to believe that "gamers are ready for Xbox360, they want Xbox360, they want HD gaming" blah blah blah. That's the spin.

The truth, IMO: Xbox is a loss maker, so they've ditched it and are releasing Xbox360 to get a head start on Sony. Simple as that. If they had real confidence in their product they'd have waited a little longer and maybe included an HD-DVD drive too. It's a rush job. So rushed they won't even have enough consoles to meet pre-order demand and they still don't know what games will be available at launch - hardly a polished launch plan...

I'm sure they would have preferred to put a hard drive in every console, but in order to shift units quickly to aid their plan to win this sales race they opted for the Core system - nice and cheap, but a major irritation of virtually every Xbox owner who feels the inclusion of one was a major advantage of the current console.

The whole thing drips of desperation, but hey, it might just work!
 

gavan

Well-known Member
jedi-jae said:
MS want you to believe that "gamers are ready for Xbox360, they want Xbox360, they want HD gaming" blah blah blah. That's the spin.

The truth, IMO: Xbox is a loss maker, so they've ditched it and are releasing Xbox360 to get a head start on Sony. Simple as that. If they had real confidence in their product they'd have waited a little longer and maybe included an HD-DVD drive too. It's a rush job. So rushed they won't even have enough consoles to meet pre-order demand and they still don't know what games will be available at launch - hardly a polished launch plan...

I'm sure they would have preferred to put a hard drive in every console, but in order to shift units quickly to aid their plan to win this sales race they opted for the Core system - nice and cheap, but a major irritation of virtually every Xbox owner who feels the inclusion of one was a major advantage of the current console.

The whole thing drips of desperation, but hey, it might just work!

I think you hit the nail bang on the head. MS weren't prepared to keep taking losses on the XBox and they want to start to try to make good on the mindshare they have bought with the Xbox brand.

The last time around, even though the XBox was miles better hardware-wise than the PS2, it came out a lot later and thus couldn't catch up with the PS2 due to the momentum that it had gained. This time, they want to get a jump on Sony and are hoping to be the ones with the momentum.


It's a real gamble - it's not entirely clear that the market is crying out for a new generation of consoles just yet. Certainly, the XBox itself has had a very short life and looks like it still could go strong. They need to convince people to spend hundreds of quid on a new console box and that won't be easy - hence the 'core' pack to make it a bit cheaper.

I think they might have been better to wait and coincide their launch with the Sony one - but with a really good launch lineup and lower price than the PS3. However, it appears that Sony are really targetting more than the games market with the PS3 - they want to make it the first HiDef movie player device for many people. Also, with the bluetooth, CD, SD and multiple network ports they really seem to be going all out for 'convergance'. My guess is that they will market it alongside the PS2 for a year or two. The PS2 is the simple, cheap games box, the PS3 will be the all-singing all-dancing 'home entertainment' product.


Gav
 

ChrisAllenFiz

Active Member
There is no point waiting and putting a hd-dvd in there. The tech isn`t ready yet, and it would have bumped up the cost of the console.

We are not at the stage with HD that DVD was at when PS2 came out. As of today BD-ROM and HD-DVD are nowhere. No common standard, no movies out yet, recorders cost $1000s.

The other factors are negligible. The power of the two consoles will not differ greatly, so why not get it out there now. If Sony come out Fall 2006 in the US at 450 or 500 dollars, suddenly its going to look like genius. If Sony can get out earlier and match the 360 price, and not lose reliability, then MS willl look silly
 
J

JayList

Guest
They had to release before the PS3 to try and gain market share from Sony. In my opinion they were worried about the PS3 so much that they brough there launch forward.

Edge magazine is full of stories about the rushed demos at X05.
 

gavan

Well-known Member
ChrisAllenFiz said:
There is no point waiting and putting a hd-dvd in there. The tech isn`t ready yet, and it would have bumped up the cost of the console.

We are not at the stage with HD that DVD was at when PS2 came out. As of today BD-ROM and HD-DVD are nowhere. No common standard, no movies out yet, recorders cost $1000s.

