Topic: Xenon specs leaked again and confirmed.

[nickmitch]

Look to me its all about what games are comming out.
The only time numbers should apply in video games is HIGH SCORES!!!!

[Darc Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: manunited4eva22
Clarification or not, they will give it more than it will ever need.  They don't expect it to make a profit until very late in it's life, they still have not reached number one, and they won't back off until they do.

No not really. There are factions in MS that wanted to kill the X-box because of how it hemorraghed money. The Xenon is not gonna get anywhere near the budget of the X-Box. I mean MS has spent at least 2 or 3 billion on X-box and thats not including the money they lose on each unit. Xenon won't get near as much. The X-Box was expected to break even late in its life. The Xenon is expected to make a profit. Thats why MS is gambling on the early release.

Darc Requiem

[manunited4eva22]

Bill Gates could fund this project 8 generations out of his own pocket.  2 to 3 billion dollars over 4 years?  For what will most probably be a viable replacement for desktops in several years?  That is more than a fair bill.  I stand on how much I think they will spend on this.

[Darc Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: manunited4eva22
Bill Gates could fund this project 8 generations out of his own pocket.  2 to 3 billion dollars over 4 years?  For what will most probably be a viable replacement for desktops in several years?  That is more than a fair bill.  I stand on how much I think they will spend on this.

Bill Gates could give every man, women, and child in the US $200 a piece doesn't mean he should or will. Bill Gates is a billionaire for a reason. Throwing away money isn't one of those reasons. Gates okayed the X-box because he thought it could add to his billions. The X-box was supposed to break even. All of the money spent on X-box was supposed to lay the groundwork for Xenon. They expected to compete favorably with PS2 and then go on to dominate the market with Xenon. Well thats not what has happened. Despite MS trying to dictate the pace of the video game market. The leader dictates the pace. MS in third place and they early launch will likely cost them second place in this generation and Xenon profitability in the next.

Darc Requiem

[KDR_11k]

All I want is that the Xenon includes the intro to the game Galax.

"My name is Xenon. I am a ruler of this planet."

[manunited4eva22]

Microsoft knows that it takes time to build a brand, and considering how long they pumped money into webtv, palm pcs, and their always dire need to get into the hardware business, I think they will still put out the money to get close to/in the lead.

[KDR_11k]

Oh, btw, Microsoft already stated "Microsoft thinks in long time terms" when asked about the profitability of the Xenon. I wonder how they think they're going to get all that money back. Hehe, wouldn't it be ironic if the Xenon took a big loss but dominated the industry and when MS finally makes a profitable device noone buys it? THAT'd be funny...

[couchmonkey]

I think Microsoft will continue to pour a lot of money into making Xenon successful, but there are signs that the company is going for profitability too: releasing first with (probably) the least powerful hardware and especially taking out the hard drive.  I think Microsoft will take a more conservative approach this time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's still the most aggressive competitor in the market.

[NintendoSoldier]

Xbox 2 will suck hard a Revolution is coming .

[elementc]

Nintendo Soldier, please stop being a mindless fanboy, I like nintendo games too, but that doesn't mean I have to worship the ground they walk upon.

I'd like to point some things out to everyone who says "hardware doesn't matter", please take into acocunt the following. For a game to look good, sound good, and play well, you need good hardware. Hardware is only as good as the games on it, of course. Yet at the same time games can only be as good as the hardware that runs them. Making good games requires a lot more than most people seem to think. People like consoles because they are cheaper than computers in most cases. Unfortunatly, to make the prices so low they have to leave out certain things. For example, the average computer user runs their display at 1024 by 768 pixels (this number is rising). The xbox, on the other hand, displays images at 640 by 480 pixels. As big as xbox happens to be, the PC is is still much larger. Sound quality is also a big difference between the two categories. The xbox offers 5.1 surround whereas the maximum a computer offers is 7.1 surround. The maximum RAM for a computer is also another massive dividing factor. The maximum RAM depends on the computer but I do know it goes at least up to three gigabytes on some motherboards. I don't claim that any of these numbers are exact. If you want exact specifications look them up yourself. I'm too lazy for that. I haven't gone through every important difference here, but I do have one last thing to point out to everyone who reads this. Right now three 3.5 gigahertz processors may seem like a lot of power, and it is, but by the time the next generation consoles come out, computers will have PCI Express, and 64 bit processors running at speeds beyond four gigahertz. The maximum RAM limit will be raised once again, hard drives will have even greater storage capacity, and who knows what else might happen.

The next Zelda game looks amazing, but if they're telling the truth about it running at 100% of the Gamecubes power, all that tells me is that it will not look as good or run as smoothly could have if Nintendo had released better hardware. Half Life 2, Unreal Engine 3, and whatever else already have better graphics. Please don't argue with me unless you've watched the tech demos for both of those. Regardless of the graphics though, I am still looking forward to the next Zelda game a lot more than most other games (the graphics are amazing, especially considering the fact that it's on the Gamecube). All I'm saying is that it could still be better.

