A Canadian is Actually Right About Something

So I figured out Advocate's hang up with what I said. It took a long time to drag it out of him, but at his request, I am issuing this amendment to what I said:

"Perceptible difference based on technological constraints will get smaller as that technology improves."

Evidently he thought I meant all games would look equally good and that was his issue. Glad we sorted that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Because the PC gaming and hardware industries are unable to come together to make system requirements (and system specs in general) easy enough to understand that even idiots can figure it out.

There are too many people who don't understand that a GeForce 8400 is below a 7900. And why should they? It's not exactly intuitive. Similarly, most people don't really understand how a Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz stacks up to a Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz. Until the industry can name and market parts according to some kind of industry standard benchmark, it'll all just confuse the shit out of consumers.

---

Couldn't they just have certain specs, upgrading annually, that PC manufacturers would need to meet? For example, a system would need a certain amount of graphic power (however obtained) and RAM to meet "2008 standards." If MS (or whomever) determines that my PC meets "2008 standards" - whether with an Intel or Athlon, Pentium 4 or Core 2 Quad - it will play any game requiring that standard. Games could go beyond that, offering a better experience for those with newer processors and graphics boards, but would offer a decent experience for those meeting a particular standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

Couldn't they just have certain specs, upgrading annually, that PC manufacturers would need to meet? For example, a system would need a certain amount of graphic power (however obtained) and RAM to meet "2008 standards." If MS (or whomever) determines that my PC meets "2008 standards" - whether with an Intel or Athlon, Pentium 4 or Core 2 Quad - it will play any game requiring that standard. Games could go beyond that, offering a better experience for those with newer processors and graphics boards, but would offer a decent experience for those meeting a particular standard.

---

There are so many ways you could address this, but almost nobody is. MS tried with their system score stuff in Vista but no one likes Vista and no third party games adopted it, so now we're back where we started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Because the PC gaming and hardware industries are unable to come together to make system requirements (and system specs in general) easy enough to understand that even idiots can figure it out.

---

This is a feature.

:lol: touche. Elitism ftw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Anyway, I said 7 years ago, when I first signed up for TNL, back before the PS3, Wii, and 360 were even announced, that the perceptible difference between graphics would get smaller and smaller, and that the importance of cutting edge hardware would bring costs down, and selling a system at a profit would get more viable and that these circumstances will eventually erode the practical roadblocks to a third party console. All of that has been 100% correct so far. Keep saying it'll never happen.

---

Too true. This was the first generation where it was really possible. (If the GC had N64 graphics but launched at $100, it wouldn't have been successful.) PS2 gen graphics aren't great, but they're acceptable. The PS3 gen's graphics look great and most people won't want to pay $500+ to upgrade. Much like what happened with PCs about ten years ago when any PC would adequately word process, web surf, etc., and the upgrade cycle slowed; for most people, the need to upgrade just wasn't there any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

So I figured out Advocate's hang up with what I said. It took a long time to drag it out of him, but at his request, I am issuing this amendment to what I said:

"Perceptible difference based on technological constraints will get smaller as that technology improves."

Evidently he thought I meant all games would look equally good and that was his issue. Glad we sorted that out.

---

FYI: I said that from the beginning.

Like the very beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

Me a benwen seh dat a me begin

---

awwww ... why'd you have to go that way?

____Racist._____

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

This has been the most amusing thread in quite a while.

---

Indeed. If I wasn't already pro-standardization, this thread would have convinced me. The anti-standard crowd has mostly just been burning itself.

And people so quickly forget that the personal computer industry was once a lot like the console industry with a few different hardware makers (like Commodore, Atari, Apple, Sinclair, NEC, etc.) making incompatible machines. These first-parties thankfully didn't control content like the consoles ones do but it still wasn't a healthy model for the growth of the industry. Yeah, there's still the Mac in opposition to the PC standard but it becomes more like the PC as time goes on anyway. My point is that you can't just say "it will never happen for consoles" because it definitely could.