The other factors are negligible. The power of the two consoles will not differ greatly, so why not get it out there now. If Sony come out Fall 2006 in the US at 450 or 500 dollars, suddenly its going to look like genius. If Sony can get out earlier and match the 360 price, and not lose reliability, then MS willl look silly
With regard to the HD video format battle, even though it's not clear which of the two contenders will win out in the long run from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, it does look likely that intially at least they will both be attracting reasonable software support. If you are paying only $100 extra for the PS3 then I'd say the gamble is worth it. I'm pretty sure it'll be a while before you can buy a HD player (of either kind) for that $100, which you'd need to do with the XBox if you were into HiDef. A lot of the early adopters getting these next-gen consoles are doing so for the features like HD output, so getting a bundled HD disc player at the same time as a HD capable games console is a worthwhile incentive. Even if HD-DVD ends up crushing blu-ray, you can buy a seperate HD-DVD deck at that time when they are likely to have become pretty cheap.

And MSes strategy seems confused. Are they going for the games or multimedia market with the 360? They seem to be showing an interest in Multimedia with the Media Center connectivity features, yet they haven't gone all the way and given it the sort of standalane capabilities that even the first-gen Xbox has (when chipped and used with XBMC). Further, although they are pushing HiDef gaming, they have no clear way of delivering HiDef media playback. Given that it doesn't have HDMI output and therefore no digital copy protection for playback, I can see problems convincing the content providers to allow delivery via the console.

And as a straightforward gaming console, what does it really offer the mass-market gamer that makes it worth spending the best part of 300 quid on? You can go on about XBox Live but the XBox has that, and it still hasn't come anywhere close to toppling the PS2. It has superior graphics to competitors, but then so has the XBox.

Basically, why would the mass market consumer who hasn't seen the value in buying into the XBox with it's superior graphics and online ability (vs the PS2) suddenly decide to spend almost 3x as much for the new XBox which has further improved graphics and further superior online ability as it's main selling points? Especially with a PS3 on the horizon, which looks to be technically superior again.


Microsoft have a really, REALLY hard sell to do with this one. I'm not saying that it can't succeed, but it's hard to see where they are taking things. My idea would have been to have a cheap lowend box (no hidef DVD player, no HDD .. basically, the 'core' system but at a lower price) and a PS3-priced highend product (HD-DVD, HDMI ouput, HDD, lots of interfaces).

Sell the lowend model to the general console-buying market, sell the highend system to those interested in 'Home Entertainment'. I'll bet you that Sony do something like this with the PS2 and PS3.


Gav
 

harrisuk

Active Member
There is no point waiting and putting a hd-dvd in there. The tech isn`t ready yet, and it would have bumped up the cost of the console.
Absolutely. Their is no HD drive in the 360 becuase the technology simply isnt ready. There is no clear format, no films and as yet demand is unknown.

DVD is going very well. Do people really think that the majority will ditch their Dvd collections and start buying hd dvd (That arent even available yet)

All it does is massively add to the cost (A reported $75 - $80 per unit)

MS had to launch now as Sony are currently dominant in the market. The basically saw an opportunity and took it; although the Xbox is a decent machine and still has life in it the PS2 has needed replacing for a couple of years. It really is terrible even in comparison the the current generation (Xbox and Gamecube)

If the PS2 looks crap next to an xbox what will it look like next to a 360 ? Its a long time until the PS3 is launched in the UK. Probably September next year for Europe maybe Summer 2006 for the US.

Sony have got distracted by the PSP. With that and the huge anticipated cost of the PS3 they might have dropped the ball this time. If people take an unbiased view and look at what the market is saying its predicted that the 360 will sell out in Europe and the US pre christmas and they are anticipating 10 million sales by the end of next year.

If that happens it will give them a pretty big headstart over Sony. We havent even got the the predicted price differential the 360 will have on launch over the PS3. They are predciting the 360 to cost around $249 at ps3 launch v $499. Thats alot of money for no or little difference in the quality of the games you will be playing...
 

ChrisAllenFiz

Active Member
gavan said:
My idea would have been to have a cheap lowend box (no hidef DVD player, no HDD .. basically, the 'core' system but at a lower price) and a PS3-priced highend product (HD-DVD, HDMI ouput, HDD, lots of interfaces).

Sell the lowend model to the general console-buying market, sell the highend system to those interested in 'Home Entertainment'. I'll bet you that Sony do something like this with the PS2 and PS3.
But that is what MS have done, by the time the PS3 comes out, the 360 will be at least 100 quid cheaper and will still play the same games as the PS3, so the question becomes, why buy a PS3. The only reason will be for the Blu Ray drive, if people really want that.
 

gavan

Well-known Member
harrisuk said:
If the PS2 looks crap next to an xbox what will it look like next to a 360 ? Its a long time until the PS3 is launched in the UK. Probably September next year for Europe maybe Summer 2006 for the US.

Sony have got distracted by the PSP. With that and the huge anticipated cost of the PS3 they might have dropped the ball this time.

Yet despite the clear technical superiority of the XBox over the PS2, which has appealed more to the mass market?

Now, if an XBox with better GFX, more power, built in HDD and great networking loses so heavily to a PS2 *even though it costs more or less the same price* .... how will a HDD-equipped XBox360 suddenly tempt those same buyers into spending * 3x * the price of a PS2 (or the core system, without even the HDD, at 2x the price of a PS2)?
Gav
 

Pooon

Well-known Member
jedi-jae said:
MS want you to believe that "gamers are ready for Xbox360, they want Xbox360, they want HD gaming" blah blah blah. That's the spin.
Just because your not ready for it, don't think that other people arn't. Lots of people are looking forward to HD gaming, whether that be on the 360 or PS3, but as the 360 is available 1st, thats what people will buy.

jedi-jae said:
If they had real confidence in their product they'd have waited a little longer and maybe included an HD-DVD drive too.
Why? for what gain?

jedi-jae said:
So rushed they won't even have enough consoles to meet pre-order demand
What console, at launch, in history, has had enough units available at launch? you seen to have a very short memory, remember the lauch of the PS2, you HAD to pre order to get one, not pre orer form no console. there were 0 units availble for general sale
 

jim_is_ere

Well-known Member
Whether or not it was the right decision, it's got to benefit the gamers, who will be playing next generation games in just over 3 weeks :thumbsup:

Jim
 

jedi-jae

Active Member
People who have pre-ordered have no guarantee of getting a console this side of Christmas, that's all I meant.

HD-DVD - because they are selling the console as being everything HD but it falls short of this ability doesn't it? When MS have publically sided with HD-DVD, doesn't it make sense for them to put one in their console? Just think how much that would have done for that format - everything that Sony hope to do with PS3 and Blu-Ray.

Are you telling me that if Xbox360 wasn't due for another year, you would be bitterly disappointed because your Xbox badly needs replacing? Your Xbox is soo poor that you can't wait to ditch it for a newer version?

My point there being that what MS say isn't necessarily the same as the reality of the situation - MS wanted the jump on Sony, that's all there is behind the launch date of Xbox360, but MS obviously don't want that to be the message do they? So they come up with the "gamers tell us they want it now" line. But it seems clear to me that the majority of Xbox owners are very happy with their console and don't really see a need to have it replaced right now. It's life is being cut short so that MS can get a lead on Sony.
 
B

benlonguk

Guest
Having lived through the whole VHS and betamax thing why anyone would want to get into another format war I have no idea. Even though I backed VHS then I'm not sure who'll win this one, so I'm not playing. Until they produce a drive that can read both, I'm not buying.

Perhaps Microsoft are thinking along the same lines.
 

harrisuk

Active Member
if an XBox with better GFX, more power, built in HDD and great networking loses so heavily to a PS2 *even though it costs more or less the same price
But is this not what this thread is saying ? The reason the PS2 had such a hugemarket share this time was because it arrived well before the xbox, not becuase of the games and the quality of the system.

OK there is the Dreamcast argument but there were many other factors that led that to be a failure. PS2 had the brand and a big headstart. The PS3 wont have those advantages, certainly its brand has been tarnished or at least greatly reduced over the last couple of years.

The xbox is still in production anyway. I am sure people will continue to buy the PS2 but it will in effect be the worst console on the market by a long way.

HD-DVD - because they are selling the console as being everything HD but it falls short of this ability doesn't it? When MS have publically sided with HD-DVD, doesn't it make sense for them to put one in their console? Just think how much that would have done for that format - everything that Sony hope to do with PS3 and Blu-Ray.
It dosnt fall short of this ability. The Blu Ray discs will only be used for movies on the PS3 for the most part. This has already been covered many tmes before. Games developers struggle to fill a DVD9. How are they going to fill a HD DVD ?

MS asked them what they would prefer. Faster load times or HD DVD. Every 3rd part publisher went for faster load times without exception.

You dont seem to be taking on board the HD DVD issue. Its not resolved now. It wont be resolved when PS3 is launched next year.

And it increases the cost of the console by $80. Everyone has to pay that whether they want it or not (And as I said at the moment the majority wont want it) I think MS have made the right descision. Coupled with the massively expensive, unproven and difficult to develope for Cell processor it seems like Sony are the ones making the gamble going to market second with a system which cost cost double that of the competitors.

how will a HDD-equipped XBox360 suddenly tempt those same buyers into spending * 3x * the price of a PS2 (or the core system, without even the HDD, at 2x the price of a PS2)?
Your say people wont want to pay the money for the 360, what about the PS3 at twice the price of the 360 :rolleyes: What you are saying dosnt make any sense :confused:
 

jedi-jae

Active Member
To be fair and obejctive, it is only the kind of people who come to forums who are unhappy with the PS2, I think you will find the majority of gamers who just want a console to plug into their tv and play games care little about specs and abilities.

Now that could well play into MS's hands, if those casual (I hate that term) gamers see the new Xbox there is no reason why they wouldn't buy it, but the PlayStation brand has probably not suffered in their eyes: it plays games, that's all it has to do and many of them will associate it with the GTA series and may well feel that PS3 will be the console to deliver the next game in that series first - I doubt GTA on PSP will do sales of that any harm!

It's all very well saying PS2 is the worst, but really, honestly, in what way? It's a games machine and it plays games. It may not have the graphical edge that Xbox and GC enjoy, but like I said, graphics, specs, techie stuff - most people just don't care. They just want to have fun and PS2 is still delivering that in droves.

MS need to make the most of their lead, they really do. They are aiming to duplicate what Sony did with PS2. But if Sony really can launch PS3, even if it's just Japan, by April or May next year...

There is so much we don't know about PS3 and we won't do until the New Year. Look at how many features for Xbox360 only came out a few weeks ago, the same will happen with PS3. Neither of them are just games machines.

Good luck to MS, I really mean that and anyone buying a 360; I hope you really get a kick out of it, I can't deny being more than a little jealous that you'll be playing HD games in a few weeks - but I don't have the dosh for one right now, so I'll see what happens with PS3 in the new year. If it really is stupidly expensive, then who knows..!

ciao for now.
 

Pooon

Well-known Member
/\/\/\A good post. much better than your one in the ps2 forum

jedi-jae said:
Are you telling me that if Xbox360 wasn't due for another year, you would be bitterly disappointed because your Xbox badly needs replacing? Your Xbox is soo poor that you can't wait to ditch it for a newer version?
At this stage yes it would be. now that the console has been confirmed, specs sorted, games announced etc etc yes i would be disapointed if it wasn't available for another year, and not because my xbox needs replacing, and neither is my xbox poor
 

gavan

Well-known Member
You seemed to have included quotes from me and another poster in your reply, so I'll stick to your replies to my post.


harrisuk said:
But is this not what this thread is saying ? The reason the PS2 had such a hugemarket share this time was because it arrived well before the xbox, not becuase of the games and the quality of the system.

OK there is the Dreamcast argument but there were many other factors that led that to be a failure. PS2 had the brand and a big headstart. The PS3 wont have those advantages, certainly its brand has been tarnished or at least greatly reduced over the last couple of years.
Being over a year _late_ to market certainly hurt the XBox. It's not clear that rushing out the next-gen product to get there six months before the PS3 is going to help things much. When the PS2 came out, there was a real demand for a new generation, which it filled nicely.

I don't see that there's the same feeling that the current generation of consoles has run it's course. How old is the XBox, 4 years? The PS1 must have been something like 7 years old when the PS2 was released.

And I don't see that the Playstation brand has at all been tarnished in the eyes of the general public... if anything the PS2 has grabbed even more mindshare for the Playstation brand than before.



harrisuk said:
The xbox is still in production anyway. I am sure people will continue to buy the PS2 but it will in effect be the worst console on the market by a long way.
Is it still being made? I thought that they'd stopped a while back.

Anyway, technically the PS2 is the worst console already but that hasn't hurt it at all. If that market segment wouldn't switch to a 100 quid XBox, I can't see it switching to a 200 quid core pack. Maybe 150 pounds would be a better price point.


harrisuk said:
Your say people wont want to pay the money for the 360, what about the PS3 at twice the price of the 360 :rolleyes: What you are saying dosnt make any sense :confused:
I'm saying that with the replacement of the XBox with the 360, the entry level to the 'platform' is too high. 200 quid becomes the minumum you need to buy into the XBox brand. Unless of course MS keep selling the XBox at 100 quid. You've got a low end that's extremely expensive and a high end that's even more expensive, but not nearly as well specced as the competition coming in six months time (well, on paper anyway).

Oh yeah, and don't you need a HDD to play older XBox games on the 360? That means that the 'cheap' 200 quid core system won't even offer access the existing XBox library and will stand on the small amount of first wave games. And we haven't even seen how well the HDD equipped machine is going to do across the spectrum of XBox titles.
 

jedi-jae

Active Member
poontang - re: my posts, yeah I go off a bit heavy too often which isn't good and does me no favours. Reigning things in, so expect more brain cells applied to posts in future!!!!

But what I really meant was, if we had no details of the Xbox360, only that it was due for Christmas 2006, I think you'd be ok with that.

I'm not trying to "trick" anyone with this. I can accept that after five years on the shelf it is time for a new PlayStation but that's not the case for the Xbox. The point being that although MS push the line that the world wants a new Xbox, the reality is that actually they don't, but MS do, in order to get a lead on Sony because they are miffed to bits that Xbox didn't take the sales lead they always expected it to.

That's all folks, I'm going home to watch the Bourne Supremacy and eat pasta!!!
 

danvitale

Active Member
One thing to remember is that theres an obvious difference between the PS2 and PS3.. its less so with the Xbox and the 360. The original Xbox was hi def ready, its just that the software houses didnt include hi def in the games.. The world hasnt suddenly gone HDTV crazy, its Europe for the most part.

People say that the PS3 will be too expensive, but even as a BluRay player on its own it will regain its value, especially if standalone players start retailing for £300. Suddenly the console is looking better value for money.

By the sounds of it, the Xbox 360 is by first impressions nothing more than a high end gaming PC in a small box, this does justify its own value for money as you wont have to pay the £1500 for your latest P4 Extreme Gaming PC.. you'll have something just as good for fragging for less than £300... Sure, the 360 will grow in terms of gaming quality, but Ive got a high end PC, Ive got hi def trailers, Ive got an LCD.. the only demos ive seen which totally blow my mind are from the Playstation 3. You SEE the big jump Sony have made, you only have to see the Metal Gear Solid 4 demo. Astonishing.

But.. dont get all down yet. Launch titles are quite often naff, and the 360 will still be an excellent console.. but it would take a fool to write off Sony and the Playstation 3.
 

artois

Active Member
People seem to be commenting on how cheap a 360 is compared to a high end pc but if they want their experience to equal that of pc graphics then they will have to invest in a HDtv which would be at least £600-£700 on top of the core console at a minimum. I know alot of people are considering 17 inch lcd monitors and such like but even playing on the HDTVs on the demo pod wasnt particularly great so a 360 on a 17" monitor would be wasted.
 

Pooon

Well-known Member
jedi-jae said:
poontang - re: my posts, yeah I go off a bit heavy too often which isn't good and does me no favours. Reigning things in, so expect more brain cells applied to posts in future!!!!

But what I really meant was, if we had no details of the Xbox360, only that it was due for Christmas 2006, I think you'd be ok with that.

That's all folks, I'm going home to watch the Bourne Supremacy and eat pasta!!!
I'd be ok waiting, but the games i play(driving) have started to reach the end of their lives now, i can't get much faster. so for me a 360 and pgr3 is gaming nirvana

Bourne = best use of a magazine in a film
 

booth1976

Active Member
artois said:
People seem to be commenting on how cheap a 360 is compared to a high end pc but if they want their experience to equal that of pc graphics then they will have to invest in a HDtv which would be at least £600-£700 on top of the core console at a minimum. I know alot of people are considering 17 inch lcd monitors and such like but even playing on the HDTVs on the demo pod wasnt particularly great so a 360 on a 17" monitor would be wasted.
Unless you already have a HDTV like some of us ;)
 

booth1976

Active Member
Note to self. Don't comment on anything that artois posts in the future.

Apologies, I now agree with everything you say or have said in the past 24 hours :thumbsup:
 

harrisuk

Active Member
People seem to be commenting on how cheap a 360 is compared to a high end pc but if they want their experience to equal that of pc graphics then they will have to invest in a HDtv which would be at least £600-£700 on top of the core console at a minimum. I know alot of people are considering 17 inch lcd monitors and such like but even playing on the HDTVs on the demo pod wasnt particularly great so a 360 on a 17" monitor would be wasted.
Personally I will be playing them on a HD Ready Projector. You can probably pick up something like a Panny e500 almost new now for less than 500 quid.

Have a look on Ebuyer. HD ready LCD screens are definately where its at. Prices are dropping all the time. You really need to do some research 600 quid gets you a decent sized hd ready lcd 26" to 32" last time I looked. They certainly start now at much less than this.

Remember people upgrading their screen get more use out of it than just the console. You are just throwing in the cost with the 360 to try and make it look less good value compared to a high end pc.

This simply is not the case.

I must say I am getting increasingly bored with these threads. The games forums were split down for a reason; to stop pointless bickering like this. What you basically have is a load of people who want to talk about xbox stuff and a few people who obviously what to argue, presumably Playstation fans. Thats fine but why dont you just stick to the PS2 forum and spout this stuff to other like minded people who are actually interested.

As someone has already said in another thread you are not going to get much joy in here.
 

gavan

Well-known Member
harrisuk said:
I must say I am getting increasingly bored with these threads. The games forums were split down for a reason; to stop pointless bickering like this. What you basically have is a load of people who want to talk about xbox stuff and a few people who obviously what to argue, presumably Playstation fans. Thats fine but why dont you just stick to the PS2 forum and spout this stuff to other like minded people who are actually interested.
Actually, it's good to see a somewhat stimulating discussion about what people think about the direction that console gaming is going in and how the next-gen consoles are going to be accepted. If it's too cerebral, or boring you, feel free to ignore the thread.

Gav
 

artois

Active Member
booth1976 said:
Note to self. Don't comment on anything that artois posts in the future.

Apologies, I now agree with everything you say or have said in the past 24 hours :thumbsup:
Actually I was thinking of changing my threads and opinion just to suit you booth1976. Guess I dont have to bother now. Cheers :smashin:

harrisuk said:
You really need to do some research 600 quid gets you a decent sized hd ready lcd 26" to 32" last time I looked. They certainly start now at much less than this.

.
I did say you would have to spend at least £600 for a decent sized tv
 

booth1976

Active Member
artois said:
Actually I was thinking of changing my threads and opinion just to suit you booth1976. Guess I dont have to bother now. Cheers :smashin:
No keep em' on, and you carry on misinforming people. I know where to go for a good chuckle :rolleyes: Seriously, it's nothing to do with your opinions. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion but passing them off as a solid fact isn't right. Sure it's a free country but don't expect no reaction. And even if I did disagree with your opinions, am I not allowed to disagree without being labelled a stalker? Now that's just personal.

I can't help that I've felt more cause to reply to some of your statements over the past 24 hours than I have in the entire time I've been a member at AVforums.
 

Miyazaki

Well-known Member
IMHO what is the big deal about HD?

I run games on my laptop at 1280x800 which is effectively 720p I suppose. I don't get why there is such a big deal about it, but then again I haven't seen a 50" HD display running games at 720p! :blush:
 

gavan

Well-known Member
Games Guru said:
IMHO what is the big deal about HD?

I run games on my laptop at 1280x800 which is effectively 720p I suppose. I don't get why there is such a big deal about it, but then again I haven't seen a 50" HD display running games at 720p! :blush:

Try knocking a standard PC down to 640x480 and playing some games at that resolution - then compare it to 1024x768. Thats the sort of ballpark improvement you're looking at.

The improvements will be particularly evident for large screens.....


Gav
 

Trending threads

Latest news

T+A expands E-Series with PA 1100E integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins unveils new PX wireless ANC headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Roku Premiere streaming device with 4K HDR hits UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
CTA launches 8K UHD TV display certification programme
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Huawei launches Google-less Mate 30 and Mate 30 Pro phones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom