Hateren47 said:
A wrote a long response but Yahtzees new video brought the servers down (I guess) as I hit "Post"
Are we agreeing the driver updates/roll-backs and fail-safes wouldn't be a problem? Neither would RAM updates?
Get off it dude if i didn't respond to the point it is generally accepted that you had a valid point, no need to be patting yourself on the back because you proved your point to some tosser on the other side of the world.
Can we agree that developers don't develop for consoles because it's easier? Can we agree that a HD 5670 is leaps and bounds beyond the Xenos, and can use the same power supply? And also that it was released at the same time as the larger varieties in the same series? Can we agree that 8x-16xAA looks a lot better than no or 2xAA?
Really? What? Hell No, consoles are easier to develop for, that's why so many developers have moved over to them over the PC, when developing for a console you know EXACTLY what your limitations and boundaries are, there are a hell of a lot more variables when developing for PC. Really where did you get this idea from, I've mentioned it a number of times that it is easier for developers to program for consoles(and gave reasons), yet you seem to, out of nowhere, be under the impression that I would agree with such a stupid notion.
Of course the 5670 is a better card, BUT it will lose a lot of its advantages over the current card, look at some of the early xbox titles, the ghost recon games and stuff like the first kayne and lynch game, most people will agree that the new games like AVP, Metro 2033, Just Cause look a hell of a lot better then the early title, ON THE SAME hardware. To change the hardware that those games are programed for, you will lose the advantages of a)having the chip integrated into the mainboard b) not having to scale games. New hardware will cause a lot of problems to the current library games and more problems for developers.
And of course 8x to 16x AA looks better then none or 2x, but NOT BY MUCH. It is such a small change for $100 or so American that most users won't even notice. Unless your constantly watching the edges of objects in what ever you are playing you aren't/barely going to notice it.
I don't care what hardware costs in Australia and neither does AMD or Microsoft as they are both american companies. Also I'm pretty damn sure manufactures would get a rebate if they ordered 30 or 40 million GPUs.
Sorry what? So because I used a currency you don't care about the point becomes invalid? It is still about $100-$120 American for just a bit of extra AA, really would you fork over that much money for smoother edges? Not everyone has that sort of money to fork over for minuet changes, specially once they are done buying the games, controllers etc.
Yes the user will have to get their wallets out if they want the newest hardware but that's no different than any other scenario like a new HDD, wireless adapter or other extra bits. All of which are completely optional.
All these points have been addressed previously.
My question was if you would buy it, not whether you think it would be difficult to install, produce, work as a concept or anything else.
If it was plug-and-play, set-and-forget, improved you graphics dramatically (higher resolution textures, improved draw distance, AA etc.) and cost (US)$99.99, would you buy it?
Hold on and slow down one second, your changing the concept. Your OP never said anything about better resolutions/textures, you concept stated that ONLY the FPS, AA and load times would be improved.
Hateren47 said:
would you fork over the money for having more AA and higher FPS or faster load times?
Hardware prices would be the same as the PC counterpart + the usual 10% console tax for putting their sticker on it.
Also if it was just a, would you buy yes no, wouldn't it have been a good idea to insert a poll? Much easier much more concise.
Anyway I made one for you, and the majority said no they wouldn't.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.228058-Poll-Console-owners-thoughts-on-upgrades#7859558