360 dead again...

[OldmanPurdy]

Wii pwns but I didn't know they could look up the p0rn!

With the Wiimote and all the crazy motion sensitive devices for the Wii... the possibilities for WiiPorn devices are insane.... zomg I can't wait.

Oh yeah baby!I actualy heard through a friend that a leisure suit larry game is in devolpment for the will and ill include a...........uh hem jock strap attachment........

[Morph]

how is it elitist? i dont think that's the word you wanted to use there. i probably spent around the same amount on my pc setup that someone would spend on their 360, a game, the live package and mic etc... and my computer does a lot more than just play games. if anything i would be more practical and down-to-earth.

More along the lines of the price to play. The main reason i got out of pc games was the hardware. Evertime i got a new vid card for the latest games...BANG new HW. With some of the new cards, sli or what ever ati calls it , 5-600 bucks is not unherd of. Hell upgrading your system every few years, + the price of games= teh sux.

Pc games rock but hell i dont feel like building a new system every 2 years.

Modified by Morph at 2:05 PM 7/24/2007
Modified by Morph at 2:06 PM 7/24/2007

[C-Kwik]

sooo.... xbox 360's relatively massive amount of "fun titles" includes what? Halo 3? anything else exclusive to that system? forza blows it, btw :P

what are you comparing the n64 to? the main competitor was... the original playstation. there was literally a crapton of awesome games for that system, some of which became franchises that will carry over to the ps3.

the xbox was known for its relatively low number of "hit" games compared to the ps2.

and how is this even supposed to be an argument when its based on something as subjective as your opinion on which games are "good?"

the fact of the matter is, statistically speaking, that with the amount of game releases available for the ps3 there will HAVE to be a better variety and selection than xbox.

as for online play, im saying that consoles still have a long way to go before they can compete with PC titles in that arena. as it stands, i would MUCH rather be playing BF2 on a stable dedicated server than a laggy pos xbox live connection running Halo 2.

I believe you're making some assumptions here. Using the library from the previous generation isn't making the difference here. Devs aren't necessarily loyal to Sony. In fact, many franchises that were exclusive to sony have (for lack of a better term) defected. MS is picking up a lot of exclusives with games that could make or break this gen. Most have become multi-platform, but it is obvious that devs are compelled to release titles on the 360 at this point in time. Those that are remaining loyal to Sony have made press releases that indicate that they are not pleased with Sony's market penetration (namely Square Enix - Final Fantasy, and Capcom - Metal Gear Solid). Devs see great potential in the hardware of the PS3, but both unlocking it and making money on it appear difficult or shakey.

On the other hand, the 360 is relatively easy to develop for, and has a bigger installed base. Add to that if a dev wants to release a title on the 360 and PC, much of the dev work will be done concurrently, saving them money. This almost guarantees if a game goes multi-platform, then the 360 and the PC would not be ignored. It would be less likely for the devs to release on the PS3 and PC without the 360. There is a list of games on wikipedia for both the PS3 and 360. They indicate which are exclusives. But if you look closely, you'll find many titles that are not indicated as exclusives to the 360 are missing from the PS3 list altogether. My assumption is these titles are likely being released on the PC as well.

While the connection through XBL can sometimes be lacking, the functionality of XBL can't be denied. From a developer standpint looking to create a multi-player game, the console hosting functionality can actually be looked at as a blessing. Especially this early on in the console's lifespan. Servers cost money to run. Whether devs pay for it, MS pays for it, or even 3rd parties pay for it, it's not a free service. The 360 is enjoying a lead over the PS3 in it's installed base, but game sales aren't going to be enough for anyone to sustain a profit while running dedicated servers for such a massive audience.

Frankly though, the PC environment does invite much more possibility of hacking the games themselves and introducing cheats. I don't think I've heard of any mods that would allow one to introduce a software cheat yet. At best, they may be able to use the latency cheats (bridging). We have seen reports of people being able to run games off the PS3's hard drive directly, which can open up the ability to manipulate the software. Not sure f that's been done yet, but for me, latency is less of a priority to me than curbing the cheaters.

As for paying for live, the XBL membership will allow for online access for most of the games. Considering one of the largest online games (WOW) requires a subscription, the PC is not necessarily a free option.

As for the cost of equipment, show me where you can get or build a PC that can run a game at a reasonable framerate and resolution, for less than $500 ($399 for the console, $50 for a year of XBL, $23 for a play and charge kit, and another $20 if you don't like the included headset).

My current desktop cost me about $800 to build. Since then , I have went through about $500 in video cards trying to keep up with the games. That was at least 3 years ago. Like Morph, I think PC games are great, but in the end, you spend more. With consoles, you never have to upgrade the components or play guessing games with video cards and pray that you get the results you want. I'd rather be able to put that money towards the games.

[MinisterofDOOM]

sooo.... xbox 360's relatively massive amount of "fun titles" includes what? Halo 3? anything else exclusive to that system?

Yes. As low as the 360's "hit" ratio is, it is still better than the PS3s. The PS3 has exactly no games I really want. The Xbox has maybe half a dozen to a dozen.

what are you comparing the n64 to? the main competitor was... the original playstation. there was literally a crapton of awesome games for that system, some of which became franchises that will carry over to the ps3.

The PSX being a great system doesn't make the PS3 a great system by default...Also, I can't name one PSX franchise that's still interesting in it's current iteration with the exception of GTA which was really a PC franchise, or GT which I don't care enough about to buy a system for.

the xbox was known for its relatively low number of "hit" games compared to the ps2.

Again...What does that have to do with the PS3 and 360?

and how is this even supposed to be an argument when its based on something as subjective as your opinion on which games are "good?"

EXACTLY!!!

as for online play, im saying that consoles still have a long way to go before they can compete with PC titles in that arena. as it stands, i would MUCH rather be playing BF2 on a stable dedicated server than a laggy pos xbox live connection running Halo 2.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, here. I don't buy consoles for online gaming. I'm getting more and more annoyed with the LACK of attention that goes into singleplayer modes these days because everyone is so obsessed with playing frag-the-13-year-olds over XBL. The only multiplayer I care to see on my console is split-screen; it's all that matters.

While the connection through XBL can sometimes be lacking, the functionality of XBL can't be denied. From a developer standpint looking to create a multi-player game, the console hosting functionality can actually be looked at as a blessing. Especially this early on in the console's lifespan. Servers cost money to run. Whether devs pay for it, MS pays for it, or even 3rd parties pay for it, it's not a free service. The 360 is enjoying a lead over the PS3 in it's installed base, but game sales aren't going to be enough for anyone to sustain a profit while running dedicated servers for such a massive audience.

Frankly though, the PC environment does invite much more possibility of hacking the games themselves and introducing cheats. I don't think I've heard of any mods that would allow one to introduce a software cheat yet. At best, they may be able to use the latency cheats (bridging). We have seen reports of people being able to run games off the PS3's hard drive directly, which can open up the ability to manipulate the software. Not sure f that's been done yet, but for me, latency is less of a priority to me than curbing the cheaters.

As for paying for live, the XBL membership will allow for online access for most of the games. Considering one of the largest online games (WOW) requires a subscription, the PC is not necessarily a free option.

You've just named some reasons why I DO NOT like XBL.

I don't CARE what's a blessing for the Developers!!!! Last I checked it was ME who should get the "blessings" when it comes to games.

Why is it that the very best developers out there do PC games? Seems to me console-only devs are generally of the lazy type, just like most console gamers (not an insult to console gamers, but they're the ones who are "not willing to mess around with a PC" and prefer the ease of use of consoles). Valve and Blizzard don't waste their time with anything other than ports to consoles. They also don't get lazy and ship a multiplayer game with some poor excuse for a singleplayer mode tacked on.Look at Bungie. Laziest developers EVER. So many bugs in CONSOLE games. Even PC (very patchable) games would have caught crap for being as broken as Halo 2. But somehow standards are set lower on consoles...I guess...?

You've hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph:Consoles are about the COMPANIES. Not about the gamer.The only time the gamer ever benefits is if they're the lazy type who wants an easier-to-use setup, in which case they should find another hobby.

XBL is crap.

[bmike818]

we do love our video games!

[C-Kwik]

You've just named some reasons why I DO NOT like XBL.

I don't CARE what's a blessing for the Developers!!!! Last I checked it was ME who should get the "blessings" when it comes to games.

Why is it that the very best developers out there do PC games? Seems to me console-only devs are generally of the lazy type, just like most console gamers (not an insult to console gamers, but they're the ones who are "not willing to mess around with a PC" and prefer the ease of use of consoles). Valve and Blizzard don't waste their time with anything other than ports to consoles. They also don't get lazy and ship a multiplayer game with some poor excuse for a singleplayer mode tacked on.Look at Bungie. Laziest developers EVER. So many bugs in CONSOLE games. Even PC (very patchable) games would have caught crap for being as broken as Halo 2. But somehow standards are set lower on consoles...I guess...?

You've hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph:Consoles are about the COMPANIES. Not about the gamer.The only time the gamer ever benefits is if they're the lazy type who wants an easier-to-use setup, in which case they should find another hobby.

Ultimately, regardless of the platform, it's always about the company. Even with PC's. Companies have to make money to stay in business. They can do project after project, but if they don't make any money, they won't be able to survive or make another game. In fact, I think it's reasonable for them to make a good profit, as it generally increases the likelihood that they will make another great game, perhaps making it an even better experience.

I'm not sure if you really mean to call console devs lazy. I'm sure there are lazy PC devs and lazy console devs, but both have very talented hard-working devs. PC devs enjoy much more wiggle room. They generally have more 'horsepower' to work with and the hardware supports less than ideal code better than a console does. I'm no expert here, so I won't get technical, but think compilers and out of order execution. As a result, console programmers do need to spend more time optimizing and compiling code than a PC programmer might.

With a larger install base (How many people do you know who doesn't have a PC at home?), PC devs have a much easier time getting the budget they need to create some incredible results. The industry likely has the hardware and software guys constantly investing in each other as well considering pushing the limits of upcoming hardware will boost hardware sales and as a result, hardware companies have a vested interest in seeing games succeed.

And last I checked, Blizzard is charging for WOW, which is a single game. MS has one charge that covers the online aspect of virtually all the games available for the 360.

Another thing to consider is that while games like CS have free dedicated servers, what happens when they're gone? They are not owned by valve (AFAIK) and from my observations most are hosted by internet cafe's looking to provide their walk-in customers with access to large games should there be a lack of customers inside. When the next gotta play game arraives, I can see many servers no longer being available. With the console hosted system, as long as there is one other person on XBL that wants to play the same game, it can theoretically be played. It has some compromises, yes, but so does everything. I boot up CS: Source every once in a while, but I find the selection of servers lacking. I used to see a lot of great servers out there when I was playing CS 1.X many years ago, but as it diminished and cheating became prominent, I played less and less.

By contrast, console games have smaller installed bases and only one hardware company to work with. Many of the console devs are relatively small and would have a huge financial risk in setting up network infrastructures that can handle all of the online gaming. It's a much different environment. Online gameplay for consoles is also not nearly as mature. Consider for a moment how the dynamics might change if Internet PC cafe's started charging for play on various consoles over the internet. An infrastructure more similar to CS could be used to host games. But this is not the case. If these companies can not profit from the games, then why make one at all? That would ruin the experience for all console gamers.

That said, I think we can thank Sega for introducing the idea of playing online with Dreamcast. Sony sat on their hands with it mostly. MS really catapulted it. I think with PC games always having been somewhat of a template for where consoles head, I think in regards to online play, they will try to be more like PC's at some point in the future. But it would be a huge risk to try and implement now.

Preferences are however, preferences. I would love to play all my favorite FPS games on a PC, but consoles satisfy me quite well and at a much lower cost.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Ultimately, regardless of the platform, it's always about the company. Even with PC's. Companies have to make money to stay in business. They can do project after project, but if they don't make any money, they won't be able to survive or make another game. In fact, I think it's reasonable for them to make a good profit, as it generally increases the likelihood that they will make another great game, perhaps making it an even better experience.

True. However, consider my examples...I chose them particularly for a reason. They're definitely profitable companies, but they genuinely make games for their fans. They didn't say "lets start a game development company to get rich" they said "lets start a game development company so we can make the games we wish we were playing." Sure profit is the goal. They can't exist without profit. But the games are the goal as well as the means.Unfortunately, consoles are ruled by the likes of EA and Bungie who are about the hype, the deadline, and the SALE, not about making a truly great game. EA is the stereotypical evil empire out to make money off other peoples' ideas. Bungie is just a bunch of sell-outs. Both infuriate me.

And last I checked, Blizzard is charging for WOW, which is a single game. MS has one charge that covers the online aspect of virtually all the games available for the 360.

The things that are being charged for are totally different. Comparing those is like being upset for being charged for a front-end swap because the guy next to you got his faulty bumper replaced free. One is something that genuinely requires money to support. They other is something that can be--and has been--done for free.

Another thing to consider is that while games like CS have free dedicated servers, what happens when they're gone? They are not owned by valve (AFAIK) and from my observations most are hosted by internet cafe's looking to provide their walk-in customers with access to large games should there be a lack of customers inside. When the next gotta play game arraives, I can see many servers no longer being available. With the console hosted system, as long as there is one other person on XBL that wants to play the same game, it can theoretically be played. It has some compromises, yes, but so does everything. I boot up CS: Source every once in a while, but I find the selection of servers lacking. I used to see a lot of great servers out there when I was playing CS 1.X many years ago, but as it diminished and cheating became prominent, I played less and less.

Actually, this is more likely to be the case with CONSOLE games than with PC games. PC game servers are supported by the FANS. Console games don't allow that kind of freedom with XBL's extreme limitations.Any online PC game can thrive literally forever as long as there's a player base there to come together. Even older games like Diablo can still be played online over Battle.net. And Battle.net is free AND Blizzard-run. Meanwhile I could start up a Half Life (1) server right now if I chose. Like most online PC games, Counterstrike servers are largely clan-run, and as long as those clans keep playing the game, it'll be there for others to enjoy. Even if those clan servers die, there's the option for anyone who has the game to host a listen-server.Not that it's likely, but if Xbox Live suddenly disappeared, all online Xbox games would be useless. That's not something that can happen with PC games because there's no dependency on an extra service like XBL.

Also, there have been cases of Xbox games loosing online support (at least partially). That simply can't happen on a PC. Look at WoW. Even if it closed down tomorrow, someone somewhere would pick up where Blizzard left off. It'd be considered illegal probably, that's beside the point. But chances are no one would complain if a fan began hosting private Line of Contact servers (semi-persistent world) now that Capcom has ceased support. The problem lies in the fact that it can't be done because of the limitations placed on Xbox/Xbox Live online games.

[C-Kwik]

Well if they are truly about the games, then why would these PC devs limit their console versions to ports? Why wouldn't they maximize their efforts? Wouldn't Valve be considered a sellout for putting out a port on a console? Epic is supporting the PS3 and 360 with UE3 and with UT3 announced for the PS3 and hints that the 360 version will be released later. Not to mention they still develop games and tools for the PC as well. I hope it's not some level of bitterness that's speaking as fsar as Bungie is concerned as (IIRC) Halo was originally supposed to be a PC release before MS got their hands on it.

As a user, who cares what's being charged for? If it does what it's supposed to, then a charge is a charge regardless. Effectively, for the average gamer, how things work aren't as important as if they work. While I'm not a big fan of RPG's, from a financial perspective, WoW is not a very multi-gaming friendly game. You could waste some of your membership if you decide to play something else. Where as, XBL allows one to play many different games online without "wasting" a fee.

From my own experiences, servers that were run by clans weren't appealing to me. I fully understand this may not have been the case for some, but finding a good combo of latency, lots of players in the game (I like larger games) and good sequence of maps seemed to put me into PC cafe hosted servers.

I understand your concerns and the compromises made with XBL, but what game and environment doesn't have some level of compromise? Your preferences are your preferences.

As for online support longevity, all MS would need to do is keep the channel open. While I don't know all the technical details of all the PC online games, I would speculate most involve some level of involvement from the developer to keep online game going. Going outside the confines of the original programming is not as easy an option for consoles, but the original xbox did get aftermarket support for such things(Xlink Kai) due to the moddability. I'd be hard-pressed to say that this would ever become much of an option for the 360 or PS3 at this point, but I wouldn't rule it out either. Especially once these systems are outdated by a newer console and support becomes less active.

I think that as consoles move forward, were going to see it try and mimic pc gaming more and more. Hell, Epic announced that they are going to integrate UT3 mods into the PS3 platform. I think after the success of PS2, PC devs can see the potential console gaming can provide.

I'll apoplogize if my post doesn't flow well. I was getting interrupted quite a bit while typing this out.

[Morph]

As a user, who cares what's being charged for? If it does what it's supposed to, then a charge is a charge regardless. Effectively, for the average gamer, how things work aren't as important as if they work. While I'm not a big fan of RPG's, from a financial perspective, WoW is not a very multi-gaming friendly game. You could waste some of your membership if you decide to play something else. Where as, XBL allows one to play many different games online without "wasting" a fee.

Not sure here if you were talking about the online content or just the fee for XBL. Hell man its MS those ***holes charge for everything.

But as far as the content goes, devs do or at least did want to add alot of free stuff for their games. IE free maps add on content and artists drawings of new character/ other things that didnt make the cut. But, IIRC, in an article in game informer a dev who didnt want to be named basically told them that MS is making devs charge for what is suposed to be free content. IF you insist on no charging you dont get to play. <---That is retarted. I can understand paying for service, dont agree with it but i can understand server farms are expensive, but making devs charge for content they want people to have for free is ****ing stupid.

[C-Kwik]

nope...haven't seen any online content that i would want to pay for or that i won't wait for it to become free...

[MinisterofDOOM]

Well if they are truly about the games, then why would these PC devs limit their console versions to ports? Why wouldn't they maximize their efforts? Wouldn't Valve be considered a sellout for putting out a port on a console? Epic is supporting the PS3 and 360 with UE3 and with UT3 announced for the PS3 and hints that the 360 version will be released later. Not to mention they still develop games and tools for the PC as well. I hope it's not some level of bitterness that's speaking as fsar as Bungie is concerned as (IIRC) Halo was originally supposed to be a PC release before MS got their hands on it.

The Bungie comments are definitely part bitterness. Halo was originally to be a PC title and probably would have been MUCH MUCH better if they hadn't sold out and gone Xbox. I still remember watching the original Halo video (something like 10 minutes long) and thinking "Damn that looks awesome." It looked more like what the Battlefield games became than what the final Halo product was. But it's also a strong dislike for a developer that realeases half-finished games and manages to remain successful because of the support of a bigger company, rather than being successful from making a good product.

Half Life games moving to console isn't selling out. This is only an assumption, but I imagine console sales for Valve don't/won't come anywhere close to PC sales. Yes, they stand to profit. But there's a difference between selling your soul to MS and giving them control of your product and simply making it available on their console. The "real" product was not affected by the ports (though the Xbox version had to be neutered in order to run).

As a user, who cares what's being charged for? If it does what it's supposed to, then a charge is a charge regardless. Effectively, for the average gamer, how things work aren't as important as if they work. While I'm not a big fan of RPG's, from a financial perspective, WoW is not a very multi-gaming friendly game. You could waste some of your membership if you decide to play something else. Where as, XBL allows one to play many different games online without "wasting" a fee.

I DEFINITELY care what's being charged for. Maybe that's uncommon, but for me there's a HUGE difference between paying for someone to, say, develop new content and paying someone because they felt like charging money. What I'm paying for makes ALL the difference. It all goes back to what I said: XBL COULD be free. So I'm not happy paying for it. WoW couldn't, so I don't see a problem with the fee.

And as Morph said, MS is FORCING developers to put a price on content that the developers themselves want to make free. GREED, pure and simple. Big difference between paying for that content and paying for a month's subscription to an MMO.

As for online support longevity, all MS would need to do is keep the channel open. While I don't know all the technical details of all the PC online games, I would speculate most involve some level of involvement from the developer to keep online game going.

PC games don't require any developer involvement to function online. The developer of a PC game has nothing to do with keeping it online (in most cases). That's ALL on the user end. People who own the game host servers. There's no input, no support, no nothing required from the developer once the game has shipped (assuming the game doesn't need fixing via patching).

There are exceptions, such as Battle.net, but for the most part PC games follow the above method. It's simpler and less risky. However, Battle.net has been immensely successful (and you can bet that wouldn't have been the case if they'd charged money for it!) so it's not necessarily such a bad thing. You do run the risk of incompatibility if it goes away--but then Blizzard could always release a patch to enable simpler matchmaking if that had to happen.

That's where the big difference between XBL and PC games comes in: PC games take care of their own matchmaking. XBL games require you to do it through Xbox Live's matchmaking. On a PC game, that will never go away. Ever. Not even in 1000 years. The only way it could stop working is if there was some insanely massive change in how networking functions.On XBL it's dead as soon as the XBL matchmaking goes away. Not likely to happen soon, but a lot of people keep and play good games forever, so the question is: in 20 years when I pull out Half Life and Halo 5, which one is still going to be playable online? 20 years may sound like a long time to be playing an old game, but remember that Half Life is already 9 years old. And Mario is over 20.

This is a fun thread.

[OldmanPurdy]

Has it really been 9 years since Half-Life came out? wow time flies.

[C-Kwik]

Hmm? Well, while it is possible and perhaps likely that Halo could have been a much better game on the PC (Aside from the fact that the PC version of Halo: CE does look better than it's Xbox counterpart). Frankly, if I had a company that someone offered a very large amount of money for (Accounting for projected profits and risks) I wouldn't turn down a good offer. It's business and life. To offer a different perspective, Halo as arguably changed FPS gaming on consoles. While it wasn't revolutionary by any means, its popularity and particularly it's co-op mode really put console FPS games on the map. It looked great compared to many other FPS console games as well. To be honest, if Halo didn't drag me into the console world, I'd probably still be burning my wallet in my PC.

If I were to blame anyone for the end result MS would be higher up on the list...at least for the reasons you state. Both Halo and Halo2 had a very defined purpose in trying to help the platform. Halo3 will do the same, but with a much bigger focus on finishing to the best of bungie's abilities. Hopefully, the hype in this case won't only be that. I was impressed with the beta myself from a playability standpoint...but to be honest, I was more excited that it's finally a version both made for the 360 (Halo2 does have some flaws when played on the 360) and should be harder to cheat (especially the software cheats).

As for half-life as a console port, ultimately, they have still compromised the game and not released a product to the best of their abilities for the sake of profit.

While I would agree it's not absolutely necessary for MS to charge for XBL, There is a distinction between greed and simply running a business to make money. I tend to associate greed with unethical and/or poor business decisions that were made motivated by money. From the large number of XBL Gold accounts that exist, it would appear people are willing to pay money for the access.

While I am skeptical about forced fees for XBL content, I do speculate fees are temporary for game content. I have all the map updates for Halo2 and I've never paid anything. I have all the updates for Crackdown and Kameo as well.

Battle.net and Steam in their current forms require developer involvement. Both can be changed in the future (Valve indicates they have tested with teh authentication functions turned off), which likely won't happen soon, but theoretically, consoles can do the same. If they can't, Some smart guy somewhere can probably design a hardware solution that might allow consoles to see each other through the system link functions over the net. Though distributing such a product would likely not be easy until the console is no longer supported and would not affect usage of newer consoles.

BTW, I just finished Zelda: A Link to the Past for my 10th time last month. I do love to replay old games.

I agree, this is a fun thread. None of the typical BS bantering that goes on in similar debates inside of a gaming forum. Morph's 360 should breakdown more often.

[Morph]

BTW, I just finished Zelda: A Link to the Past for my 10th time last month. I do love to replay old games.

I agree, this is a fun thread. None of the typical BS bantering that goes on in similar debates inside of a gaming forum. Morph's 360 should breakdown more often.

Congrats on the Zelda accomplishment. I'm supposed to be getting it back in 2 weeks, so we'll see how long the patch holds up.

[GEO]

do the towel trick to fix it.

[OldmanPurdy]

Congrats on the Zelda accomplishment. I'm supposed to be getting it back in 2 weeks, so we'll see how long the patch holds up.

Don't post in this thread anymore its cursed!!!! the day after I posted about the 360 problem mine gave me the 3rings The ironing is delicious!

[C-Kwik]

Congrats on the Zelda accomplishment. I'm supposed to be getting it back in 2 weeks, so we'll see how long the patch holds up.

Thanks, but I'm not sure it's much of an accomplishment anymore. I've gotten pretty efficient at it as I've just about memorized everything.

Hopefully this will be the last time your 360 fails...

[highimeric]

i got my xbox a month after they came out and have never had a problem. it is loud as hell tho.....

[USsil80]

another one bites the dust.. this sucks...

[speedfrommc2]

The 360 Elite is ring of death proof

[OldmanPurdy]

The 360 Elite is ring of death proof

That would be nice but its not true, all 360's currently on the market all have the same flaw......the chipsets run too hot for the cheap lead free solder used on the connections. Even the repaired ones with new heatsinks aren't imune to this, in fact the only 360's that will be really "fixed" are the planned 65nm chipset models due out next year.

[C-Kwik]

The 360 Elite is ring of death proof

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SHsSnjirTk

I speculate MS has made changes that significantly reduce the number of incidents, but I don't think any console is going to be 100% defect free. There is a good chance that all new consoles after a certain date will have received these changes as well...

[dickie]

our latest 360 has been doing fine playing the COD4 beta for extended periods of time.

i would consider changing my opinion of the system overall if the actual game and the ones that follow it are this good... and not available or bettered by ps3 versions.

i have to say this: the 360 experience we have had definitely beats our iPod experience in terms of reliability, but thats not hard to do .

[C-Kwik]

our latest 360 has been doing fine playing the COD4 beta for extended periods of time.

i would consider changing my opinion of the system overall if the actual game and the ones that follow it are this good... and not available or bettered by ps3 versions.

i have to say this: the 360 experience we have had definitely beats our iPod experience in terms of reliability, but thats not hard to do .

I can't even get a registration email from the COD website. EFF it. H3 is 12 days away. I probably won't even look at COD4 until it is released...

[dickie]

zerothread?id=278929