Once again, I request that none of you kill me in my sleep.

P.S.

Does anyone know where I can download the music from the Zelda trailer?!

NOTE : The above numbers for computer hardware are for games only. Certain proffesional applications require more than the average computer can handle.

[NintendoSoldier]

Quote
Text Nintendo Soldier, please stop being a mindless fanboy, I like nintendo games too, but that doesn't mean I have to worship the ground they walk upon.

Lol don't tell me what to do hypocrite because you are obviously and xbox fanboy the xbox 2 will suck and not sell very well because  it will not be the most powerful system out and that was a selling point for the xbox because it was the most powerful system people are so feeble minded that anything that has the most power they buy it to boast . Xbox sucked and was complete garbage that has only one decent game  halo which is overrated .

[king admin]

Quote
Originally posted by: NintendoSoldier
BLAH BLAH BLAH

IM BANNING U CUZ UR STUPIED AND XBOX RULEZ  

[KDR_11k]

elementc: The point is that we're approaching the point where it doesn't make a difference. Sure, at some point in time we can throw 30000 polygons at the face alone, but what will we do with them? Sure, we can do hair simulations some time in the future, but who's going to notice that at 60m? The difference in technology next gen won't be that big. Sure, UE3.0 looks nice, but honestly, do you think that one nextgen console will be able to run it and another won't? Just because Nintendo doesn't shout "Hey, look at our latest 128-core CPU!" doesn't mean they use inferior technology. They didn't shout about their technology when they introduced the Gamecube, yet it is superior to the PS2 despite Sony bragging about their technology left and right.
Besides, what Iwata meant with his "Graphics don't matter" talk is that we can develop graphics all we want, if we don't improve the gameplay more than marginally between yearly releases we're runing a risk of people thinking "I have ten games like that, why do I need THIS game, too?". The thing is, we can do everything with the current hardware short of a few graphcal gimmicks. If you can think of a game idea, it's very likely you won't need new hardware for it. With previous generationas this was not so. You couldn't have vast landscapes or large crowds on the PS1, Pikmin for example wouldn't have worked on the N64, but now you can do it. That's why Nintendo is searching for new reasons to make new consoles. Why would you want to develop some game for Xenon instead of XBox? Better graphics. Why would you want to develop some game for DS instead of N64? New control options.

[manunited4eva22]

Unreal 3 engine?  Are you begging for me to laugh?  Unreal 3 crawls on the new dual 6800 SLI crap, what makes you think that an engine that is still a year out means anything?

Your comparing apples with oranges.

By the way, a 32 bit pc can address 4gb memory, 64 bit can theoretically address 16 exobytes, but most limit that to 1 terabyte.

[elementc]

I already said my numbers probably weren't accurate.

Anyway, I'd like to point something out here. Eventually graphics will reach a point where they look exactly like real life or whatever else you could possibly want a game to look like. Hopefully we will get to a point where everything is all matrixy like but better (no giant needle in the back of your head). Whatever, forget the argument. You guys think whatever you want because as much as you want it to be true, it will not change anything. People are way to deadset in thinking they are right, even when they are so completely wrong it makes you want to puke. I could be wrong too, but I don't care. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject.

<rant>
But I do have a message for Nintendo Soldier... ARE YOU BLIND?! What makes you think I'm an xbox fanboy?! The biggest hint that I'm not is that I talked about computers, not the xbox. Ooh, another big one, I own a Gamecube!! Wow, would a mindless xbox fanboy own a Gamecube?! Yeah, that wouldn't make sense to me either. Jeez, not to mention you need spelling lessons. Would anyone like to know the number one reason I called Soldier a "mindless" fanboy?! Because he didn't state ANY REASONS whatsoever when he said that the xbox is a bad system. C'mon, at least come up with some reasons, even if they are really bad one. Nope, you're too lazy to even bother.
</rant>

Onto a slightly different subject. Nintendo is a buisness. It is in their best interest to please fans so they can keep making money. They are seemingly far less greedy than other big corporations (I think they are far less greedy myself). But my point still stands, they exist to make money for themselves. Certain people their are not in it for the money, of course. Most of them are probably there just to make money and have fun in the process. Then again, I could be completely wrong about everything. Maybe I'm just a little pink bunny having hallucinations while being dunked in a pool full of bleach.

Why do I even bother?! There are more important things in life than arguing over this type of thing!! From now on I'm not going to make any more comments. I'm just going to read. Unless of course someone states something that has been proven false.

[manunited4eva22]

Right, having a discussion on something means that we obviously think we are in complete knowledge of the truth, because obviously here at planetgamecube, everyone is blessed with an apocolyptic power that allows us to say the truth, as we see fit.

If your going to have a discussion on this, try not to progressively get more mad over nothing.

Will graphics eventually look like real life?  I'm sure, but there is a very fine line when you do that.  When you watch movies, how often do you actually think that the movie is happening?  You may get into a movie, but it is obsurdly rare that you actually believe it to be real.

