Durango has RAM and processors just for social apps, sometimes plays games

Wow, another thread that derails into nonsense: look the problem isn't 8GB, in fact the more memory the merrier, the problem here is that part of the hardware on durango will be exclusively to these non-gaming features.

2 core and 2GB of RAM is a lot to get your twitter feed while you play, and with MS launching all this new hardware that already does this shit why do they have to add cost to durango by bumping the specs for this shit?

Keep in mind those resources will always be for the shitty apps, devs wont be able to access 'em

You serious? XP64 had very little support, and you used it for gaming?

 

You wont have the game ram shared with the "OS/Apps" ram. I imagine it will be the 2GB for OS/Apps (current xbox OS uses like 32MB or so). Gaming ram will always be just for games - else they are just going to give you a crap gaming experience - and I doubt they will allow that.

Shadowlayer - I see your point and agree with you, to partition off 1/4 of the consoles resources for non gaming reasons seems a little crazy/wasteful.

 

Yup but back then I really didn't play or try many games. Battlefield 2, World of Warcraft and the expansions I guess. By the end of 2005 I was forced to sell my entire collection anyway, so didn't spend so much time shopping around for replacement goodies either and then around mid-2006 I was demoted as moderator for spending too much time on those games / work and too little on the site but I digress!

I think the reason it diverged is partly because people will really doubt there would be any forced segregation within a set limit. It makes no sense. I mean of course it makes sense to allocate a minimum amount to an area as a guideline only but an arbitrary and irreversible ceiling of this far and no further -_- It will be a good thing in the short term to make things start off smoothly but will it continue that way? Not when we think we need more RAM for a happy ending

 

No matter WHAT they do. Nothing will be as gigantic of a leap from the Wii to the Wii U (~88Mb to 2GB. Which is ~23X as much RAM.)


But in all seriousness, god damn it, I just want a console to play games, to watch blu-rays/DVDs and watch videos off a HDD/external drive.

We don't need all this other unnecessary bologna.

At this rate, they'll probably use that more as a marketing gimmick instead of giving it the power it needs to have a sustainable 10 year life span.
(Which IMHO, would be a GPU on par or much better than at least a GTX 670/AMD 7950 ;not a 660ti though, that card is trash.;. Shouldn't be difficult honestly, considering the Xenos is based around similar high end AMD cards that released around the same time the 360 came out.)

I would be fine with paying 5 to 600$ (Maybe even more)for a new console that has the power that it deserves.
Hell, I already payed 520$ for my First PS3 and it only lasted less than 3 Years.

If it were up to me, the next gen Xbox/PS would be capable of playing each and every current 360/PS3 game(with no visual alterations other than increased resolution)@2560x1440p60 minimum (Which is ~4X boost in resolution from 720p. Considering that is ~the same boost most "HD Remasters" get from the avg 6th gen game being say, 512x448. To 1280x720)

 

I remember when the Playstation 3 hit stores in Australia at $1,000, people were taking out loans to own it - my friend included and he's still paying that unit off.
Really that was the worst pricing ever, and I know BR technology was young then. As long as the Durango is affordable to the average Joe it will be fine in the market, if it's super power and pumps the most amazing gaming experience then I'll be happy to pay the $500 price, anything over that they can forget it.

 

That's stupid if they are going to get loans. -.-

 

He never claimed his friend bested Hawking in a chess game. I try to limit loans to important things like housing, food and maybe a new car if I don't have cash on hand to get something newer (not necessarily new).

 

I rather have a 4-year console than another 9/10-year console

I rather pay $199/$250 for that 4 year console than $600 for a 9/10-year console

That 4 year console will probably be better during its lifespan than the 9/10-year console, because the console that replaces the former will be leaps and bounds more advanced than the 9/10-year console

4 years its already a long time in tech, all the smartphone and tablet market you see right now didn't even existed 5 years ago

See my point?

 

If they want to design a console around graphical capabilities they won't be using DDR3. Like the 360 it will have to be much faster than PC hardware available at launch in the memory bus department. I was complaining about the RAM limitations of the 360 and PS3 from the start, but the custom hardware plus individual game optimizations almost made up for that. But none of that really matters right now. Sony, MS and Nintendo have no idea what consumers want anymore. Do they want tablets? Phones? Virtual Reality? 3D TVs with built in HD Console hardware? Holograms?

Nobody knows and everybody is so hilariously out of practice at making new kinds of games I expect the next generation to utterly fail to interest me like that later half of this generation has. I could upgrade my HTPC's video card for 1080p 60FPS gameplay in anything that does interest me for less than $100, so far I haven't cared to. On my 120Hz 40" LCD the difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 is negligible, especially with my "ancient" HD4850's Anti-Aliasing options.

 

Oh yes at 40" I'm sure that is the case at the proper viewing distances. Get a bit closer and you probably will notice it a bit more or if you did the same experiment on something like, oh 105"?

 

Fuck that I'm ready for 8k TVs

 

The last study I read said that 360 and PS3 games were most commonly played over Composite actually. That is one of the biggest reasons why I am sure the next generation will be all about non-gaming functionality at best.

 

It's ridiculous that consoles should last 8-9 years when there's a new version of every major smartphone brand about once a year. I think 5-6 years is more reasonable. The previous generation (DC/PS2/GC/Xbox) lasted only about 6 years. The one before that lasted about 5 years, and the 16-bit era lasted about 6 years as well. Those times should be getting shorter, not longer. This is the fucking future.

 

I'm just hoping that the next gen consoles will give PC games a nice bump in graphics.

 

I don't want to pay $300 for a device that will be useless for anything but playing its own games in a few years anymore. Consoles also need to offer me something significantly better than I can build for myself and incrementally upgrade on the cheap. So far I see nothing of interest.

 

I hate to think of gaming moving in the direction of actually being cheap low end proprietary PC's, but like you said I think that is where the industry is going. Especially M$ considering their massive effort to make windows 8 be so connected to the xbox.

 

It's all about the services now. MS has the lead on those. I'm actually confused as to how they can improve them and why they would need a new console now. An HTPC is leagues better than a 360 for the same, but accessibility is key. Whoever offers cable quality TV and movies with a standard remote first will win the next setopbox war. Consoles are dead.

 

So much pessimism in response to information that mainly consists of rumors and speculation.

 

qft