Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1769 Location: NH, USA XP: 171,140
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:06 am Post subject:
It's just that it's going to get crazy with a site for every xbox that comes out. There are other benefits to an all in one site. Instead of seeing 7 members online right now I would see 15 members online for example. It may even help search engine placement because xbox would be in the url which is worth allot. xbox.com is not confusing in any way. Also there is already confusion for many people who think xbox means 360. They find the xbox-hq site thinking it is for 360 by nature.
It's just something that occurred to me knowing how much it takes just to support one popular site never mind 4 or 5 of them. _________________________________________________________ 10% VIP Discount (Coupon Code: HQ-VIP-001 ) - Signup for web hosting at www.TweakedHosting.com/clients/aff.php?aff=004 and earn the HQ network of sites recurring income!
Last edited by tweaked on Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
X_Splinter Moderator
Joined: Jul 03, 2004 Posts: 2385 Location: Portugal XP: 368,740
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:41 am Post subject:
Well you made good point, plus it will be easier to moderate. I wounder what's forahobby opinion on this. _________________________________________________________
tweaked V.I.P. Lifetime
Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1769 Location: NH, USA XP: 171,140
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject:
Another good thing is, it will be better for advertising since there will be all visitors combined and ad spots will be worth more for paying ads. In time the visitors to xbox-hq.com will dwindle down less and less. It has already been doing this over the the last few years making that domain less valuable to search engines results and the pay per click ads. No worries about this is xbox-hq.com means all xboxs from past and present. The site would jump in ranks higher than any one of them separate.
Anyway, making a new site for the new xbox will take lots of work but yea so will my suggestion of an all-in-one xbox site. It's just food for thought. Forahobby is super busy man. I don't know how he managed to do all he has done with the HQ network, he's a cool guy _________________________________________________________ 10% VIP Discount (Coupon Code: HQ-VIP-001 ) - Signup for web hosting at www.TweakedHosting.com/clients/aff.php?aff=004 and earn the HQ network of sites recurring income!
X_Splinter Moderator
Joined: Jul 03, 2004 Posts: 2385 Location: Portugal XP: 368,740
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject:
tweaked wrote:
Anyway, making a new site for the new xbox will take lots of work but yea so will my suggestion of an all-in-one xbox site. It's just food for thought. Forahobby is super busy man. I don't know how he managed to do all he has done with the HQ network, he's a cool guy
That's because Hobbs is a terminator, he doesn't need to sleep XD _________________________________________________________
I think it is time for a new console. It's been 6 years now since the Xbox 360 was released and technology has left it in the dust. Many present day low end PC components are more powerful than the Xbox 360 components. For gods sake, we are still playing games on 512mb of ram in 2012 (what is this, 2001?).
I think next generation consoles need to step up a few things. I would like to see a quad core Intel processor (although, Scarface said they were going to go with AMD) with at least 1 gb of ram and a new video card capable of playing games at 1080p resolution at as close to 60 fps as possible. It would also be nice if we could get away from disk based media somehow, but I doubt that will happen. I've never been too big of a fan of disk based consoles because of the increased load times and possible failure of that parts. I know cartridges are a thing of the past, but I think it would be nice if games on the next generation were downloadable like Steam or they came on something small like an SD card.
Everything I want is probably a pipe dream though. Looks like developers aren't even shooting for 1080p next generation let alone 60 fps:
Quote:
An interesting discussion kicked off on the blog of NVIDIA's Timothy Lottes recently, where the creator of FXAA (an anti-aliasing technique that intends to give games a more filmic look) compared in-game rendering at 1080p with the style of visuals we see from Blu-ray movies.
"In my opinion, a more interesting next-generation metric is can an engine on an ultra high-end PC rendering at 720p look as real as a DVD quality movie? Note, high-end PC at 720p can have upwards of a few 1000s of texture fetches and upwards of 100,000 flops per pixel per frame at 720p at 30Hz.
It looks like we may be looking at 720p at 30 FPS for next generation consoles, which is worse than this generations FPS. I thought Halo: Reach bogging down in cutscenes at 480i was bad, but it seems like the next generation consoles may suck even worse.
I think it is time for a new console. It's been 6 years now since the Xbox 360 was released and technology has left it in the dust. Many present day low end PC components are more powerful than the Xbox 360 components. For gods sake, we are still playing games on 512mb of ram in 2012 (what is this, 2001?).
I think next generation consoles need to step up a few things. I would like to see a quad core Intel processor (although, Scarface said they were going to go with AMD) with at least 1 gb of ram and a new video card capable of playing games at 1080p resolution at as close to 60 fps as possible. It would also be nice if we could get away from disk based media somehow, but I doubt that will happen. I've never been too big of a fan of disk based consoles because of the increased load times and possible failure of that parts. I know cartridges are a thing of the past, but I think it would be nice if games on the next generation were downloadable like Steam or they came on something small like an SD card.
Everything I want is probably a pipe dream though. Looks like developers aren't even shooting for 1080p next generation let alone 60 fps:
Quote:
An interesting discussion kicked off on the blog of NVIDIA's Timothy Lottes recently, where the creator of FXAA (an anti-aliasing technique that intends to give games a more filmic look) compared in-game rendering at 1080p with the style of visuals we see from Blu-ray movies.
"In my opinion, a more interesting next-generation metric is can an engine on an ultra high-end PC rendering at 720p look as real as a DVD quality movie? Note, high-end PC at 720p can have upwards of a few 1000s of texture fetches and upwards of 100,000 flops per pixel per frame at 720p at 30Hz.
It looks like we may be looking at 720p at 30 FPS for next generation consoles, which is worse than this generations FPS. I thought Halo: Reach bogging down in cutscenes at 480i was bad, but it seems like the next generation consoles may suck even worse.
The Wii U looks like it going to pack some power this time around.
I don't see why they didn't do that with the original Wii though _________________________________________________________
tms_crazy_taxi V.I.P. Lifetime
Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1516
XP: 244,056
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:56 am Post subject:
dartht33bagger wrote:
The Wii U looks like it going to pack some power this time around.
I don't see why they didn't do that with the original Wii though
Haha. Probably coz it only takes like 10c for them to make a console like that.
X_Splinter Moderator
Joined: Jul 03, 2004 Posts: 2385 Location: Portugal XP: 368,740
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:45 am Post subject:
dartht33bagger wrote:
For gods sake, we are still playing games on 512mb of ram in 2012 (what is this, 2001?).
You wrong in that one, consoles don't need so many RAM as PCs since they dont have Windows run on the background, when 360 was realesed I already had 2G Ram on my PC.
The new console will be like maybe 4G of Ram max. If they put to much power the unity will become expensive and will never use the full power (like Sega Saturn and PS3) _________________________________________________________
tweaked V.I.P. Lifetime
Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1769 Location: NH, USA XP: 171,140
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject:
What holds the PS3 back mostly is the RAM. 256 MB system and 256 MB graphics. No one doubts the raw horse power of the PS3 processors, yet if it had more RAM for the programmers to use as needed, it would be noticeably better than the 360 overall I think. It is only marginally better in rare cases because the 360 has a better ram arrangement that can be used however the developers need for their application. So the end result is the 360 gets to use it's horse power and the PS3 never will completely. It's just that the 360 has less raw CPU power than the PS3 so they end up being almost equals.
Both 360 and PS3 have an OS running in the background when a game plays but compared to Win XP or Win 7, the console OS uses far less resources. It sure is true consoles do not need as much RAM as a computer in general but you sure can never have too much RAM. It is the fastest way to move data, so if there was 100 GB RAM (exaggerating) you can bet the programmers would love it no matter the power of the CPU's and graphics. Heck they could load the whole game into ram, it would be like using the ram carts of the old consoles. Instant loading and play plus the only real way to get max use of processing resources, yum yum
I say, bring on too much ram in the new systems, it can only help! _________________________________________________________ 10% VIP Discount (Coupon Code: HQ-VIP-001 ) - Signup for web hosting at www.TweakedHosting.com/clients/aff.php?aff=004 and earn the HQ network of sites recurring income!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum