arrrdawg

It's not surprising that Microsoft is going the conservative route. Remember, the 360 was ahead of it's time. Seriously, it shipped with a graphics card that was better than anything the PC had at the time. The Xenos is a version of the ATI x1800 with unified shaders, something they didn't incorporate into their PC cards for well over a year later. The x1800 itself was released a month after the 360 (and was like $500-$600!), and the Xenos was still a better product for various reasons. Especially because they included the eDRAM which allowed HDR and games with framebuffer effects to have AA enabled (the x1800 and nvidia's 7800 choked with AA and HDR on).

Because the product was ahead of it's time (literally) they made it on the cheap anyway they possibly could. This led to RROD and the expensive warranty program. They took a loss on hardware for years only to see the Wii (two gamecubes duct taped together) outsell it for a large portion of its lifespan.

The 360 being ahead of its time is the region for its longevity. But it might not have been worth the price. The original xbox converted many PC gamers to consoles. The 360 kept them on consoles. PC sales tanked. Most PC games are console ports, even today. Thanks to the 360.

So MS's new hardware will have a modest update allowing it to be 1080p @30fps in practically every game. And it won't break the bank. Seems wise to me.

@beuboy

4k will not be the next best thing, not in the living room. Not any time soon. On the surface, you would think it would, but I'll explain why not. The average consumer beleives that any TV over 50" is too big. 50"+ TVs definietly have a market. I want one of those 70" TVs myself. The prices are great too, cheaper than ever before. But not so much for the average consumer. 60"+ and projectors are a niche, there aren't much sales to be had. Why is this relevent?

The average living room sitting distance is 7' - 10' from the TV. At 10' you would need a 75" TV to receive the full benefit of 1080p. On a 50" set, the full benefit of 720p is only visible at 10'. Now I know this sounds hard to beleive, and it will differ depedning on your viewing angle and eye strength. But the main reason why it doesn't look like glass is because of the source material. Scanned film, compression, and all 1080p video has half the color resolution.

Would a 4k TV improve this? Sure, but we're talking diminishing returns. Like going from S-Video to Component. Deeper colors. It would look great up close, like on a computer monitor. And it would be perfect for 3D because no shutter glasses would be required. The TV is only good as the source, and there is bandwidth to consider. There are hardly any - if any at all -1080p broadcasts for bandwidth considerations.

Finally, 1080p beleive it or not is standard for digital cinema. Yes, 1080p. The specs say 2k, but most films arrive in 1080p because they are mastered to make it easier to make the home version. 1080p is essentially 2k anyways (1920 is about 2000). And don't drink the kool aid on film resolution, film only has a high res on the negative and even then it's a scanning resolution. A projected 35mm release print has poor resolution. It's about 720p, this has been tested. Lot of people in denial over the tests, but the results are out there.

Anyways, just remember that 480i was around forever before the Dreamcast/GCN/Xbox/PS2 utilized it fully (with 480p too).

@Foetoid

This is a slight exaggeration, but in theory it is possible. The PS3's cell is essentially a hybrid CPU/GPU. It was hyped and ultimately never caught on really outside of the PS3 itself and as a niche in certain products like video encoding cards for example. It is possible for the cell alone to act as both a single core MP CPU and a GPU with the write SDK, again in theory. It would not be nearly as powerful as the RSX, but with the proper driver again in theory it alone would be better than something like the Wii. Much better.

Nowadays, GPGPU Stream Processing tech like CUDA, OpenCL, Direct Computer, etc. performs very similar work on the GPU alone.

What makes the PS3 run capable of running something like Crysis 2 is because Crytek made a console-specific engine. Crysis 1, the PC version, is not capable of running on 360/PS3. Wait, isn't it available in on PSN/Live? A version of it running the Crysis 2 console engine is available. Crytek's Crysis 2 engine was designed with a console path in mind, essentially dumbed down in demanding areas. Running the PC version on low would not dumb it down to this level. In fact, it would look better than 360/PS3. Similarly, the not-nearly-as-demanding CoD engine looks better on low than the PS3/360 version in most areas.

Also similarly, you can't take MW3 and run it on a 1GHZ P3 with a Geforce 2 but you can run it on the Wii which is similar hardware. Because they've made a special version

Pretty conservative upgrade if true. The primary reason this generation has extended for as long as it has is because both the 360 and PS3 were ahead of their times and took heavy losses to get to the market - with problems. The 360 had the RROD problem due to going cheap on things you shouldn't go cheap on. Wound up paying dearly for it with warranties.

The extended generation has led to half-arsed DX9 PC ports. If MS had waited a year or two for the hardware to mature, they could've been using a DX 10 card that ran cooler.

This would also allow AA and extra framebuffer fx (like HDR) to work at the same time, but at least the 360 had the EDRAM to do almost free 2xAA.

I think both Sony and MS were caught off guard by the initial success of the antiquated Wii. So this card may be a couple gens behind, but that's fine. It runs cool, it's cheap, and it isn't unproven. I have a feeling that this will be 100% backwards compatible with 360 and that there will be hybrid games, perhaps utilizing DX10 with better fps on the new model.

IMO, we've reached a point where old hardware can run a down-graded port of anything modern. The CoD series uses an enhanced Quake 3 engine, hardly revolutionary, but it still impresses at times and for the most part these games can be played on the Wii with sacrificed visuals.

360 and PS3 can run anything modern down-graded and still look great today. Just in sub 720p resolutions with FPS in the 20s and no AA. Better than nothing

Word is out, the game sucks. It only superficially looks like Mario Kart, it plays like garbage. It is missing the charm. It's missing what makes Mario Kart Mario Kart. All it seems to be doing is making iOS gamers delete it and go play Mario Kart 7. Those without a 3DS or MK7 just wish they had Nintendo games on iOS.

As others have said, it's impossible to be 100% sure. This is comparable to the Patriot Act making it permissible to arrest you without a warrant on grounds of suspected terrorism. Guilty until proven innocent. It can be abused and applied to innocent people. An IP address isn't necessarily a person.

Witcher 2 is a great game and people should buy it. In a perfect world there would be no piracy. But there is piracy. I pirate games too. I also paid for W2 because of a great Black Friday sale. Those of you directing your hatred toward pirates should direct your hatred toward the puppet masters of the establishment, the elite ruling class in control of our planet's finances and thus the entire global economy. From their international banking syndicate to government to big business. Businesses sucking the life out of everything by bleeding every last dollar out of you until you are dead. Businesses like Activision.

CD Projekt is not one of them, but they are playing with the big boys. If they want to play, there is going to be piracy. Resorting to the dangerous tactics of the ruling class (going after these pirate's IPs with '100%' certainty) only makes me lost respect for them. Are we ever going to start fighting among ourselves over such trivial 'straw man' things and start fighting the elite? When is everybody going to wake up and release that social classes are a fixed caste system? It doesn't have to be that way. Fighting over piracy is what they want you to do.

@ion orov

I own a house with an upside down mortgage (owe more than it is worth because the economy tanked and it lost most of its value). I am financially stable and can afford my payments. But I stopped paying them. The bank calls me all the time and won't help me. Why should I pay? They caused this mess, got bailed out, and went on business as usual and the mess is getting worse. Why should I pay for their mistakes? Because I have a contract? A worthless piece of paper? It's worth less than paper money.. which is also worthless and printed out of thin air by a foreign private cabal disguising themselves as a government agency, but that's another story.

I can live in my house for almost a year. For free. Until I get near the end of the process and receive my eviction notice. By then I'll have saved enough money to buy a better house in the same neighborhood.. in cash. I can strip anything valuable from this one and sell that for extra cash. My credit is only affected for 7 years and since your home is the biggest expense usually it won't matter. If they come after me, I'll declare bankruptcy. Max my cards out beforehand too (in different ways so it isn't suspicious).

Scamming the scammers is wise. Don't complain about people who don't play by the rules. Rules were meant to be broken, they break them all the time and are never held accountable. Gaming publishers do the exact same thing.

Piracy doesn't steal jobs. Don't drink the kool aid for any sort of propaganda campaign. If a major business puts time and money to complain about something they don't like, that should tell you something. How dare they not pay for our $60 unfinished games? Corporate greed is the only reason why any developer would lose a job. That or they aren't very good at it. Piracy is a straw man

@Samael

Same here. I have a huge backlog of games and am not in a hurry to pay full price. I can wait just as I did with W2 (which ironically I bought from a $16 Amazon sale and not from Steam). I'm also not one to pirate a new game and purchase it from a sale. If it is something I really want to play and right now, I buy it. If I don't think the price is good and still want it now, I will consider piracy. Usually I would never have bought the games I pirated anyways so it isn't exactly a lost sale.

Steam curbs piracy. It has to with those sales. Dirt cheap sales and the ability to re-download your library anywhere (with support and patches) is far better than a risky pirated torrent. You can't sell Steam games but it's not a big deal when the price is awesome. Some say pirating would be worse if not for the used game industry. It's a lost sale to the publisher (online coupon 'tax' aside) either way, just robs one suit in favor of another (like gamestop).

I don't think games are worth $60 most of the time. Most of that money goes to some prissy materialist and helps pay for their jag or coke habit. Portal 2 was sold mostly for $50 on release (with initial deals) and the PS3 version included the PC version. That was worth it IMO.

@ion orov

Please don't twist my words around using rhetorical tricks. No real gamer would have such a strong attitude or use rhetorical tricks like this.

Strong negative opinion backed by rhetorical questions and tricks, a false interpretation of my words, and a statement I more or less said (your last sentence) used as if I didn't say it. Only paid industry shills have these characteristics. You previous comment equating pirates to hippies also supports this. I could be wrong, but doubt it. You wouldn't admit it if you were anyways...

For those not in the know, big businesses pay 'trolls' to poison the well with disinfo and propaganda in their favor in order to plant in opinion. See "hasbara fellowship" and "cointelpro" for government examples. Banks also do the same thing. They have the power and the money to (try and) force their will upon the masses.

As I said the pirated versions of games often have drawbacks. Possible examples include bad hacks, bad dumps, no online play, no achievements, no way to use DLC, and often no patches (and no support). Add that to lengthy download times and waiting for proper releases to fix some (but not all) of the problems which also may require a re-download. You weigh the good with the bad. $60 is bad unless the purchaser believes they are getting their moneys worth.

The industry, like all American businesses, are dominated by snakes in suits.. sociopaths and psychopaths. Economic vampires hoarding every last penny for themselves. Activision and EA are immoral businesses. Anybody who thinks EA has gotten better fails to see the lipstick on that pig. The suits keep the money for themselves and throw the scraps to the devs - the people doing the real hard work. You know we live in a lop-sided economy when the marketing department makes more than the developers of the product. Pirating doesn't hurt the devs, their executive level decision-makers do.

Indie studios mean well and yes piracy hurts them more than the psychopathic suits at major publishers. But they are victims of the suits too. Trying to play the game and their conscious keeps them from being ruthless. The bigger shark (EA, Activision) eats them up. Read about psycopathic CEOs and John Nash's game theory. The root cause of all the problems. Not piracy.

Piracy hurts nobody except the bank accounts of the ruling class. The same ruling class who exploit our morals and conscious because they can. Games shouldn't be $60. Piracy IMO is a form of protest against expensive and crappy games and a crappy model ($60+DLC). Games are pushed out the door incomplete to hit a marketing department deadline. Patches and paid DLC finish the game. This needs to stop.

Anybody who feels otherwise and is not an industry shill is being a useful idiot.

@ion orov

I'm assuming you also are under the spell that OWS is a waste of time and full of jobless hippies? When people say 'the system' is flawed and get smeared and poked fun of for saying it, that's part of the system. To make honest people look like they are crazy.

I have a job, I'm in my 30s, and I pay for things. I have morals and I am not a psychopath. I choose to bend the rules of this system and that makes me wise, not a criminal. Pirating is often an imperfect experience. Bugs due to cracking, lack of online play, lack of patches, lengthy download times, potential virus, no achievements, etc.

I weigh this imperfect experience to the cost. $60 is too expensive unless I get what I consider my money's worth. I rarely pay full price for a game like that. Either wait for a price drop or pirate it. For W2, I waited for a price drop and did not play it in between. I paid $16 last week and it is worth it more than pirating. DRM does not prevent piracy, only casual piracy. The ability to log in to a steam account anywhere is an official form of casual piracy IMO. There is no need for DRM, people bought W2 anyways same as any other PC game. In GTA4's case the DRM was so bad that the disc-based version performs worse than the Steam version. Steam version still has bad DRM requiring securom, G4W, Steam, and Social Club.

CoD is a cookie cutter franchise regurgitated annually for $60 and rarely gets price dropped until years later. I see no problem pirating to play the online-less single player campaign if you've bought any CoD game since MW, they make it for money and it is a money maker.

The issue is price and value. If you can make a game that justifies both and satisfies most, you reduce piracy and probably even make more money. The coveted Zen middle path. The alternative is the status quo, business as usual. That doesn't work. Don't rage against the wise. We aren't the problem, the problem starts at the top and trickles to the bottom. The publisher denies responsibility and blames the pirate when the pirate is the result of the publisher greed. Piracy does not hurt the 80-hour-a-week dev making slave wages. The publisher does.