The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Heard about this earlier this week from my local indie and just had it confirmed over at the DVD Forums.
From the 29th November, expect to see an XBox bundle consisting of Splinter Cell, Halo, Jet Set Radio Future and Sega GT going for £200.
Now that's a bargain!
From the 29th November, expect to see an XBox bundle consisting of Splinter Cell, Halo, Jet Set Radio Future and Sega GT going for £200.
Now that's a bargain!
Page:
Jeebus gameplay.com are a bunch of nutters then.
This new offer did'nt come from MS.
gameplay.com are the culprits!
gameplay.com are the culprits!
Silent85 wrote:
> Also Microsoft are in this for the long term as they dont want to be
> seen as quitters :D
You gotta wonder how much the Xbox will cost in a years time though, they'll be giving them away when you buy a game at this rate.
Damn you Bill and you infinite supply of money.
*shakes fist*
> Also Microsoft are in this for the long term as they dont want to be
> seen as quitters :D
You gotta wonder how much the Xbox will cost in a years time though, they'll be giving them away when you buy a game at this rate.
Damn you Bill and you infinite supply of money.
*shakes fist*
Mantis wrote:
> Another example of how the popular choice doesn't prove its the best.
> ;)
True - but similarly, the Intel chip - while not the best - does have the better range of software. :-)
> Another example of how the popular choice doesn't prove its the best.
> ;)
True - but similarly, the Intel chip - while not the best - does have the better range of software. :-)
Wookie wrote:
> Intel chips are in general terms archaic and slow, but they remain the popular choice primarily for compatibility issues in the PC world.
Another example of how the popular choice doesn't prove its the best. ;)
> Intel chips are in general terms archaic and slow, but they remain the popular choice primarily for compatibility issues in the PC world.
Another example of how the popular choice doesn't prove its the best. ;)
I think this new pack will make a big impact. You may say that typically a child may get £200-300 worth of presents, depending on family income e.t.c. So £200 for an XBox plus 4 games is pretty good. 3 of the games in my opinon are brilliant but Sega GT is a bit poo. You get 4 games of different genres, and there not old crappy games that no one wants which is whats is usually packaged with consoles.
So PS2 is £170 so getting just 1 games puts you over the £200 already, and then you still need a memory card, which is nearly £240. GC is £130 and again 2 games and a memory card is going to be about £230.
So you can see the XBox may attract someone who typically gets £200 or so, as they have so much more with the XBox than the other 2 consoles.
So PS2 is £170 so getting just 1 games puts you over the £200 already, and then you still need a memory card, which is nearly £240. GC is £130 and again 2 games and a memory card is going to be about £230.
So you can see the XBox may attract someone who typically gets £200 or so, as they have so much more with the XBox than the other 2 consoles.
Woah Microsoft are beggining to take the piece with these offers, slap in a few rare games with that lot and even I may be tempted to buy one....I mean no I wouldn't....ummmmmm stupid Microsoft DIE DIE DIE
.....got a bit carried away there
.....got a bit carried away there
Mantis wrote:
> So why does Mafia require a 600mhz PC or so, but can run on PS2s
> 300mhz???
>
> PC and Console specs arn't the same.
Well, I was trying to make a little joke, but if you want to get serious...
Generally, no, PC and console specs aren't the same, because consoles tend to use more efficient, multi-tasking CPUs. But the Xbox uses a comparatively inefficient Intel chip, just like a PC.
In terms of architecture, the CPUs of both PS2 and Gamecube are far in advance of the P3 in the Xbox, providing comparable performance at lower clock speeds. As is pretty much proven by your own Dreamcast/PC and Mafia PC/PS2 comparisons!
Xbox's main advantage comes mostly from its graphics chip, not its raw CPU speed. Hence a PC with a reasonable graphics card would, in theory, only need a slightly better processor than that in the Xbox, to keep the speed up with everything else going on in a Windows environment.
It's the same reason Apple Mac's perform similarly to PCs with higher CPU speeds, and why the old Amiga 500 at 8MHz (multi-tasking Motorola 68000) could emulate PCs of 50MHz (non-multitasking Intel i486). That gives you some indication of the performance jump; efficiency, rather than raw power, is the key element here. If MS had opted for an Intel chip of equivalent clock speed to PS2 or Gamecube, I guarantee you would have a significantly inferior machine.
Intel chips are in general terms archaic and slow, but they remain the popular choice primarily for compatibility issues in the PC world. In terms of performance, I believe they're pretty much inferior to almost every other major brand of CPU.
AMD, IBM and Motorola all offer better performance and/or lower prices on their chips at comparable speeds. That's either through cheaper manufacturing, or better design. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on Intel. Other manufacturers find better, more efficient ways of doing things. Intel just tend to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, and throw more MHz at it.
Being realistic, I've no doubt Halo on PC will require more than the stats I jokingly posted, but more than likely because the game will be added to, and run in higher resolution. But if you were to port the game 'as is' without changing anything, I would expect a P3-800 and decent graphics card to handle it adequately.
> So why does Mafia require a 600mhz PC or so, but can run on PS2s
> 300mhz???
>
> PC and Console specs arn't the same.
Well, I was trying to make a little joke, but if you want to get serious...
Generally, no, PC and console specs aren't the same, because consoles tend to use more efficient, multi-tasking CPUs. But the Xbox uses a comparatively inefficient Intel chip, just like a PC.
In terms of architecture, the CPUs of both PS2 and Gamecube are far in advance of the P3 in the Xbox, providing comparable performance at lower clock speeds. As is pretty much proven by your own Dreamcast/PC and Mafia PC/PS2 comparisons!
Xbox's main advantage comes mostly from its graphics chip, not its raw CPU speed. Hence a PC with a reasonable graphics card would, in theory, only need a slightly better processor than that in the Xbox, to keep the speed up with everything else going on in a Windows environment.
It's the same reason Apple Mac's perform similarly to PCs with higher CPU speeds, and why the old Amiga 500 at 8MHz (multi-tasking Motorola 68000) could emulate PCs of 50MHz (non-multitasking Intel i486). That gives you some indication of the performance jump; efficiency, rather than raw power, is the key element here. If MS had opted for an Intel chip of equivalent clock speed to PS2 or Gamecube, I guarantee you would have a significantly inferior machine.
Intel chips are in general terms archaic and slow, but they remain the popular choice primarily for compatibility issues in the PC world. In terms of performance, I believe they're pretty much inferior to almost every other major brand of CPU.
AMD, IBM and Motorola all offer better performance and/or lower prices on their chips at comparable speeds. That's either through cheaper manufacturing, or better design. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on Intel. Other manufacturers find better, more efficient ways of doing things. Intel just tend to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, and throw more MHz at it.
Being realistic, I've no doubt Halo on PC will require more than the stats I jokingly posted, but more than likely because the game will be added to, and run in higher resolution. But if you were to port the game 'as is' without changing anything, I would expect a P3-800 and decent graphics card to handle it adequately.
Page: