- Forums
- Cross Site
- General Video Game Discussion
- I want the new Razer Laptop
I want the new Razer LaptopFollow
Graphics card isn't strong enough and no SSD. For that price I'd expect both. Also, 16:10 is superior.
Dear people I don't like: 凸(â—´―｀â—)凸
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Plus, a loooot of people travel for work. If you spend a fifth of your year away from home (spending nights bored in a hotel room), it would be a very attractive option.
There is this... but that said, the only time I am staying in a hotel room for more than a night for work... is when I am working 12 hours a day 7 days a week on campaign... so, while a nice gaming laptop would be nice it wouldn't get a lot of use from me.
Advocating putting Windows on a Mac?
Why would anyone want to put Windows on a Mac, instead of buying an actual PC?
Never did understand that, to be honest.
So, the MacOS is utter crap for gaming, because very few games were ever coded for Macs. So, Apple's solution is to simply "stick Intel Chips in it so you can dual-boot Windows!"
They're still forgetting the fact that (at least in the Desktop area) their Macs cost more than any decently-built PC Desktop, and you have to buy the extra OS (I doubt it comes with Windows, does it?) license, further increasing the cost.
As for hardcore gaming on a laptop, I can't say I understand that either. Not sure why you'd want to game on a laptop, but whatever. *shrugs*
Either way, $2800 is way too much for a laptop, even a "gaming rig". Razer is usually pricy with just about everything they sell, but yeeesh.
I'm glad I play my games, on a desktop that costs one-third that.
Oh, and as to why the PC gaming market appears to be slowly dying?
Maybe the companies who make PC games, should try making good PC games, and stop trying to push the limit, push the limit, push the limit.
I'd have to admit though, the last couple years, they've gotten better with this, but I remember the years where if you wanted a new game, you had to go out and buy a new computer otherwise you'd get <10 FPS.
Computer Games would sell way better if the vast majority of the public could buy it, and play it right out of the box. For this to happen, they'd have to quit trying to squeeze every camera lens flare out of every "ultra-realistic" looking environment. Make that crap Optional, so that the people who don't have several grand to dump into a computer every year, can enjoy games too.
Just look at Portal 2 -- crazy popular, but yet, didn't require a cutting-edge computer to run. My $900 computer, put together 2 years before the game was released, ran it just fine and I can't say I found anything at all wrong with the graphics.
Why would anyone want to put Windows on a Mac, instead of buying an actual PC?
Never did understand that, to be honest.
So, the MacOS is utter crap for gaming, because very few games were ever coded for Macs. So, Apple's solution is to simply "stick Intel Chips in it so you can dual-boot Windows!"
They're still forgetting the fact that (at least in the Desktop area) their Macs cost more than any decently-built PC Desktop, and you have to buy the extra OS (I doubt it comes with Windows, does it?) license, further increasing the cost.
As for hardcore gaming on a laptop, I can't say I understand that either. Not sure why you'd want to game on a laptop, but whatever. *shrugs*
Either way, $2800 is way too much for a laptop, even a "gaming rig". Razer is usually pricy with just about everything they sell, but yeeesh.
I'm glad I play my games, on a desktop that costs one-third that.
Oh, and as to why the PC gaming market appears to be slowly dying?
Maybe the companies who make PC games, should try making good PC games, and stop trying to push the limit, push the limit, push the limit.
I'd have to admit though, the last couple years, they've gotten better with this, but I remember the years where if you wanted a new game, you had to go out and buy a new computer otherwise you'd get <10 FPS.
Computer Games would sell way better if the vast majority of the public could buy it, and play it right out of the box. For this to happen, they'd have to quit trying to squeeze every camera lens flare out of every "ultra-realistic" looking environment. Make that crap Optional, so that the people who don't have several grand to dump into a computer every year, can enjoy games too.
Just look at Portal 2 -- crazy popular, but yet, didn't require a cutting-edge computer to run. My $900 computer, put together 2 years before the game was released, ran it just fine and I can't say I found anything at all wrong with the graphics.
The problem is that the most outspoken population in the pc community are the ones who pay $1500-3k+ for their rigs, and are pissed that they don't have games to push them to the max. The problem is that creating a game with nice scaling graphics to accommodate PCs all along the budget range is REALLY hard.
So most games are made for the lower to mid range, when it comes to graphics (lower still being an evaluation of gaming pcs in particular).
And there are plenty of those players. They just don't whine nearly as much.
Too be fair, the PC has lost a lot of players to consoles. But that has more to do with the cost of pc gaming than anything. And that's not the fault of gaming companies. Yeah, bad ports don't help the issue. But the fact is that most of those players wouldn't have left if they could game on a pc for a realistic price. Paying 1k more for a PC to get 25% better graphics and the ability to mod is, at the end of the day, too much for a normal gamer to swallow.
So most games are made for the lower to mid range, when it comes to graphics (lower still being an evaluation of gaming pcs in particular).
And there are plenty of those players. They just don't whine nearly as much.
Too be fair, the PC has lost a lot of players to consoles. But that has more to do with the cost of pc gaming than anything. And that's not the fault of gaming companies. Yeah, bad ports don't help the issue. But the fact is that most of those players wouldn't have left if they could game on a pc for a realistic price. Paying 1k more for a PC to get 25% better graphics and the ability to mod is, at the end of the day, too much for a normal gamer to swallow.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem is that the most outspoken population in the pc community are the ones who pay $1500-3k+ for their rigs, and are pissed that they don't have games to push them to the max. The problem is that creating a game with nice scaling graphics to accommodate PCs all along the budget range is REALLY hard.
So most games are made for the lower to mid range, when it comes to graphics (lower still being an evaluation of gaming pcs in particular).
And there are plenty of those players. They just don't whine nearly as much.
Too be fair, the PC has lost a lot of players to consoles. But that has more to do with the cost of pc gaming than anything. And that's not the fault of gaming companies. Yeah, bad ports don't help the issue. But the fact is that most of those players wouldn't have left if they could game on a pc for a realistic price. Paying 1k more for a PC to get 25% better graphics and the ability to mod is, at the end of the day, too much for a normal gamer to swallow.
So most games are made for the lower to mid range, when it comes to graphics (lower still being an evaluation of gaming pcs in particular).
And there are plenty of those players. They just don't whine nearly as much.
Too be fair, the PC has lost a lot of players to consoles. But that has more to do with the cost of pc gaming than anything. And that's not the fault of gaming companies. Yeah, bad ports don't help the issue. But the fact is that most of those players wouldn't have left if they could game on a pc for a realistic price. Paying 1k more for a PC to get 25% better graphics and the ability to mod is, at the end of the day, too much for a normal gamer to swallow.
The thing is, though, when you buy a gaming computer, you can use it for a heck of a lot more than just gaming.
You can do all of your internet stuff on it, you can watch movies on it (I enjoy watching movies on my PC more than I do any TV; I sit like 2 feet away from my 24'' widescreen, with an expensive pair of headphones on, which gives me a better experience than sitting 10 feet away from a 37'' TV with no headphones), etc etc etc.
And when you look at things like the PS3, didn't that thing cost like $600 at first when it was first put on the market?
Sheesh. That's not very far away from the price I paid for my last computer upgrade.
Yeah, but it's $250 now, which is far more affordable than a pc capable of giving you the same graphical experience.
It's also a bluray player, so it can gain additional use in your AV setup. Granted, a gaming pc could as well, but most aren't bought with the intention of doing so, I'd imagine.
So imagine that you aren't someone who isn't necessarily an enthusiast, and won't be buying the nicest pc possible. They'd just be getting a pc that gave them a graphical return they found acceptable.
They might very well find that a PS3 and an okay laptop serve their needs much better. The PS3 would handle all of their gaming and HD needs, the pc their computing ones.
They'd get the two for less than a gaming pc would cost them. They could also go for a desktop if they don't need to be mobile, and get an even better (but still non-gaming) pc. They could also buy a 360 and a desktop that's set up to be an AV box for pretty cheap (less than a gaming pc would be, at least).
Now, if you are someone who needs a computer that's great for graphical work, movie editing, etc., then a gaming pc is a fine investment. But most people just don't need anywhere near the amount of power they have.
It's also a bluray player, so it can gain additional use in your AV setup. Granted, a gaming pc could as well, but most aren't bought with the intention of doing so, I'd imagine.
So imagine that you aren't someone who isn't necessarily an enthusiast, and won't be buying the nicest pc possible. They'd just be getting a pc that gave them a graphical return they found acceptable.
They might very well find that a PS3 and an okay laptop serve their needs much better. The PS3 would handle all of their gaming and HD needs, the pc their computing ones.
They'd get the two for less than a gaming pc would cost them. They could also go for a desktop if they don't need to be mobile, and get an even better (but still non-gaming) pc. They could also buy a 360 and a desktop that's set up to be an AV box for pretty cheap (less than a gaming pc would be, at least).
Now, if you are someone who needs a computer that's great for graphical work, movie editing, etc., then a gaming pc is a fine investment. But most people just don't need anywhere near the amount of power they have.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Lyrailis wrote:
Advocating putting Windows on a Mac?
Why would anyone want to put Windows on a Mac, instead of buying an actual PC?
Never did understand that, to be honest.
Why would anyone want to put Windows on a Mac, instead of buying an actual PC?
Never did understand that, to be honest.
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
I'd hate to run Windows in any case. It's why I've moved to pretty much solely console gaming.
Lyrailis wrote:
And when you look at things like the PS3, didn't that thing cost like $600 at first when it was first put on the market?
sony was building them for $800 and selling them for $600. it had graphics comparable to a $1200 pc at that time. it had a bluray drive when stand alone bluray players were in the $800-900 range.
sony sold a buttload just based on the fact that the ps3 was the cheapest bluray player on the market.
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 10:19pm by axhed
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
what is that even supposed to mean? it's the same fricking hardware.
90% of 'actual' pc's would benchmark better after a fresh install of win7 just because of the bloatware.
#36REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 12 2011 at 11:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Because 90% of PCs are severely underpowered for the OS and programs that they're intended to run.
Quote:
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
I'd hate to run Windows in any case. It's why I've moved to pretty much solely console gaming.
I'd hate to run Windows in any case. It's why I've moved to pretty much solely console gaming.
I'll say this as bluntly as possible. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
You're making blind comparisons without even factoring in costs. Macs are totally better than pcs, because you're comparing a computer that costs like 1500 to a computer that costs 700. Herp derp.
Quote:
As for hardcore gaming on a laptop, I can't say I understand that either. Not sure why you'd want to game on a laptop, but whatever. *shrugs*
Either way, $2800 is way too much for a laptop, even a "gaming rig". Razer is usually pricy with just about everything they sell, but yeeesh.
Either way, $2800 is way too much for a laptop, even a "gaming rig". Razer is usually pricy with just about everything they sell, but yeeesh.
I spend monday through friday away from my house on campus, and thus don't get to use my nice gaming desktop at all. I would -love- to have a gaming laptop. You are right that 2800 is waaaay to much though.
You can get a gaming laptop or desktop for pretty cheap these days. I spent ~1200 on my desktop when I made it over a year ago and it handles everything I throw at it. The console vs computer argument is just silly imo, computers are hands down better.
Dear people I don't like: 凸(â—´―｀â—)凸
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
Wait, so Windows 7 benchmarks worse on worse hardware and it doesn't pull even until you reach hardware at the same cost?! I am shocked!
You do realize that Windows is designed to work on all ranges of hardware, and that Microsoft doesn't even produce hardware of their own, right? It's not like there's a standard definition of a "PC" like there is with Macs. Of course it benchmarks well on a MacBook, it's designed to run on everything. Saying "oh, it benchmarks better on Apple hardware" is just asinine. There's nothing magical about it that should make it run any better or worse on a set of hardware according to its brand.
Majivo wrote:
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
Wait, so Windows 7 benchmarks worse on worse hardware and it doesn't pull even until you reach hardware at the same cost?! I am shocked!
You do realize that Windows is designed to work on all ranges of hardware, and that Microsoft doesn't even produce hardware of their own, right? It's not like there's a standard definition of a "PC" like there is with Macs. Of course it benchmarks well on a MacBook, it's designed to run on everything. Saying "oh, it benchmarks better on Apple hardware" is just asinine. There's nothing magical about it that should make it run any better or worse on a set of hardware according to its brand.
This.
So very much, this.
I've done price comparisons, using Apple's site and their specs, and Newegg.com.
I found that what Apple was selling for, at the time, for $1600, I could build myself for $900-1100, and some of it (especially RAM, oh God, RAM) my system would beat theirs, easy.
So you're saying that your $1600 Apple benchmarks better than most $700-900 PCs... um, I would sure as hell hope so! Otherwise, it'd be an overpriced piece of junk.
Oh wait...
They already are that.
That system I could build with the same specs, but for 400-500 cheaper? I would bet money that it'd benchmark the same, or slightly better (due to Apple vastly over-pricing RAM).
Worthless Keyboards, mice, and a nice pretty little case isn't worth $400. Heck, the monitor you get for it isn't even worth $400. Unless, of course, Apple desktops come with top of the line 27inch+ widescreen LCDs these days? Heck, I don't even think THOSE are $400. Mine was ~299 IIRC when I bought it.
RE:PS3: Okay, so many Sony wasn't ripping people off, and I admire the fact that they cut into their own profits to get these machines out to people, but perhaps they tried to stuff just a little too much into the thing? Okay, so it had hardware comparable to a $1200 PC, hey that's cool and all... but it ISN'T a PC, nor will it ever do everything a PC can do, and they sell PC Blu-Ray drives. So why not make a comparable PC instead? *shrugs* But, to each their own. I suppose if you really like the games they have for PS3, then more power to you, but I personally wouldn't pay that much.
Lyrailis wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
Wait, so Windows 7 benchmarks worse on worse hardware and it doesn't pull even until you reach hardware at the same cost?! I am shocked!
You do realize that Windows is designed to work on all ranges of hardware, and that Microsoft doesn't even produce hardware of their own, right? It's not like there's a standard definition of a "PC" like there is with Macs. Of course it benchmarks well on a MacBook, it's designed to run on everything. Saying "oh, it benchmarks better on Apple hardware" is just asinine. There's nothing magical about it that should make it run any better or worse on a set of hardware according to its brand.
This.
So very much, this.
I've done price comparisons, using Apple's site and their specs, and Newegg.com.
I found that what Apple was selling for, at the time, for $1600, I could build myself for $900-1100, and some of it (especially RAM, oh God, RAM) my system would beat theirs, easy.
So you're saying that your $1600 Apple benchmarks better than most $700-900 PCs... um, I would sure as hell hope so! Otherwise, it'd be an overpriced piece of junk.
Oh wait...
They already are that.
That system I could build with the same specs, but for 400-500 cheaper? I would bet money that it'd benchmark the same, or slightly better (due to Apple vastly over-pricing RAM).
Worthless Keyboards, mice, and a nice pretty little case isn't worth $400. Heck, the monitor you get for it isn't even worth $400. Unless, of course, Apple desktops come with top of the line 27inch+ widescreen LCDs these days? Heck, I don't even think THOSE are $400. Mine was ~299 IIRC when I bought it.
Er, iMacs come with 27" LCD displays that beats the **** out of most 27" displays on the market.
FYI, a Mac also includes OS, iLife (creativity software that beats everything but professional paid software), etc. When you load up a PC with the equivalent software (and the software will definitely be inferior unless you shell out for pro-level apps), the price is generally exactly the same or more.
This also doesn't include the kind of customer service you get from Apple (the best in the business).
Apple isn't the only one that over-prices RAM. Every other PC manufacturer does. You can get your own RAM for a Mac pretty easily at Crucial.com, which is what I did. My iMac is running 16 GB of RAM for $100.
But yeah, cool stuff. Good to know that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Lyrailis wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Because Windows 7 benchmarks better on Apple hardware than 90% of the "actual" PCs? Basically until you get a laptop up to a similar price range as a 13" MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.
Wait, so Windows 7 benchmarks worse on worse hardware and it doesn't pull even until you reach hardware at the same cost?! I am shocked!
You do realize that Windows is designed to work on all ranges of hardware, and that Microsoft doesn't even produce hardware of their own, right? It's not like there's a standard definition of a "PC" like there is with Macs. Of course it benchmarks well on a MacBook, it's designed to run on everything. Saying "oh, it benchmarks better on Apple hardware" is just asinine. There's nothing magical about it that should make it run any better or worse on a set of hardware according to its brand.
This.
So very much, this.
I've done price comparisons, using Apple's site and their specs, and Newegg.com.
I found that what Apple was selling for, at the time, for $1600, I could build myself for $900-1100, and some of it (especially RAM, oh God, RAM) my system would beat theirs, easy.
So you're saying that your $1600 Apple benchmarks better than most $700-900 PCs... um, I would sure as hell hope so! Otherwise, it'd be an overpriced piece of junk.
Oh wait...
They already are that.
That system I could build with the same specs, but for 400-500 cheaper? I would bet money that it'd benchmark the same, or slightly better (due to Apple vastly over-pricing RAM).
Worthless Keyboards, mice, and a nice pretty little case isn't worth $400. Heck, the monitor you get for it isn't even worth $400. Unless, of course, Apple desktops come with top of the line 27inch+ widescreen LCDs these days? Heck, I don't even think THOSE are $400. Mine was ~299 IIRC when I bought it.
Er, iMacs come with 27" LCD displays that beats the sh*t out of most 27" displays on the market.
FYI, a Mac also includes OS, iLife (creativity software that beats everything but professional paid software), etc. When you load up a PC with the equivalent software (and the software will definitely be inferior unless you shell out for pro-level apps), the price is generally exactly the same or more.
This also doesn't include the kind of customer service you get from Apple (the best in the business).
Apple isn't the only one that over-prices RAM. Every other PC manufacturer does. You can get your own RAM for a Mac pretty easily at Crucial.com, which is what I did. My iMac is running 16 GB of RAM for $100.
But yeah, cool stuff. Good to know that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you, like, work for Apple or something? Are you getting paid to say these kinds of things? You seem to be the one-and-only person on these forums who gets on their knees in front of them, you seem to worship them almost like people worship religions.
But, okay, I'll bite....
MacOS? What good does that do me, when it doesn't run very much of anything out there? Why would I care that Macs are shipped with it installed? I'd end up dual-booting Windows just so I can actually, uh, run stuff. Like games. If I wanted to game, I'd have to... yes, buy Windows7.
Meanwhile, I've got a 3-pack Windows7 Upgrade, and I kept the little license stickers to prove I legally own 3 copies of Win7. I don't have to buy any OS unless I plan on making a new computer and keeping it around. Otherwise, I just buy a tower+parts minus HDD (or even with the HDD as long as I wipe it after installing the new one) for my upgrade, instead of buying an entirely new mac.
Can you trade in a mac tower to get a new one 1-2 years down the road for not even half the cost of a brand new setup? I doubt it.
Oh, and let's not forget that MacOS is basically *nix with a spiffy UI. You can download that for free off the internet (legally!), you know, if you're really that much into *nix.
iLife? Okay, so that might be good for people who actually do art and such... oh wait, I bet there's something comparable out there on Sourceforge mainly for *nix users that probably has either the source code (for you to compile yourself), or Windows binaries to just install and go.
So what are you saying I'd have to buy when I make a PC? The OS? Well, even if I didn't have those copies of Win7 already floating around that I can re-install on a new machine, Win7 costs what, $120-ish? I haven't looked up the price lately. Still cheaper for me to build my own and install Win7 than it would to buy a mac machine.
Overpriced RAM, so Apple actually lets you open up the cases to have free access to hardware? *shrugs* Last I heard, most computer manufacturers tend to put these annoying "VOID" stickers on the case that prevents you from opening the case without voiding the warranty. That way, they can charge you 3-4x what the upgrade really costs. I remember reading on Apple's website when I did research a couple years ago, that a RAM ugprade was $100 or so. The same sticks of RAM could be bought outright from Newegg for $40-50. Even name-brand RAM.
And who said I was buying anything from a PC manufacturer? I make my own PCs.
And lastly...
"Customer Support" ... that might be good, if you're some old granny or someone who has no confidence or reading ability. Virtually anything can be found on the internet (information-wise) that tells you exactly what to do and how to do it. Step-by-step instructions that even a complete idiot would be challenged to ***** it up.
And for said "Customer Support"... if it is a hardware issue, you're sending your Mac back to the manufacturer, which means you're without your machine for at least a day at best, right? Meanwhile with my PC, I can (in an emergency) run to the nearest PC shop and buy whatever part went bad and have my PC working within a couple hours.
And let's not forget, that Mac stores aren't exactly in every town. Where I live, I think I'd have to go to Pittsburgh to find a Mac dealer, or maybe Indiana has one... Pittsburgh is nearly an hour and a half drive; Indiana is ~45min. Meanwhile, the nearest PC parts-and-service shop is <10min away.
Edit: If Macs were so awesome, then everyone would use them.
But yet, PCs seem to vastly out-number Macs (at least in the Desktop department, not sure about laptops, not really into those). Anywhere I go, doctors' offices, department stores, what-not, I see PCs. Usually Dell or HP, or custom-built ones. I have _never_ seen a Mac in any of these places, heck I've never went to anyone's house and actually saw a Mac, save once and they were an art student going to college for design.
Edited, Sep 14th 2011 11:27am by Lyrailis
Not to mention the only decent 27" imac is $1999. LOL. And compared to PCs half the cost, it kinda sucks.
pre-assembled: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227366 you could build it yourself for even cheaper. Throw a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001431 on it and voila.
Edited, Sep 14th 2011 8:36am by KTurner
pre-assembled: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227366 you could build it yourself for even cheaper. Throw a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001431 on it and voila.
Edited, Sep 14th 2011 8:36am by KTurner
Quote:
RE:PS3: Okay, so many Sony wasn't ripping people off, and I admire the fact that they cut into their own profits to get these machines out to people, but perhaps they tried to stuff just a little too much into the thing? Okay, so it had hardware comparable to a $1200 PC, hey that's cool and all... but it ISN'T a PC, nor will it ever do everything a PC can do, and they sell PC Blu-Ray drives. So why not make a comparable PC instead? *shrugs* But, to each their own. I suppose if you really like the games they have for PS3, then more power to you, but I personally wouldn't pay that much.
lolwut? This is a TERRIBLE argument.
At the time, the PS3 was one of the only Bluray players on the market. All other standalone players were vastly more expensive.
The cost of the drives the PS3 used? $200-350. Even ASSUMING you could get the drive, that's still a lot of money. And there's no way you were getting it anywhere that cheap.
The first real bluray mass-market drive? Yeah, that sold for $1k. I can't find any evidence that there were commercial options before that, but there might have been--this one is the first read/write drive, in any case.
There's absolutely no reason to suppose that the PS3 was a bad choice because you could get a PC that did it all for a small price more. At best, you were getting a PC that did it all for an ample sum more. And lose access to all console-only games. You couldn't have even built a competitive gaming rig at that time for $600.
Could you, now, get a bluray drive without too much investment? Sure.
The PS3 remains a solid choice for a Blu Ray player, as well, since they are so much cheaper now. There are cheaper standalone players (I'd imagine), but if you don't have parts to recycle, you won't be building a competitive AV PC (though I could be wrong).
If you care about bluray, it's still a solid investment. If you don't, the bluray aspect is still extremely nice for gaming.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
RE:PS3: Okay, so many Sony wasn't ripping people off, and I admire the fact that they cut into their own profits to get these machines out to people, but perhaps they tried to stuff just a little too much into the thing? Okay, so it had hardware comparable to a $1200 PC, hey that's cool and all... but it ISN'T a PC, nor will it ever do everything a PC can do, and they sell PC Blu-Ray drives. So why not make a comparable PC instead? *shrugs* But, to each their own. I suppose if you really like the games they have for PS3, then more power to you, but I personally wouldn't pay that much.
lolwut? This is a TERRIBLE argument.
At the time, the PS3 was one of the only Bluray players on the market. All other standalone players were vastly more expensive.
The cost of the drives the PS3 used? $200-350. Even ASSUMING you could get the drive, that's still a lot of money. And there's no way you were getting it anywhere that cheap.
The first real bluray mass-market drive? Yeah, that sold for $1k. I can't find any evidence that there were commercial options before that, but there might have been--this one is the first read/write drive, in any case.
There's absolutely no reason to suppose that the PS3 was a bad choice because you could get a PC that did it all for a small price more. At best, you were getting a PC that did it all for an ample sum more. And lose access to all console-only games. You couldn't have even built a competitive gaming rig at that time for $600.
Could you, now, get a bluray drive without too much investment? Sure.
The PS3 remains a solid choice for a Blu Ray player, as well, since they are so much cheaper now. There are cheaper standalone players (I'd imagine), but if you don't have parts to recycle, you won't be building a competitive AV PC (though I could be wrong).
If you care about bluray, it's still a solid investment. If you don't, the bluray aspect is still extremely nice for gaming.
In Technology, impatience always carries a huge pricetag.
Huge. Pricetag.
So yes, when Blu-Ray first came out, yes, PS3 was about the only way you were going to get it for anything reasonable.
True.
But to be honest, $600 for a Blu-Ray player, and a games console that... didn't have very much when it was first released (IIRC, it took them awhile to really get much that was noteworthy) just to have "better" movie quality... uhh.
Maybe if you had money to burn, sure.
But to be honest, with a 27' widescreen and good ole DVD, I honestly can't say that there's a single thing that isn't crystal clear, assuming the DVD is of a newer movie.
Like... I dunno, I'll use Avatar as an example. I own a DVD of Avatar. I put that in my PC with a normal DVD-RW drive, and a 27'' widescreen (an Acer) and the picture is very dang clear. Sure, Blu-Ray might be clearer, but honestly, would it have been worth $600 and then $30+ for the movie itself?
Eh...
No.
But I suppose if you had money to burn and just had to have that technology as soon as it came out, whatever.
What I'm saying, is that if you wait a year or two, it isn't even half as expensive, and to be honest, DVDs are still quite clear enough for most human eyes. They are sure as hell a lot cheaper, that's for sure.
*shrugs*
But to each their own.
Edit: Afterthought: In my opinion, Blu-Ray is to Movies as 60+ Frames-Per-Second are to Games: Completely unnecessary.
There's a limit to how much the human eye can take in. With FPS in games, the human brain+eye combination under normal duress doesn't go much above 60 FPS. Sure, there's "bullet time" when you're dosed with Adrenaline, but tell me, how often do you go into that state of being while sitting at a computer playing games? If you do that often, you really should back off; you're probably going to stress yourself into a heart attack.
Blu-Ray is very similar. I went to someone's house who had Blu-Ray on a 30-ish TV with a Blu-Ray player. I honestly didn't even notice it was Blu-Ray until I saw the open movie case laying on the counter. First time I ever saw Blu-Ray, and I really didn't notice anything out of place. Looked a lot like the HD Satellite stations I get on my Dish, which looked a lot like newer movies released on DVD. But then maybe that was just my very human eyes and very human brain not being able to process more than the whatever-million colors DVDs are capable of displaying compared to whatever trillions Blu-Ray can do.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 12:02am by Lyrailis
PS3 lowered in price drastically. It was worth it to buy at 600, it was worth it at 400, and it's still worth it now. This of course, assumes you play to make use of it's blu-ray capabilities. I honestly don't give a sh*t about your opinion if you think your dvd quality is good enough, because it's a fact that bd quality is over six times better. If you can't see the difference then you either have horrible eyes or you're actively trying to be oblivious. 853x480 upscaled to 1920x1080 will never look as good as native 1920x1080.
Sorry to say, but you're wrong. Games running at 60+FPS makes a huge difference, and it has nothing to do with your eyeball.
Also lol at Theo being so unbelievably retarded when it comes to facts about computers. Hopefully the above linked picture will close that mouth.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 4:20am by Deadgye
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 4:25am by Deadgye
Quote:
Edit: Afterthought: In my opinion, Blu-Ray is to Movies as 60+ Frames-Per-Second are to Games: Completely unnecessary.
Sorry to say, but you're wrong. Games running at 60+FPS makes a huge difference, and it has nothing to do with your eyeball.
Also lol at Theo being so unbelievably retarded when it comes to facts about computers. Hopefully the above linked picture will close that mouth.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 4:20am by Deadgye
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 4:25am by Deadgye
Dear people I don't like: 凸(â—´―｀â—)凸
Lyrailis wrote:
Edit: Afterthought: In my opinion, Blu-Ray is to Movies as 60+ Frames-Per-Second are to Games: Completely unnecessary.
Quote:
Blu-Ray is very similar. I went to someone's house who had Blu-Ray on a 30-ish TV with a Blu-Ray player.
do they even make 30"ers at 1080p?
@Lyrailis
Your argument conveniently leaves out the fact that the PS3 was a huge player in what helped win the HD war in favor of Blu Ray over HDDvD. Getting more affordable players onto the market (and a significant profit loss). Not only were they taking a loss because they included Bluray, but they also included every other minor feature that you'd have to pay to upgrade a 360 with (wireless and HDD).
If people hadn't bought the PS3, then bluray probably wouldn't have won the format war. And so consumers would have been getting a worse format and paying the same price for it. And "cheap" bluray players weren't available for quite a long while after the PS3 was released (and the PS3 was still always competitive with them, since it had regular price drops).
And since when has any gaming system launched with a good lineup? Quite frankly, the Vita seems to be the first one that's going to ship alongside games worth buying.
And if you honestly want to argue that you can't tell the difference between a DVD and a Bluray disk, then your eyes must be in desperate need of glasses.
There are huge benefits to being a console gamer. It's vastly less expensive in the long run, since you only need to upgrade a system every 6-10 years, rather than constantly upgrading a PC with new parts that are nearly as expensive as a console. Your normal TV will work fine, so you don't need to spend money on a monitor that will only do work for your pc. And, best of all, you'll never be at a disadvantage compared to other players based on your hardware (except, arguably, your TV).
Early adopters in anything are going to get a worse product for the price. This is true of pretty much every product across every format (and is just as true of pc parts). But the flip side is that those early adopters are absolutely necessary for the success of a product. If no one goes for it, then there's no support for it.
Look at the PS3. It, like every other console, launched with few "good" games. Unfortunately, though, it launched into an environment that already had an established next-gen console. MANY of the people who bought them early did so for the bluray, rather than for the gaming potential, because it launched late. This increased the initial population with a PS3, which attracted more game developers to it, which led to the success of the machine.
Would we have the iPad 2 coming out if everyone decided to wait on the first one? Of course not. Unfortunately, early adopters aren't getting the newer features. But if it wasn't for them, NO ONE would be getting the new ones.
[EDIT]
And AFAIK, you won't see 1080p under 42 inches on televisions.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 10:18am by idiggory
Your argument conveniently leaves out the fact that the PS3 was a huge player in what helped win the HD war in favor of Blu Ray over HDDvD. Getting more affordable players onto the market (and a significant profit loss). Not only were they taking a loss because they included Bluray, but they also included every other minor feature that you'd have to pay to upgrade a 360 with (wireless and HDD).
If people hadn't bought the PS3, then bluray probably wouldn't have won the format war. And so consumers would have been getting a worse format and paying the same price for it. And "cheap" bluray players weren't available for quite a long while after the PS3 was released (and the PS3 was still always competitive with them, since it had regular price drops).
And since when has any gaming system launched with a good lineup? Quite frankly, the Vita seems to be the first one that's going to ship alongside games worth buying.
And if you honestly want to argue that you can't tell the difference between a DVD and a Bluray disk, then your eyes must be in desperate need of glasses.
There are huge benefits to being a console gamer. It's vastly less expensive in the long run, since you only need to upgrade a system every 6-10 years, rather than constantly upgrading a PC with new parts that are nearly as expensive as a console. Your normal TV will work fine, so you don't need to spend money on a monitor that will only do work for your pc. And, best of all, you'll never be at a disadvantage compared to other players based on your hardware (except, arguably, your TV).
Early adopters in anything are going to get a worse product for the price. This is true of pretty much every product across every format (and is just as true of pc parts). But the flip side is that those early adopters are absolutely necessary for the success of a product. If no one goes for it, then there's no support for it.
Look at the PS3. It, like every other console, launched with few "good" games. Unfortunately, though, it launched into an environment that already had an established next-gen console. MANY of the people who bought them early did so for the bluray, rather than for the gaming potential, because it launched late. This increased the initial population with a PS3, which attracted more game developers to it, which led to the success of the machine.
Would we have the iPad 2 coming out if everyone decided to wait on the first one? Of course not. Unfortunately, early adopters aren't getting the newer features. But if it wasn't for them, NO ONE would be getting the new ones.
[EDIT]
And AFAIK, you won't see 1080p under 42 inches on televisions.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 10:18am by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
And AFAIK, you won't see 1080p under 42 inches on televisions.
My 40" and my parents 36" are both 1080p. It just depends on whether or not you have a smaller TV due to cost or simply not having the room. Most stores only sell the cheap TVs under 40".
My 24" monitor with a built in TV tuner is also 1080p.
axhed wrote:
do they even make 30"ers at 1080p?
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And AFAIK, you won't see 1080p under 42 inches on televisions.
They make some 32" at 1080p, but they're not common. 32" is pretty much the threshhold of not seeing much difference. I wouldn't buy a 37" or larger unless it was 1080p.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
And AFAIK, you won't see 1080p under 42 inches on televisions.
My 40" and my parents 36" are both 1080p. It just depends on whether or not you have a smaller TV due to cost or simply not having the room. Most stores only sell the cheap TVs under 40".
My 24" monitor with a built in TV tuner is also 1080p.
Monitors are completely different entities, realistically. They are built with much higher resolutions, because they are built to be viewed at a much smaller distance with a much higher level of detail. Which is really the reason why getting a 1080p television under 40 inches makes no sense.
At normal viewing distance, the human eye can't really detect the difference on screens of a smaller size than that. It makes no sense to have a 24 inch 1080p television--you just can't detect the difference unless you sit stupidly close to the television. Larger televisions allow you to see the difference at much further distances, which is why it is useful.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Recent Visitors: 165
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (165)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- General Video Game Discussion
- I want the new Razer Laptop
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC