The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That is the question!
Even to this day, I still read posts about how people view the XBox as a "PC in a box", and how disappointed people are about why certain PC games are not arriving on XBox as they expected. Well, I hate to say it, but XBox is NOT just a PC in a box!
Let me reason...
Firstly, consider what makes XBox, and the other consoles tick. XBox, PS2 and Gamecube all have the following key components:
- Motherboard
- CPU (Central Processing Unit)
- GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)
- SPU (Sound Processing Unit)
- RAM (Memory)
- Removable storage (for the games, such as DVD)
- "Fixed" media for game saves etc. (HD, Mem Cards etc.)
Why, therefore, do people not view PS2 or Gamecube as a PC in a box? The reason is simple; it's because they are not PCs, and everybody knows it!! PC stands for "Personal Computer", and by definition, it's name and pupose extend well beyond that of gaming. On the other hand, "Games Consoles" are designed with just one thing in mind.
I can hear a lot of you shouting, "yes, but XBox uses components that can be found in PCs, so that makes it a PC in a box". Well, no it doesn't actually. I mean, yes it uses PC-derived components, but that's where the similarities end. Of course, technically, consoles and PCs have a lot in common, but a games console and PC are not "what they are" based on just their technological make up.
The presense of the HD in the XBox confused matters. Being the first to incorporate such technology gave good reason for people to suspect that XBox was just a PC in a box. However, consider what if Microsoft had decided to call their HD a "large capacity built-in memory card", and you didn't know it was a HD? Suddenly the concept of mass-storage in a console does not sound like it was born of PC origins. All recent consoles have had memory cards (indeed XBox has them too for portability reasons), but XBox is the first one to have a large capacity "card" built in.
So back to the "same components as a PC" scenario. Well, it's true that the components are pretty much the same as (now older!) PCs. So what? The argument is a non-starter. I have got a TiVo sat downstairs recording my favourite TV shows. If I open it up, I see that it has got a standard Motherboard, Hard Drive, Processor, Gfx Card, Sound Card etc. But, it is NOT a PC!
In fact, the argument goes beyond the technology. PCs are marketed as all-singing, all-dancing, do-it-all systems, and they serve that purpose really well. They are upgradeable, and there is software and hardware out there to make your PC do pretty much whatever you want.
Consoles are marketed differently. They are designed only for games, they are not usually up upgradeable (N64 being the exception here), and are marketed to a totally different audience. The marketing model for a games console is totally different and XBox follows exactly that model. Games consoles also have a much longer life-span.
So, if you want to be naive about it, and just look at the technology in isolation (especially brand-specific technology, such as nVidia gfx cards), you could argue that XBox is a PC in a box. In such a case you really should also call PS2 and Gamecube a PC in a box. Ludicrous, but there you go!
I think a clearer definition would be, "XBox is a games console that shares technology with the common PC", and that is why some PC games will not arrive on XBox; they are different devices with a different audience and a different purpose. This is why Microsoft don't want you to view XBox as a PC in a box, and this is why it is NOT a PC in a box.
Consider this:
You are made of the same chemical elements as a common earth worm. Is it fair to call you a "worm in a different skin"? In some cases I'm sure that would be true (sorry!), but do you see my point? The same elemets arranged slightly different resulting in a totally different "machine".
Thanks for slithering, erm... I mean reading!!
Even to this day, I still read posts about how people view the XBox as a "PC in a box", and how disappointed people are about why certain PC games are not arriving on XBox as they expected. Well, I hate to say it, but XBox is NOT just a PC in a box!
Let me reason...
Firstly, consider what makes XBox, and the other consoles tick. XBox, PS2 and Gamecube all have the following key components:
- Motherboard
- CPU (Central Processing Unit)
- GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)
- SPU (Sound Processing Unit)
- RAM (Memory)
- Removable storage (for the games, such as DVD)
- "Fixed" media for game saves etc. (HD, Mem Cards etc.)
Why, therefore, do people not view PS2 or Gamecube as a PC in a box? The reason is simple; it's because they are not PCs, and everybody knows it!! PC stands for "Personal Computer", and by definition, it's name and pupose extend well beyond that of gaming. On the other hand, "Games Consoles" are designed with just one thing in mind.
I can hear a lot of you shouting, "yes, but XBox uses components that can be found in PCs, so that makes it a PC in a box". Well, no it doesn't actually. I mean, yes it uses PC-derived components, but that's where the similarities end. Of course, technically, consoles and PCs have a lot in common, but a games console and PC are not "what they are" based on just their technological make up.
The presense of the HD in the XBox confused matters. Being the first to incorporate such technology gave good reason for people to suspect that XBox was just a PC in a box. However, consider what if Microsoft had decided to call their HD a "large capacity built-in memory card", and you didn't know it was a HD? Suddenly the concept of mass-storage in a console does not sound like it was born of PC origins. All recent consoles have had memory cards (indeed XBox has them too for portability reasons), but XBox is the first one to have a large capacity "card" built in.
So back to the "same components as a PC" scenario. Well, it's true that the components are pretty much the same as (now older!) PCs. So what? The argument is a non-starter. I have got a TiVo sat downstairs recording my favourite TV shows. If I open it up, I see that it has got a standard Motherboard, Hard Drive, Processor, Gfx Card, Sound Card etc. But, it is NOT a PC!
In fact, the argument goes beyond the technology. PCs are marketed as all-singing, all-dancing, do-it-all systems, and they serve that purpose really well. They are upgradeable, and there is software and hardware out there to make your PC do pretty much whatever you want.
Consoles are marketed differently. They are designed only for games, they are not usually up upgradeable (N64 being the exception here), and are marketed to a totally different audience. The marketing model for a games console is totally different and XBox follows exactly that model. Games consoles also have a much longer life-span.
So, if you want to be naive about it, and just look at the technology in isolation (especially brand-specific technology, such as nVidia gfx cards), you could argue that XBox is a PC in a box. In such a case you really should also call PS2 and Gamecube a PC in a box. Ludicrous, but there you go!
I think a clearer definition would be, "XBox is a games console that shares technology with the common PC", and that is why some PC games will not arrive on XBox; they are different devices with a different audience and a different purpose. This is why Microsoft don't want you to view XBox as a PC in a box, and this is why it is NOT a PC in a box.
Consider this:
You are made of the same chemical elements as a common earth worm. Is it fair to call you a "worm in a different skin"? In some cases I'm sure that would be true (sorry!), but do you see my point? The same elemets arranged slightly different resulting in a totally different "machine".
Thanks for slithering, erm... I mean reading!!
Nomino wrote:
> XBox would seriously benefit from a top-notch version of Links golf!!
Most definately. Tiger Woods PGA Tour is so easy it renders the game useless.
> XBox would seriously benefit from a top-notch version of Links golf!!
Most definately. Tiger Woods PGA Tour is so easy it renders the game useless.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Hmm.. this can be summed up with an equation methinks:
>
> PC x Dreamcast = Xbox
Nah.
PC + Dreamcast(Playstation 2 + Beefy hardware) - GTA3 = Xbox
> Hmm.. this can be summed up with an equation methinks:
>
> PC x Dreamcast = Xbox
Nah.
PC + Dreamcast(Playstation 2 + Beefy hardware) - GTA3 = Xbox
That message went wrong, heres the proper one.
The entire argument about the Xbox being a PC in a box or not is pretty stupid, if Microsoft did want that why didn't they just bring out a better PC and not a gmaes console like they did.
Hope that makes slightly more sense.
The entire argument about the Xbox being a PC in a box or not is pretty stupid, if Microsoft did want that why didn't they just bring out a better PC and not a gmaes console like they did.
Hope that makes slightly more sense.
The entire argument about the Xbox being a PC in a box or not is pretty stupid, if Microsoft built did want that whyu didn't they just bring out a better PC and not a gmaes console like they did.
Hmm.. this can be summed up with an equation methinks:
PC x Dreamcast = Xbox
PC x Dreamcast = Xbox
The "problem" of PC ports comes back to the whole audience thing. Console gamers are generally a different kind of gamer compared to PC veterans. This isn't always true I admit, but for the most part it's a fair statement.
I do play games on both the PC and games consoles, but I am firmly in the "console camp" when it comes to the style and type of game that I like. I really enjoyed Ace Combat 4 on PS2 for example, but I don't like Microsoft Flight Simulator or games of that nature.
Having said that, with snooker games it is the other way around. The World Championship Snooker series on PS2 is awful. The only decent snooker/pool games are the Virtual Pool games on the PC.
I guess it all comes down to what you want out of each genre. I want serious and accurate snooker games, but when it comes to flying I want fast action.
These days, it's not really fair to pigeon hole games as "PC" and "console". A game is a game and you either like it or you don't. Unfortunately, the games publishers can't release every title on every system just to suite each individuals taste! I do agree though, that XBox would seriously benefit from a top-notch version of Links golf!!
I do play games on both the PC and games consoles, but I am firmly in the "console camp" when it comes to the style and type of game that I like. I really enjoyed Ace Combat 4 on PS2 for example, but I don't like Microsoft Flight Simulator or games of that nature.
Having said that, with snooker games it is the other way around. The World Championship Snooker series on PS2 is awful. The only decent snooker/pool games are the Virtual Pool games on the PC.
I guess it all comes down to what you want out of each genre. I want serious and accurate snooker games, but when it comes to flying I want fast action.
These days, it's not really fair to pigeon hole games as "PC" and "console". A game is a game and you either like it or you don't. Unfortunately, the games publishers can't release every title on every system just to suite each individuals taste! I do agree though, that XBox would seriously benefit from a top-notch version of Links golf!!
Well said sir.
But a few more PC ports wouldn't go amiss. A serious golf game, a deepish flight sim, a point-n-click adventure that isn't Myst.... Grim Fandango, Monkey Island....
But a few more PC ports wouldn't go amiss. A serious golf game, a deepish flight sim, a point-n-click adventure that isn't Myst.... Grim Fandango, Monkey Island....
That is the question!
Even to this day, I still read posts about how people view the XBox as a "PC in a box", and how disappointed people are about why certain PC games are not arriving on XBox as they expected. Well, I hate to say it, but XBox is NOT just a PC in a box!
Let me reason...
Firstly, consider what makes XBox, and the other consoles tick. XBox, PS2 and Gamecube all have the following key components:
- Motherboard
- CPU (Central Processing Unit)
- GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)
- SPU (Sound Processing Unit)
- RAM (Memory)
- Removable storage (for the games, such as DVD)
- "Fixed" media for game saves etc. (HD, Mem Cards etc.)
Why, therefore, do people not view PS2 or Gamecube as a PC in a box? The reason is simple; it's because they are not PCs, and everybody knows it!! PC stands for "Personal Computer", and by definition, it's name and pupose extend well beyond that of gaming. On the other hand, "Games Consoles" are designed with just one thing in mind.
I can hear a lot of you shouting, "yes, but XBox uses components that can be found in PCs, so that makes it a PC in a box". Well, no it doesn't actually. I mean, yes it uses PC-derived components, but that's where the similarities end. Of course, technically, consoles and PCs have a lot in common, but a games console and PC are not "what they are" based on just their technological make up.
The presense of the HD in the XBox confused matters. Being the first to incorporate such technology gave good reason for people to suspect that XBox was just a PC in a box. However, consider what if Microsoft had decided to call their HD a "large capacity built-in memory card", and you didn't know it was a HD? Suddenly the concept of mass-storage in a console does not sound like it was born of PC origins. All recent consoles have had memory cards (indeed XBox has them too for portability reasons), but XBox is the first one to have a large capacity "card" built in.
So back to the "same components as a PC" scenario. Well, it's true that the components are pretty much the same as (now older!) PCs. So what? The argument is a non-starter. I have got a TiVo sat downstairs recording my favourite TV shows. If I open it up, I see that it has got a standard Motherboard, Hard Drive, Processor, Gfx Card, Sound Card etc. But, it is NOT a PC!
In fact, the argument goes beyond the technology. PCs are marketed as all-singing, all-dancing, do-it-all systems, and they serve that purpose really well. They are upgradeable, and there is software and hardware out there to make your PC do pretty much whatever you want.
Consoles are marketed differently. They are designed only for games, they are not usually up upgradeable (N64 being the exception here), and are marketed to a totally different audience. The marketing model for a games console is totally different and XBox follows exactly that model. Games consoles also have a much longer life-span.
So, if you want to be naive about it, and just look at the technology in isolation (especially brand-specific technology, such as nVidia gfx cards), you could argue that XBox is a PC in a box. In such a case you really should also call PS2 and Gamecube a PC in a box. Ludicrous, but there you go!
I think a clearer definition would be, "XBox is a games console that shares technology with the common PC", and that is why some PC games will not arrive on XBox; they are different devices with a different audience and a different purpose. This is why Microsoft don't want you to view XBox as a PC in a box, and this is why it is NOT a PC in a box.
Consider this:
You are made of the same chemical elements as a common earth worm. Is it fair to call you a "worm in a different skin"? In some cases I'm sure that would be true (sorry!), but do you see my point? The same elemets arranged slightly different resulting in a totally different "machine".
Thanks for slithering, erm... I mean reading!!
Even to this day, I still read posts about how people view the XBox as a "PC in a box", and how disappointed people are about why certain PC games are not arriving on XBox as they expected. Well, I hate to say it, but XBox is NOT just a PC in a box!
Let me reason...
Firstly, consider what makes XBox, and the other consoles tick. XBox, PS2 and Gamecube all have the following key components:
- Motherboard
- CPU (Central Processing Unit)
- GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)
- SPU (Sound Processing Unit)
- RAM (Memory)
- Removable storage (for the games, such as DVD)
- "Fixed" media for game saves etc. (HD, Mem Cards etc.)
Why, therefore, do people not view PS2 or Gamecube as a PC in a box? The reason is simple; it's because they are not PCs, and everybody knows it!! PC stands for "Personal Computer", and by definition, it's name and pupose extend well beyond that of gaming. On the other hand, "Games Consoles" are designed with just one thing in mind.
I can hear a lot of you shouting, "yes, but XBox uses components that can be found in PCs, so that makes it a PC in a box". Well, no it doesn't actually. I mean, yes it uses PC-derived components, but that's where the similarities end. Of course, technically, consoles and PCs have a lot in common, but a games console and PC are not "what they are" based on just their technological make up.
The presense of the HD in the XBox confused matters. Being the first to incorporate such technology gave good reason for people to suspect that XBox was just a PC in a box. However, consider what if Microsoft had decided to call their HD a "large capacity built-in memory card", and you didn't know it was a HD? Suddenly the concept of mass-storage in a console does not sound like it was born of PC origins. All recent consoles have had memory cards (indeed XBox has them too for portability reasons), but XBox is the first one to have a large capacity "card" built in.
So back to the "same components as a PC" scenario. Well, it's true that the components are pretty much the same as (now older!) PCs. So what? The argument is a non-starter. I have got a TiVo sat downstairs recording my favourite TV shows. If I open it up, I see that it has got a standard Motherboard, Hard Drive, Processor, Gfx Card, Sound Card etc. But, it is NOT a PC!
In fact, the argument goes beyond the technology. PCs are marketed as all-singing, all-dancing, do-it-all systems, and they serve that purpose really well. They are upgradeable, and there is software and hardware out there to make your PC do pretty much whatever you want.
Consoles are marketed differently. They are designed only for games, they are not usually up upgradeable (N64 being the exception here), and are marketed to a totally different audience. The marketing model for a games console is totally different and XBox follows exactly that model. Games consoles also have a much longer life-span.
So, if you want to be naive about it, and just look at the technology in isolation (especially brand-specific technology, such as nVidia gfx cards), you could argue that XBox is a PC in a box. In such a case you really should also call PS2 and Gamecube a PC in a box. Ludicrous, but there you go!
I think a clearer definition would be, "XBox is a games console that shares technology with the common PC", and that is why some PC games will not arrive on XBox; they are different devices with a different audience and a different purpose. This is why Microsoft don't want you to view XBox as a PC in a box, and this is why it is NOT a PC in a box.
Consider this:
You are made of the same chemical elements as a common earth worm. Is it fair to call you a "worm in a different skin"? In some cases I'm sure that would be true (sorry!), but do you see my point? The same elemets arranged slightly different resulting in a totally different "machine".
Thanks for slithering, erm... I mean reading!!