playaplayer

There was no pc graphic card more powerful than the xenos gpu when the 360 launch in nov. 2005. Just look it up on wiki. Same with the original xbox with it's gpu. Microsoft consoles have been more powerful than pc at release. Pc usually catches up a year later and cost alot more. If you don't believe me just do a google search or look it up on wikipedia.

You won't see games that look 10 times more powerful on pc until the next gen consoles comes out. Even BF3 that is a game built with pc in mind first doesn't look 10 times better than consoles. It has more than double the player count but the game definitely don't look 10 times better. If you don't know what 10 times better looks like it would be the difference between halo for the xbox and halo reach for the 360.

I totally disagree with rage being the best looking game on console. Maybe the best looking game on console that runs at 60 fps. But there's not many shooters that does that, besides call of duty. To me the best looking multiplatform shooters on consoles in order are. (I'm counting single player only.)

Crysis
Crysis 2
Battlefield 3
Rage

You should give it a shot. It's a good game. My suggestion is to play on delta difficulty and try to kill all the enemies in the game.

I've already beaten the game on delta and I got to say I was amazed about how good this game looks. It's got to be in the top 5 best looking games on 360. If you have a PS3 or 360 you should give this game a chance. We'll worth the $20 it costs if you don't have a gaming pc. The way i played is. I made every effort to kill all enemies in the game. More challenging than just cloaking to your destination.

I got Crysis on 360 and have played all the way through it on delta difficulty. I would say Crysis is medium to high settings with a bit of very high with the new lighting. The worst part graphically is the draw distance, which is understandable cause the 360 only has 512mb of video ram. I think if Sony and MS went with a gig of ram. Crysis would at least look as good as pc running on high settings. By the way the game looks very good I would say at least in the top 5 on 360.

...

Microsoft won't be paying retail prices for their gpu or cpu. They will be paying whatever prices their chip fabrication partners charge them (eg. Global Foundries/TSMC). Those prices are determined by the yield of the chips. The better the yield the cheaper the price. Also Microsoft will own the IP of whatever gpu and cpu their new system will use.

Just picked up the game also. Was waiting for $30 price tag since the game has already been out for a month. Had to bite since there was no cheaper deals.

Maybe I should be more clear about what I'm saying. If nintendo went with a mid range 7000 series gpu. It wouldn't cost a lot of money for nintendo because they don't pay retail prices. It might only cost them $100-125 for the gpu. The 7000 series gpu is mostly a die shrink of the 6000 series gpu. So it should be even cheaper for nintendo since it's cheaper to manufacture.

If nintendo plans to win back the hardcore. They need to go with a 7000 series graphics card. By the time that system release in late 2012 AMD will have 8000 series graphics cards on the market.

I know these specs are purely speculation, but how hard is it to put a quad core processor, 2gb gddr5, and a mid range 6000 series DX11 graphics card together. And sell for under $400. I'm quite sure nintendo can work with IBM and AMD and put something like this together and sell it at cost or maybe a slight profit.

One thing we have to remember is that the ps3 lost so much money at the start of this generation was because of the blu-ray drive. If they would've put a dvd drive in the ps3 they would not have lost so much money. As far as the 360 goes. They should have just delayed the launch until they had their hardware function right. They wouldn't had RROD.

We'll it depends on how much of a graphical leap these next gen consoles are. If it's a jump like PS1 to PS3. I'll throw $500 down on the console today. For that kind of difference in graphics.

As far as waiting for the software to come about. I didn't have to wait to long for good games this gen when I got my 360 in early 2006. I just brought Oblivion and GRAW, and that was less than half a year after release.

I think one thing people fail to remember is that when the 360/PS3 were first release they were state of the art systems. You had to buy an expensive pc back in 2005/6 to match the power of 360/PS3. I do believe we need new consoles in 2012/13. But we shouldn't rag on current gen consoles for their limitations. We should accept them as they are, and move on to the next when we can do so.