Video games looking like real life is going to require a very long time for not only the hardware to get there, but for software to be able to do that efficiently. It's nice to say well we cay do xxxx polygons per model, but if one were to realistically do every polygon in a model, especially for say a human or a tree, it would take years just to finish that.

The whole, well it will be perfectly realistic arguement is stupid.  Just because something can be realistic doesn't mean it always should.  Do you get mad at cartoons because they don't draw everything in proportion?  Do you get mad at a game because it's premise is absurd, but the game is still fun?  Will there be a place for realistic games farther down the road?  Yes, there always have been, but then again, the next generation isn't going to do all that much for graphics.  It will be a big jump, but the difference is exponentially smaller than the last generation.

I guess rockstar in the future will be able to make Manhunt seem less stupid if it looks more real.

[couchmonkey]

To elementc: It's fun to bother because this is how we get our feelings and opinions out!  But I know how you feel, after heavy posting, especially on one thread, you start to feel like you're talking in circles!  Hope you don't completely disappear on us!

The thing about power is not that people don't care, I think they do, but I also think we're getting to the point where distinguishing between generations is going to get a lot harder.  Anyone on the street could tell you whether Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine looks better.  I don't think the difference will be so obvious between Gamecube and next-gen systems, and as such, casual consumers may see the next generation consoles as a rip off.  It's not that the new systems won't be more powerful, they certainly will.  The question is will people pay to play games that look like Doom 3 instead of Resident Evil 4?  Doom 3 is definitely the better looking game, but is it $300 better looking?  Yes, Xenon will probably be capable of even better graphics than Doom 3, but will those look $300 better?  

I don't know!  That's a question that consumers will have to answer, but I think it's a tougher question than, "Does the PS2 looks $300 better than the PSOne?".


Edit: addressed top part of post directly to elementc

[couchmonkey]

One quick thought: There's a lot of debate over whether computer graphics will ever reach "true" realism.  Some people theorize that recreating the human face is impossible (or darn close to it) because our brains have evolved such powerful facial recognition tools.  But who knows?  I think it's very interesting.

[Ian Sane]

"There's a lot of debate over whether computer graphics will ever reach "true" realism. Some people theorize that recreating the human face is impossible (or darn close to it) because our brains have evolved such powerful facial recognition tools. But who knows?"

I think it's stupid to even bother with that sort of realism.  How does having a face look exactly like a real person's help games in any significant way?  That's just eye candy and wouldn't improve gameplay in any way.  There will be a point where even if we can improve on the graphics from a game design point of view there would be no need to because creating those graphics would take so much work it would better to have inferior graphics on a finished game that's selling and making money.  I don't think it's next gen that we'll hit that wall but I don't think improving graphic models is going to add much to games.  Framerate and draw distance and the amount of characters on screen are the sort of visual improvements that will improve games.  Once we can't noticably improve on those aspects then improving graphics won't be very necessary anymore.  The artist will define a game's beauty at that point.

[manunited4eva22]

How about a war game where the goal is realism?  There is a place for human emotion there.

[Koopa Troopa]

Quote
all that tells me is that it will not look as good or run as smoothly could have if Nintendo had released better hardware. Half Life 2, Unreal Engine 3, and whatever else already have better graphics. Please don't argue with me unless you've watched the tech demos for both of those. Regardless of the graphics though, I am still looking forward to the next Zelda game a lot more than most other games (the graphics are amazing, especially considering the fact that it's on the Gamecube). All I'm saying is that it could still be better.

Guy, you're comparing Zelda to games which require hardware that a small margin of gamers actually have. Hardware that most gamers probably won't have for some years to come, this especially applies to Unreal 3. So, I guess I'm just trying to see your point; of course games are going to look better in years to come, but what has that to do with now?

[ThePerm]

lol have you ever noticed that any post on planetgamecube is 3 times as long in content(i dont count enormous signatures and flashing signature banners) then in other forums. Quite frankly iv been here since the opn2000 days and this is still the best forum ever.

[elementc]

Couchmonkey, you're right. I'll still post, but I'm not going say anything that the people here generally disagree with. I'm going to keep my mouth shut about that kind of thing.

Also, about my last couple of posts, I'm sorry. I didn't think about how much that hardware costs. Hehe, I guess I'm just lucky to have such a nice computer. I payed less than most people though. I'm so glad Newegg exists.

[manunited4eva22]

What are your specs?  Be glad to see what else someone in these forums is running?

My latest cheap project with parts from newegg

380W Antec Truepower
2.4A prescott @ 3.1ghz
2x256MB Mushkin level 1 @2-2-2-6 timings
9800Pro voltmodded to 512/404
MSI PT880 LSR (refurb for 35 dollars, couldnt say no)

Anyway, pc hardware will never be as taken advantage of as consoles.  There is a reason why we never will see a geforce 4 pull of RE4.

[ThePerm]

also that thign about realism...hmm gollum was getting damn close on lord of the rings....in a few years there will be renderors pushing individual faces that have a billion polygons.