backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 155 comment(s) - last by yak8998.. on Jan 28 at 11:23 PM
mwave.com lists several editions of Windows Vista as in stock and ready to ship

Although the official launch of Windows Vista won't take place until January 30, that hasn't stopped some online retailers from making the operating system available early. mwave.com is listing three Vista SKUs on its website that are in stock and ready to ship.

The editions available include Vista 32-bit Home Basic OEM (Microsoft Part Number: 66G-00576) for $89.90, Vista 32-bit Home Basic OEM 3-pack (Microsoft Part Number: 66G-00613) for $268.90 and Vista 32-bit Business OEM (Microsoft Part Number: 66J-02289) for $139.90. As of today, there were no listings for Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate on the site.

Vista Home Basic, as its name implies, is the most barebones version of the operating system. It lacks the Windows Aero "Glass" UI, Windows Flip 3D and Live Taskbar Thumbnails. Vista Home Basic also only supports one physical processor (unlimited cores) while the other consumer editions of Vista support two physical processors (unlimited cores).

Vista Business, on the other hand, contains features not found on either Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium. These include support for Windows Shadow Copy, system image backup and recovery, Encrypting File System (EFS), the ability to join domains and access offline file/folder support.

The OEM versions of Vista listed on mwave.com's website are significantly cheaper than the retail pricing for Vista listed below:

  • Windows Vista Home Basic, $199/$99.95
  • Windows Vista Home Premium, $239/$159
  • Windows Vista Business, $299/$199
  • Windows Vista Ultimate, $399/$259

Customers are limited to two copies of Vista Home Basic OEM or Vista Business OEM on mwave.com's website. The operating systems must also be purchased with hardware for licensing reasons. In many cases, ordering a set of case screws or some other cheap piece of hardware will satisfy these requirements.

Updated 1/23/2006: NewEgg shows Vista Home Premium OEM in stock for $119.99. They also show Vista Ultimate OEM in stock for $199.

For images of the retail version of Vista Home Premium unboxed, you can check out Engadget's image gallery.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
HMMMM
By Mithan on 1/21/2007 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
I plan on buying it next week though I doubt I will install the 64bit version. Honestly, for now its just a more secure face lift for XP though obviously it has a lot more under the hood....

It will be a while before Vista only apps start showing up that take advantage of the guts of the thing is what I mean.




RE: HMMMM
By allst1 on 1/21/2007 4:05:50 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder how long more they will continue to support windows xp though. Seems like they're rather eager to push everyone on to the vista bandwagon.

I just hope developers keep windows xp alive, for the next few years or so. Some people have fined tuned their systems and they like it that way knowing that its how they would like their system to function.

With Windows Vista, all that goes out the door the moment you install it, plug in it to the modem socket, or try some old "tweak" from XP.

Besides being flashy and giving you a few features.
I think I'll wait for it to become mainstream and you need to really move ahead with the times. It will be pretty hard though to get people to move away from XP as there's not much that the system lacks, either in it's configuration or stability.

Besides that, there's just so many flashy applications that will do what vista does to your interface and desktop for a whole lot less and fewer resources.

The only way I see MS getting or rather shoving Vista down your throat is because of directX10 and gamers.


RE: HMMMM
By djcameron on 1/21/2007 4:44:15 PM , Rating: 3
If Vista is perceived as having greater security than XP, then it will sell like hotcakes.


RE: HMMMM
By Chadder007 on 1/21/2007 9:14:46 PM , Rating: 5
Concerning security, I wished that Microsoft wouldn't have bowed down to Symantec and McAfee as far as their Kernel goes, making it more accessible to them.


RE: HMMMM
By xphile on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By StevoLincolnite on 1/22/2007 4:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
And you know what beats all that? Common sense with the internet, Don't download "Trojan.exe" in an email thinking its safe, Dont look up porn with a whole heap of spyware, Don't goto a website that may say "www.Superultramegakillercrackzandwarez.com".
Seriously, I do not have a Virus scanner, Or Firewall, Or Adaware scanner, I have a separate box for all that, That I plug in every now and then, If I think I may have a virus or just wish to do check-ups, For instance earlier this morning I did an ad aware scan, for the first time in about 4-5 Months, And I only had 5 Cases, and they were negligible anyway. If your getting 50 thousand viruses and ad aware in a month, then SOMETHING is wrong. And Firefox also helps with alot of adaware also.
Its not Microsoft's fault That A lot of Malicious code affects windows, Its the idiots who like to take the exploits as far as they can.

McAfee and Symantec should never had access to the kernel, But thats life and ya gotta live with it. And in my Experience Norton is a useless bloated virus scanner, Haven't used McAffee, But I find that Kaspersky is the best bar none.


RE: HMMMM
By Christopher1 on 1/22/2007 5:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
You know, the porn thing is totally true. So is the crack website thing.

Those are the ONLY times that I have ever gotten a virus on my system, when I have been looking for porn or going to a crack site looking for a software key (something that I don't do anymore, since I found a website that gives heavy discounts for most softwares).

I also have to agree that most of the problems come from software applications have direct access to the Kernel of the system. Though, to be honest, I haven't seen ANY viruses that infect the kernel anymore, usually they more make startup entries and run that way.


RE: HMMMM
By Tyler 86 on 1/22/2007 8:55:57 AM , Rating: 5
Those even probably still run with kernel level privelages to accomplish what they want...

Symantec & Friends didn't need kernel access to secure the kernel, they were just being dicks.

Microsoft should have kept it on a tight leash.

You see, Symantec & Friends make money because you're afraid of viruses, and viruses continue to persist, whereas Microsoft makes money because they can sell you 'an upgrade' and compatible products...

If Symantec was really concerned with kernel security, they would have kept their yaps shut.

They have the same resourses as virus writers have, plus boatloads of money, and corperate clients... They don't need more than that.

Next sucker I hear praising Symantec better be for something slightly more realistic, like for buying out 'VERITAS Backup Exec' and making improvements or something else I wouldn't expect them to do, because they have so far done nothing more than make their products ridiculously difficult to uninstall if damaged as far as I can tell.


RE: HMMMM
By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 8:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When MS can release an operating system that goes a year without needing a security update...


That is a completely ignorant statement. There is a saying for people who like Mac and Linux "It's easy to be bulletproof when no one is shooting at you." And they still have more security updates every year than Microsoft does. XP is actually an extremely secure system. And Vista is even better. But remember, these people make a living off of getting around the firewall. You wont ever stop them forever. There is always a backdoor. And they sit there for hours and hours trying to find it. If you want a system that is completely safe, don't plug in to the internet. Other than that, it doesn't matter what you do, you will always have security issues. And Microsoft does an awesome job of keeping on top of it and patching the system (almost every time) before there are mass problems. If you stay updated, most of the time you wont get viruses at all. Spyware will still be out there, and Defender is good, but I like to use Spybot S&D along side and keep it up to date and immunized. I find that I never get any problems that way.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/21/2007 7:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
Uhh, last I heard, there are NO plans for Crysis on the Xbox 360. And the version of Far Cry that was on the Xbox, as I understood, was dumbed down.

Why pay $600 for an Xbox, when I can pay $400 for an 8800 GTS and just pop it in my system? There do seem to be more games for consoles, but I am a FPS fan, and those games play better on a PC anyway. Plus, I like being able to mod games ("hey, how did you get a Porshe in Vice City?") , and free on-line play is a big one in my book as well.

That said, I still won't upgrade to Vista, nor to a DX10 video card, until we see enough games available to make those upgrades worthy. I was a long time user of Win 2K, and I've only been on XP for about two years. Everything is working fine, so why upgrade now?


RE: HMMMM
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/21/2007 7:36:29 PM , Rating: 1
Where are you seeing $600 Xbox's at? They are priced at $299 and $399 (and Overstock routinely has Xbox 360 Premiums on sale for around $315).

That being said, a single Xbox 360 or PS3 will play all of your games for years to come without a single upgrade needed to take full advantage of game features/visuals. Can't say the same for the PC.


RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/21/2007 9:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I guess I confused the PS3's $600 price tag.

What you say is correct, a console will play all the new console games for years without having to upgrade. But the games will only look better as much as the developers learn better coding, taking full advantage of the hardware. But, new PC games, with new PC hardware, will look dramatically better.

So, yeah, I guess PC gaming is more expensive, but with shorter quality cycles. But free online gameplay, and cheaper games in general (at least that I remmeber), it does make a big difference. And, again, mods and game updates.

We can discuss this all again in three years, and we can compare PS3 and XBox 360 graphics with PC graphics. :D


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, learn to read. I said I didn't own an 8800 GTS. And I also already stated that console game developers would better learn to code for the hardware, making the games look better.

And I never said an 8800 GTS would make old games, like doom 1, look better. That's just nonsense.

Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

The timing is off because we see two new consoles, the PS3 and XBox 360. My point, which you did not address, is the fact that 12 months ago, people were not bragging about their Xbox and PS2, and in three years, people won't be bragging about their Xbox 360 nor PS3.

You see upgrading a PC as a hassle, and an expense. I see it as an opportunity, and an option.

We've been playing games like Far Cry and Call of Duty for years while console owners are just now starting to see new generation games.

We've been playing games at 1600x1200 for years, while you guys have been stuck at, well, something a hell of a lot smaller.

Like I said, come talk to me in 3 years and tell me how kick-ass your xbox 360 is, LOL.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/23/2007 1:18:57 PM , Rating: 3
I think you've been living in your console world a bit too long. Developers don't code for 8800GTS, they code for the API but it's not about using the hardware properly. PC's have a little thing called settings and sliders and resolutions etc that scales with new hardware. It is obvious you don't have much experience gaming on a PC but already in today's games, a gaming PC offers much better graphics compared to an Xbox 360. Here is an example:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6154261/index.htm...



RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By FuzionMonkey on 1/24/2007 1:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, "Halo 2 on nice directx 8 graphics" isn't the only PC game. And all the XBOX EXCLUSIVES aren't that amazing. And there are about 1000+ PC Exclusives. So what. Can you download mods for half-life on your xbox? Can you play garrys mod? Can you play natural-selection?

And what about RTS games? Don't get too many of those on the xbox.

There are other game developers besides microsoft and they aren't making the games exclusive for xbox.

And have fun with xbox live. I like paying for something that should be free. Who the hell wants to pay for multiplayer.

Have fun with Gears of War and Lost Planet while I play Crysis, Unreal Tournament 2007, and Supreme Commander.

And HDTV? 1080p? Give me a break. Try 2560x1600. THAT is high resolution.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:51:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Halo 2 on nice directx 8 graphics" isn't the only PC game
yeah, but it's microsoft, the maker of operating system, who is humiliating gamers who use that operating system. this is what bothers me. I have nothing against epic or crytek, but microsoft releasing very old game as vista exclusive instead of a nice new game (GeoW for example) is totally insane
quote:
all the XBOX EXCLUSIVES aren't that amazing
I believe all the people who gave rave reviews and awards to Gears of War will definitely disagree with you


RE: HMMMM
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/2007 10:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Gears of war is one game though. I have a 360 and im a hardcore PC gamer. My rig would require some people to take out a second mortgage.

My point is i see both sides of this arguement. Although ya its great to have a wickedly fast and overclocked PC its also nice to buy a console that has almost the same hardware as my PC for 1/4 the price. However, i prefer console to PC for racing games but i prefer PC for RTS and FPS just for starters.

Also keep in mind that ya we have been gaming in 1600x1200 for years. Its nothing big for us i have been doing it since i got my first GOOD graphics card(X850 XT back in the day). Infact i find Call of Duty(PC) looks better then Perfect Dark Zero on the 360.

Anyway, its true though that the games keep coming out for both PC and console but keep in mind PC hardware gets better. Right before the 360 came out nobody had the balls to say "Half Life 2 looks so sweet on XBOX compared to PC" because people would laugh at you. Just like right now i think GoW is far better looking then HL2 and that in my opinion is the best looking game for PC that we have out right now.

Stop fighting guys. Its a Cycle, 360 owners can expect better graphics with their 360 for a little while and then it halt right before the release of the next xbox while PC owners will see a fast increase in graphics until the point where its Photorealistic before the 360 gets there. Its the way of things. Look back at previous releases of consoles.


RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/25/2007 6:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
To play Gears of War with a mouse/keyboard control would be the bomb!


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/26/2007 3:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To play Gears of War with a mouse/keyboard control would be the bomb!
wake up, sleeping beauty, people ALREADY play it like crazy on their xbox 360 + xfps 360 mouse/kbd combos


RE: HMMMM
By Hare on 1/22/2007 2:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
At least I'm using 1680x1050 with games...


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 1
not much compared to console's 1920x1080


RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not a fair comparison, as a 30in LCD monitor would do a higher resolution, 2560x1600.

I think you, along with others missed my original point. What I said was that PC gamers have been able to play games at high resolutions for years now, while consoles are just now able to do this. Like I said, PC gamers have been playing games like Far Cry and Call of Duty for years now, and console gamers are just now able to play new generation games.

I guess that is why you are all excited. :D


RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:32:23 PM , Rating: 3
And BTW, Halo sucks compared to other FPS's for the PC. ;)


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By novacthall on 1/26/2007 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hey man, let's keep it civil. Curb the potty mouth, hm?


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 6:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you so stuck on Halo? Yes, you are seeing some good games, like Gears of War, now that the new consoles are out, but Vista and DX10 are not even out yet. DX10 is proof MS is committed to PC Gaming, in fact they have publically announced their commitment to PC gaming.

You know, MS needs something to keep the computer literate on Windows, i.e., keeping them from switching over to Linux, or even Mac. Gaming is ONE thing that keeps many from making an all-out switch.

Anywho, like I said, DX10 and Vista are not even out yet, well, at least for the most part. It is only a matter of time before we see news of future games coming out, not to mention games like Crysis. From what we have seen so far, Crysis will be a top-notch game, making full use of the highest-end video cards, and multi-core cpu's (last video I saw, it was running on, and makeing us of, a quad core cpu).

So, here we are, less than 12 months after the release of Vista, we will already have a PC game that the new consoles couldn't handle. And I'm not worried about being disappointed with Crysis, as Far Cry was everything it was supposed to be. And with DX10 optimizing things that were only capable with DX9, it won't be much longer until we see more games like Crysis for the PC.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/2007 8:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Gears of war would be difficult to run for most people in defense but i see your point.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By patentman on 1/21/2007 8:57:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
there are NO plans for Crysis on the Xbox 360


Might want to read the whole story from that article:

"The big news first is the PC game Crysis is coming to the 360. However, that PC game won’t be the same game as what we will see on the home console . Because Crysis will be running at DirectX10, the game would look inferior since the 360 can only do DirectX9 (as mentioned before). So, the developers are using the same universe that the PC game is set in, with some similar story elements, but the gameplay will be entirely different . The developers told the 1UP guys that they weren’t even going to try and replicate Crysis. This would be because the PC version will be running so much more stuff that the 360 couldn’t handle, and would be disappointing . They stated that the game needs to run deeper, with the physics and world needing to be constructed differently. They admitted that the 360 version may not be as “wow” as the PC version in terms of graphics. It’s not a port in any way, so if you bought both versions, you would still get two different experiences with the game. The developers Crytek are the same developers responsible for FarCry, so we could see a game similar (but hopefully better) to that."



RE: HMMMM
By Lakku on 1/22/2007 12:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_co...

Hate to brake it to you, but that xboxic article is wrong and all rumor. Crytek has come out and said any rumor of Crysis in any form for any console is false. They nor anyone else is making a version for consoles. This article and interview was released to address rumors and in response to this xboxic article.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 1:34:05 AM , Rating: 1
well, ok, I stand corrected then, crysis won't make it to consoles soon. this makes vista look a little better for games, although big titles like halo 3 and gears of war on xbox make pc look not that good right now


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By kamel5547 on 1/22/2007 12:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
RIght... because there are no games that are PC exclusive right?

Terrible argument there... even Microsoft has games it can't release to X-box....


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/2007 7:08:02 AM , Rating: 3
Your assumptions go against what Microsoft has stated last year. Have you heard about Games for Windows©? Yeah, Microsoft is investing a lot in gaming for Vista, so don't write stuff without doing some research before.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By HrilL on 1/23/2007 11:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
Halo 2 comes free with vista ult. So why would M$ want to invest millions into a new game they will be giving you with the OS? They want to make money off their new games and people will pay it for the better graphics. You need to learn to think before you post. No one is bragging about halo 2. I for one could careless if it came with windows or not.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By novacthall on 1/26/2007 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Halo 2 comes free with vista ult.

That's news to me, right there. I thought the only games Vista Ultimate came with were updated classic games and Texas Hold 'Em.


RE: HMMMM
By Lakku on 1/22/2007 12:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
Noone said PC gaming was cheap. It's not subsidized like the console, otherwise you'd be paying a lot more for the 360 and PS3 than they are charging for them now. But aside from that, yes, you pay once for the 360. You are also stuck with it, as it can never get more powerful and Gears of War is close to what the console can realize with its limited main and graphics RAM. Halo 3 will probably surpass GoW, but I doubt it will by much. PCs, when Crysis is released, will surpass consoles in terms of what games CAN look and play like. The PC has a huge advantage in system and graphics RAM, regardless of the presence of any embedded DRAM. PCs are already surpassing the consoles, but ultimately, it's best just to have all the platforms if possible. The 360 has it's place (I have every system but the Wii, can't find one and won't wait more then an hour) but PC gaming, if it can be afforded, will always have more potential.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/2007 7:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
You need to slow down on your fanboyism. You're talking a lot of nonsense. First, who said there're no publishers on the PC? Also, there're a lot of great games on the PC (HL2, for instance) and many that sell more than any game for consoles (WoW, has sold over 8 million copies), and there're no royalties for publishing on the PC.

On pricing of console vs pc, this is also a stupid discussion, as the new consoles might be cheaper but you have to add in a $2000 HDTV to make the best out of them and also, I can bet at least 90% of american console gamer have a PC as well. So you're paying $2400 on a HDTV and xbox and also about $800 on a PC for internet browsing. That's $3200, the same as a high-end pc. Not mentioning that top PC games are cheaper than top console games (i.e., $60 for GoW against $50 on Supreme Commander).

On your assumption there won't be any good games beside Crysis for the PC, here is a hint:
Unreal Tournament 2007, Enemy Terrotory: Quake Wars, Hellgate, Bioshock, Stalker, Comand and Conquer III, Age of Conan, LOTR Online, among others.


RE: HMMMM
By epsilonparadox on 1/22/2007 10:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
Unreal Tournament 2007 (also coming out on the PS3), Enemy Terrotory: Quake Wars, Hellgate, Bioshock (also on the 360), Stalker (also on the 360), Comand and Conquer III (also on the 360), Age of Conan, LOTR Online, among others. So if half the games are coming out on the consoles, do I really need to spend $3200 to build a new system capable of running these games since I already own the aforementioned consoles, HDTV (which allows me to go view other things), and a $800 pc?


RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/2007 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
You might have misunderstood what I wrote. $3200 is the cost for having:

Xbox 360 - $400
HDTV 1080p - $2000
PC - $ 800 (includes PC, monitor and windows and it's to do office stuff and browse the internet and post comments on DT ;) )

That'd be $3200 (you can even change the PC to a 400 one and get 2800).

Now, take that $3200 for a PC is a top of the line PC (I mean really top of the line) and would allow you to do all the above (game, HD content - you can watch tv or movies in a pc - and browse the internet). If you already own the consoles, the HDTV and a $800 PC, you don't need to buy a top of the line PC, but you've already spent almost $4k (including the PS3) to play the same games you'd play on a cheaper high end computer.

By the way, by your post, if you a PS3 and a Xbox 360 you'll only play a few games from the list I posted.

My point was that $$ is not an excuse to dismiss a high end PC. If you like to play on consoles, that's fine, but don't say it's not worth spending money on a high end pc, cause you'll be spending the same ammount on consoles + HDTV, just say you like playing in consoles and that you prefer to play on the console.

Also, for the person who posted there're no interest in PC gaming, you should know that the games that sell the most are for PC (yeah, that's a surprise!!!) and are comprised of card games (of course the revenues of low budget games can't be compared to sales of 3 million $60 GoW.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By glennpratt on 1/26/2007 4:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is such an idiotic argument. You don't buy the TV for your Xbox 360 to play by yourself in your bedroom. You buy the TV to watch TV, watch DVD and play Xbox 360 in the living room with your friends. And you don't need a $2000 TV to enjoy it.



RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/23/2007 1:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
This list brings up one important point not yet mentioned:

Unreal Tournament, Quake, Bioshock; Command & Conquer plus Call of Duty, Tom Clancy, and many of the other top games on a console, all started out as PC games first!


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By Zapp Brannigan on 1/22/2007 5:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
yeah wow, you love your 360 woohoo!

Well, so do i, but there is no way in hell that i am gonna play bioshock, unreal Tournament 07, quake wars, stalker or any other fps on the 360 unless im forced to.

The joypad is just to crap.

Play any FPS on a pc with a 2000dpi mouse and after that, anything else is just so, so, slow and inprecise.

And don't get me started on RTS's, how the hell are you supposed to control a massive army with a joypad instead of a keyboard with any degree of control. Ain't gonna happen.

Plus clans and teamspeak work better on the pc, xbox live is decent for playing with few friends or complete strangers, but isn't complex enough for massive clan fights on COD2 or Battlefield.

Oh, and let's not forget that games just play better on pcs.
Eg. Oblivion, the loading times are horrendous, on my pc the loading screen appears when i enter/exit a town or dungeon but never while i'm in the wilderness and when it does it's only for 2-3 seconds. On the 360 it's seems to pop up every 5 minutes or so while i'm outside, and takes like 20 seconds.

and a lot of other people are like me and just enjoy playing games without any constraints that consoles impose.

And please stop wittering on about GoW, Halo 3 and Lost Planet. GoW is a decent 5 hour romp with very nice graphics but with limited multiplayer and now real reason to return to it after completion. Halo 3 ain't out for 10 months (at least) and Lost Planet is also a decent 7-8 hours romp with nice graphics for the first level until you realise that all the levels look the same.

If you wanna big up the 360, praise COD3 and R6:Vegas for their superb graphics, excellent single player and multiplayer modes (so i've heard), praise Crackdown for what looks like an excellent co-op mode and some original ideas (plus the Halo 3 beta), heck even mention that GTA4 is gonna be out on the system at the same time as the PS3, instead of a year later.

But come on, half life 2. That's already been released on the original xbox for christsakes, bringing that out now is as much an insult to the 360 as halo 2 is to vista. I finished that game over 2 years ago.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By slacker57 on 1/22/2007 4:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, so I skipped the second half of this thread because it was getting tediously repetitive, but, really this discussion has been going on for years and I just can never understand it. Why do so many people seem to think that PC gamers and console gamers must be exclusive from one another? I'm pretty sure that the hardware producers, for example, are not actively competing against one another. As a matter of point, given the fact that Nvidia and ATI produce the graphics hardware for the consoles anyway, they're probably not concerned if GoW is Xbox only and Crysis is PC only. There are going to be consumers for both platforms and they'll make their money either way. Obviously, they're not going to make Crysis for PC only if they expect no one will buy it because the graphics on Gears of War were so great. Why are we arguing about it? Get a PC to play the PC games you want to play and get a console for the console games you want to play.

And I just had to point this out:

quote:
now imagine these guys like crytek - they are going to publish best game ever on PC - who's gonna be interested in that? noone.


Is it me, or did you contradict yourself in the same sentence? You basically said, "who's going to be interested in the best game ever? No one." What kind of sense does that make? I feel like you're a little too wound up and all of your posts read the way this sentence did.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you misunderstood me - I said basically this - Microsoft would KILL to publish Crysis on Xbox ONLY. Sony would KILL to publish Crysis on PS3 only. NOBODY would kill to publish Crysis on PC ONLY. BECAUSE _NOBODY_ is interested in making PC exclusives. why? because there's no incentive - microsoft benefits from selling xbox, sony benefits from selling ps3, nobody benefits from selling PC (besides China of course, and China does not make triple A games, unfortunately). Got it? Do I make myself clear?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't somebody doing just that? Publishing Crysis on the PC only?!! So doesn't that make your statement sound rather silly? According to your logic the publisher must be a pretty ding-dang stupid company for doing this. But they're not stupid. Publishing on the PC only gives a HUGE incentive for gamers to upgrade to Vista, and many, many will because of this game. Understand the psychology of many gamers; they HAVE to have the best they can afford. They simply have to. It's who they are, it's what they are. I can't imagine how big this game will be, but if the gameplay itself is good, then gamers will line up to buy it because on top of good gameplay they'll have the best looking game ever made to date. So there's your incentive. Going forward, AFTER the game is out and many have upgraded, you can make a stronger case for your argument, but not now, not with this title. This title will generate much income for those involved, particularly MS. It may be a god-send for MS, though really it won't be because MS itself generated it.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Publishing on the PC only gives a HUGE incentive for gamers to upgrade to Vista, and many, many will because of this game. Understand the psychology of many gamers; they HAVE to have the best they can afford. They simply have to. It's who they are, it's what they are.
Here's a million dollar question for you: why then MS decided to publish Halo 2 as Vista exclusive, not much more beautiful Gears of War? Is it because MS thinks gamers that want THE BEST as you say are going to line up to grab ancient Halo 2 that everyone played through in 2003?? Am I getting something wrong or is this game, Halo 2, something that you'd call "best of the best"? Are you serios??


RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 3:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply has me befuddled. Again, you earlier said (replying to a different post):

you misunderstood me - I said basically this - Microsoft would KILL to publish Crysis on Xbox ONLY. Sony would KILL to publish Crysis on PS3 only. NOBODY would kill to publish Crysis on PC ONLY. BECAUSE _NOBODY_ is interested in making PC exclusives. why? because there's no incentive - microsoft benefits from selling xbox, sony benefits from selling ps3, nobody benefits from selling PC (besides China of course, and China does not make triple A games, unfortunately). Got it? Do I make myself clear?

You were speaking of Crysis, and I was speaking of Crysis. You, not I, said, "Microsoft would KILL to publish Crysis on Xbox ONLY", so my post was, for lack of a better term, Crysis-centric. Why do you bring up Halo 2? The big deal with Crysis is it's usage of DX10 and it's bleading edge use of PC gaming technology. Something like that takes time, more time than many non-developers realize (I myself am a developer). MS is not stupid, they knew and they know that Halo 2 for Vista is not going to generate incredible buzz. But they also know that Crysis will generate not only buzz, but added sales. Added sales meaning Vista sales as well as Crysis sales. Crysis is the product that's been started from scratch for DX10 and Vista. Did you think MS should have held off releasing Gears of War to prove the pro-PC gaming crowds point? To make it PC (Vista) only it would have meant a much longer development cycle, a much later release date. It may well have not come out until Crysis itself comes out. This way they got a great product out for the 360 and they will also get a great product out for the PC. It's a win-win for them. But again, I was talking about Crysis, because you were talking about Crysis. The bottom line is that that game will generate buzz and sales for it's producer, publisher, and MS.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 4:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis is PC only because MS wants it that way and is certainly paying to have it that way. It will generate Vista sales, so it behooves MS to do this. They may make more money off of Crysis than anybody else. Any game that comes out as Vista only yet would do well on a console is coming out Vista only because MS wants it that way. MS will want it that way because the game will boost either Vista sales or the Vista profile. And that's simply good business.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 8:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you have an alternative explanation of that that is as consistent as mine? I'm listening.

It's called money$. MS didn't become as huge as it is, and Bill Gates didn't become the richest man in the world, by being stupid. It's all about balance. MS has a vested interest in keeping BOTH platforms going strong. So it balances releases. GoW for 360, and Crysis for Vista no doubt makes monetary sense to MS. You may not see it, but how many times has MS been wrong when it comes to these matters? Sure, you can probably name a few mistakes, but there are way more successes. Some successes you know about, many you do not. I can't make it clearer than that. MS isn't just throwing a bone to the PC crowd, they are working hard to grow it even further with Vista, and Crysis will be the really big start.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 8:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GoW for 360, and Crysis for Vista no doubt makes monetary sense to MS
See, this doesn't quite fit in the picture. They needed some nice killer launch title for Vista, to really push PC gamers to adopt Vista quickly, right? So it was in their BEST interest to release Gears of War right now and a Vista launch title - from the MONETARY point of view this is WAY better than re-releasing lousy four-year old Halo 2. I see Crytek as independent from Microsoft, it was Crytek's decision to make Crysis on PC only for now. On the other hand, if you look PURELY at Microsoft, just at them - they HAD A CHOICE - release nice hot game for Vista (Gears of War) or some old lousy game for Vista (Halo 2). What choice they made? It's obvious releasing Gears of War instead of ancient Halo2 would being them much more gamers and hence MONEY. But they consciously chose to IGNORE that possibility for Vista launch.

Here's an uber important question - why Microsoft chose shitty Halo 2 over Gears of War for Vista launch?

My version: MS is not very interested in gaming for Windows, so they got some lousy stuff, slapped it together and said "eat this, you have no choice". Xbox - it's all different, Xbox gets hot AAA releases from Microsoft/Epic/Bungie studios FIRST, so Xbox is a clear favorite as a gaming platform at Redmond, unlike Windows.

And your version is...?


RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 9:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't get it. Do you know how hard it would have been to release GoW for Vista? By that I mean a GoW that takes full advantage of Vista. Vista's DX10 standards were a moving target for quite some time. The 360 standards have been set in stone for a very long time, Vista's for a very short time. Just look at how many companies don't even have drivers ready yet. Drivers are so much easier than a brand new game. You know, Crysis is not running late because the programmers are lazy, it's because it is hard work. If Vista was releasing with a more minor upgrade to DX9 then maybe you would see something major in the gaming world, but DX10 is practically as big a change in programming philosophy as it is anything else. It is a big, big change if you want to take full advantage of it. If you've ever tried programming for a moving target you know it isn't fun or easy. I'm sure nobody wanted to commit to a Vista release when they couldn't even be sure how they were going to code it. There's nothing else I can say on that. MS is NOT giving up on PC gaming, in fact I've no doubt they are expanding it. If you chose to believe otherwise then do so.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 9:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know how hard it would have been to release GoW for Vista?
Well, could you then explain why Halo 2 for Vista is soo much easier to release than GoW? They are both DX8/DX9 level games, BOTH have NOTHING to do with DX10, so it's probably the same for MS which game to release, because DX9 was ALSO set in stone for a long time. So they have two games, one is DX9 (GoW) which they can release as DX9 for Vista, the other is DX8 (Halo 2) which requires some work to upgrade to DX9 before releasing it - and they chose to release the DX8 game with upgrade to DX9 instead of releasing DX9 Gears of War? Am I missing something here? What's the point in releasing older DX8 game with additional work of upgrading it to DX9 when you already have new hot DX9 game in your hands?


RE: HMMMM
By SigmaHyperion on 1/23/2007 5:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
You know, Gaming DOES exist out of the first-person-shooter.

Consoles are great (that's why I own just about every one ever made), and yes, most new games IN CERTAIN GENRES appear on consoles. But there are still, and for the forseeable future, always will be, games that exist on the PC over a console. Usually as a result of the interface "issues" (consoles CAN use keyboards/mice but it's not practical for most people to have that in front of their TV), but also development costs.

Real-Time Strategy games are still some of the best sellers out there. Yes, they've tried to come out on the console, and C&C3 is going to take another shot. But that is NOT the bread-and-butter for sales in that genre. The interface is just clumsy. Let me know when the Total War series from Creative Assembly appears on a console. Or Company of Heroes. Anything from Paradox -- Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron. All the Tycoon series (the good ones). Anything by Wil Wright from Maxxis (where despite trying to port for generations now, they've all sucked in console form).

Those might not be the types of games that you like, and that's fine. But they each sell huge numbers of copies to those people that DO like them. If you play those types of games, the PC is _THE ONLY_ "prime gaming platform".

Independent gaming, at least until XNA really takes off, is still COMPLETELY PC dominated. And I'll roll the independent modding community into this same group. If HL had been a console-only release, the greatness that was/is Counter-Strike would never have existed. I now buy a lot of games FOR (or because of) the modding community. Consoles will never be able to experience superb independent gaming like Darwinia and DEFCON from Introversion or any of the other countless great indie games that come out for the PC every year. These people would never be able to make hugely innovative games that influence the industry in a console-centric world because the barriers to entry are just FAR too great. Lack of sales volume doesn't make them not "AAA titles" -- they make a very sizeable amount of cash considering the handful of people it takes to make them and the fact that almost all, if not all, the entire sale price goes straight to their pocket because they have 5 names in the end credits instead of 5 MINUTES worth of names of people that all need to be paid.

The PC is still the domain for the thinking man's games. And that's not a hit on console games or gamers (I probably play consoles at least as much as PC games) it's just the way that the market still lies.

Hands-down more games are released on PC everyday than on any other console. Maybe even every console put together. And, yes, a lot of those are crap. But most are at least decent, as evidenced by simply looking at the number of 8 or 9.0+ reviewed games on every platform. And they're usually cheaper than the same game on the console to boot, and, more importantly, the margins are MUCH bigger for developers.

The margins for a developer are two to three, sometimes even more, greater on PC than on a console. There's less people in the chain to take your royalties, no huge fees to pay for the "privledge" of developing a PC game like there is on consoles. As we move towards direct-download, the margins are EXPONENTIALLY greater than they are on console development and the barriers to entry are completely non-existant.

The WoW (*shudder*) expansion just sold 2.5 million copies in 24 hours. Those are sales that rival Halo 2 numbers. I might not like the game at all, but you can't see something like that and say that PC gaming is dead. Just PC gaming in certain genres.

What's better -- $4/unit on 1 million unit sold are $20/unit on 500,000? It's those type of economies that ensure that SOME developers will still whole-heartedly embrace PC gaming into the future.

And FWIW, I don't understand your focus on Halo 2. I don't see MS really bragging about Halo 2 as "Vista Gaming". I haven't seen them mention much at all about it. If anything they're pimping out FSX much harder than Halo 2. And Company of Heroes will probably end up being the first game (outside of FSX, not sure when they're releasing the DX10 patch for that) that supports DX10. And it is by all means a "AAA Title".


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 8:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gaming DOES exist out of the first-person-shooter
Absolutely. However 3D FPS seems to be locomotives of gaming industry, so who owns 3D FPS - owns the most sweet piece of the gaming market.
quote:
there are still, and for the forseeable future, always will be, games that exist on the PC over a console
Absolutely. I'm just afraid Xbox 360 will grab the sweetest piece of video game market with most money and PC will be second grade with lots of small game studios with inferior PC only games.
quote:
but also development costs
Development cost for console is lower because it does not require you to adjust game graphics for zillions of PC graphics cards. Less system configurations means less development money. Testing for countless versions of Windows and PC video cards/drivers is EXPENSIVE, compared to one configuration on console. See, console game development is actually CHEAPER ;)

Speaking of RTS - Company of Heroes is a very nice point, PC still is strong here. However the same trend could be observed with RTS - studios push for console, it starts with C&C 3 and then if they succeed - all the rest of RTS will follow, just like FPS is gone console way with Epic, Bungie, Carmack and others.

Okay, we'll see if interface issues will prevent RTS from moving on consoles, but you can see there's a strong pull from consoles, otherwise EA wouldn't port C&C to consoles again and again.
quote:
Independent gaming, at least until XNA really takes off, is still COMPLETELY PC dominated.
Correct, but XNA is there already, and one can pay $1