TUN3R

Yeah thanks Sherry.

That's true. But that's not what you said earlier. "Pleasantly surprised?" Again, more proof that you haven't been reading anything I wrote so far. I have, and it became clear as daylight that you don't know anything about modding so your arguments are invalid in that sector. Unrelated. And all Hot Coffee did was bump their sales even further. They would, actually. But anyway, why buy a console? Why buy one when I have a PC and it's perfectly capable of running video games? No, not gonna happen, I don't care if they are $100 or $600, I don't need one and I won't buy one just cause of some stupid game. No game is worth $600, not even GTA. Consoles don't have any advantages over PC except for the ones that ignorant developers like Rockstar have created by delivering shitty PC ports over and over.

Reaaaaall simple buddy.... DON'T FUCKING BUY THEM. It's not "Raaaaaaaall simpl3" at all if you had any idea what we were... what I was talking about.

We don't know if it's a new Hydra.

Once more you simply ignored my point, you're getting good at that. Don't be an asshole, I read everything you said even though most of it was bullshit, the least you can do is read mine.

I never did, the hell is wrong with you? You're confused brother, I can argue with whatever the fuck I want, especially with a 40 or so year old prick who just came home after spending most if not all of his life on Mars, and who claims that an opinion or a possibility is a fact just because he says so. How's your altar coming along btw? Yes it is very real yes... yes, well mostly in your head. Yes you just thought about going off-topic just for the sake of creating more hype. That's fine, I wish the Housers luck. I also wish they'd stop making f*cking PC games.

Facts my ass. No shit, maybe he'll at least listen to you. True, but you haven't taken into account the possibility of the console / PC breaking. If a PC breaks you simply replace (or repair, in some cases) the broken component. If a console breaks I seriously doubt you'll find spare parts at any store, and have to replace the whole thing. Sure, there are PC parts that cost as much as three consoles but you don't really need gear that expensive to run games perfectly, even today's poorly optimized games. Not to mention, heh, the Xbox 360's tendency to "personalize" your disk if you accidentally put something on it or nudge the table (or just forget to clean it). And like you said, console games are much more expensive. On the long run I doubt console gaming is that much cheaper, I seriously doubt it. Not to mention you'll need a PC, for other things. Is a console + a cheap PC really more convenient than a good PC? I seriously doubt it once more. When consoles support Microsoft Office, DevC++ or uTorrent you call me. Until then consoles still have very, very, very, limited use.

I'll pretend I understand that, even though I don't. You're saying a laptop is a better choice for gaming than a desktop amrite? Well... -A laptop that is equal to a desktop in terms of performance will ALWAYS cost more, usually between 33% more. Over here they are 50% more but our economy is upside down at the moment so it doesn't count. -Even though a laptop's power usage is lower, the battery and CPU have a tendency to overheat quicker. Chances are that if you plan on using a laptop for gaming you'll need so much cooling shit for it that it'll take up almost as much space as a desktop. -Laptops tend to have more compatibility issues than desktops. -Laptops are more diffficult to upgrade than desktops, and at the rate games these days are evolving, and the way game developers are doing their jobs, chances are you'll need to upgrade sooner or later. -Laptops are much easily thrown out the window if your girlfriend catches you playing Call of Duty at 5:00 AM. It's true! That's fine, but it's no excuse for devs to stop configuring keyboard imputs properly. The keyboard IS the standard on PC. How would you feel if GTA IV only supported Kinect / PS Move and not the standard controllers?

That dog's gonna give me nightmares...

Nope, it just means they ran out of arguments to oppose them. Wait, no they didn't, I'm an idiot.

Finally.

He's a moron in case that wasn't obvious enough. Just because you believe something to be a fact doesn't mean that it is a fact True. Maybe you tell him that.

He's a moron in case that wasn't obvious enough.

You must lack a serious amount of brain cells buddy, read carefully: JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THEY ARE FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE. Got that? Good. Rockstar didn't spend five years developing GTA V. Nobody knows how much they spent but if my guess is correct, and if we take into consideration the fact that Max Payne 3 was also in development in this time, and the fact that GTA IV (which is also the base for GTA V) took three years to develop, I'd say they spent about two years on GTA V at best. Because they made one game that didn't get a PC release? No, and iif you'd have read what I said before you'd know that's not what I said. But I guess that's too much to ask of ignorant fanboys. @Bold: You do realise that Rockstar have several dev teams who work on different games right? Max Payne 3 was deved by Rockstar Vancouver, Grand Theft Auto V was deved by Rockstar North so your point doesn't really stand up... @Underlined: I am not a fan boy at all I just happen to have opposing opinions to you, I am not sure why you are getting to uptight about it... @B: Max Payne 3 was developed by several Rockstar studios, and I can remember Sam Houser, Dan Houser and Leslie Benzie having their names first in the intro credits. Might wanna look that up again. Grand Theft Auto V itself IS indeed developed by Rockstar North, but seeing as Max Payne 3 and LA Noire were just pigs for slaughter... @U: Fanboys always get revolted and make things personal whenever someone talks bad about their favorite whatever. You fit the bill nicely.

You must lack a serious amount of brain cells buddy, read carefully: JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THEY ARE FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE. Got that? Good. Rockstar didn't spend five years developing GTA V. Nobody knows how much they spent but if my guess is correct, and if we take into consideration the fact that Max Payne 3 was also in development in this time, and the fact that GTA IV (which is also the base for GTA V) took three years to develop, I'd say they spent about two years on GTA V at best. Because they made one game that didn't get a PC release? No, and iif you'd have read what I said before you'd know that's not what I said. But I guess that's too much to ask of ignorant fanboys.

Thanks! Anyway, you need to know what a fact is before you can present one. Same goes for logic. Just because they make sense to you doesn't mean they are true / correct / right / whatever. I never implied Rockstar were the only ones, quite the opposite in fact. Thanks in large part to Microsoft's anti-PC-gaming scheeme, most developers these days favor consoles. Rockstar is just one of the best examples...

True! It's not a matter of legal or illegal, that was never in question. It's a matter of are they a bunch of rip-offs? And can I hate them for it? Yes: Does Rockstar have demos for their games? No. Do they release gameplays before their game's release? Yes and no (mostly no). Do their clients know EXACTLY what they are buying? (hype aside) No, so all we have to go by are the edited cinematic trailers and Rockstar's good word. Anyway that's not my issue with them, since I always make sure to obtain games "unofficially" before buying 'em. Only exception was... ahhh, GTA IV. I'm not gonna explain Microsoft cause I've done it way too many times just in the last few days... Noic dat.

Who cares? lol'd FYI: There are malware threats everywhere on the internet. In your head mostly. "The history of gaming always favors consoles" where do you get this crap? How about you come up with actual facts next time you try to win an argument that is lost from the start hmm? By the way. the dipshit is right about one thing: Good luck.

I'm not even gonna bother reading that, since you didn't bother reading ANYTHING I wrote since we started this wonderful discussion. I already know you're an outraged fanboy, I don't need any more convincing on that.

Don't ever call me a communist you little shit, you don't have the right. And there's a difference between someone who's making a profit by selling their clients what they pay for, and someone whio's making a profit by reducing production costs and (consequently) the product's quality, yet mainaining the same price. Lmao, really? So if I can't understand what someone says, I'm supposed to take them for granted? Just like that? Hmm that's informative, I think I'll start speaking Chineze, maybe this way people will believe me since I'm sure at least 90% of this community doesn't understand Chineze. And you're just another one of the hypocritical fanboys that populate this fuckin* community. Last I checked I wasn't the one getting shouted at cause I said something bad about Rockstar... oh wait, yes I was.

You can understand what you say. Congratulations, you're up for a Nobel, moron. Then maybe you should write your own dictionary, so that people don't have to take a milion guesses till they understand what the fuck you mean, since you seem to be giving your own meanins to the various words and expressions you use.

There's a difference between an asshole boss and a boss who actively expects you to do things that they themselves inhibit you from doing (though these categories aren't mutually exclusive). I experience it 5 days a week. Even better. They are delivering. To shareholders. That's their primary concern; how much of that comprises delivering a well optimized game changes on a case by case basis. Like I give a fuck about shareholders, you shouldn't ether. Hey Llama I'm curious, have you ever filed a complaint or asked for a refund in your life? Or do you just go like "meh" if you buy a toaster and realize it doesn't make toast? I'm out of arguments. I was hours ago, you win this round, aquaman.. 'Tis what I was getting at. As was I. The difference is I'm not treating it as a good thing. Now you're being obtuse. Cry me a river. Wouldn't be surprised if this game is built off the previous 'modern' worms titles such as reloaded, golf and whatnot and thus has alot of shit chugging away in the background that they don't really need. It's indicative of a low budget and fast turnaround task given by the guys upstairs. And normally you'd be correct, but for once they actually built a game from strach, if we don't take planning and desgin into consideration. Though there's never been much of that in Worms games... Really, I'm out of arguments. Aquaman, you truly have earned your place as my nemesis!

I think the amount of times you've called developers lazy without any realization that shareholders and CEO's have them by the balls is absurd. When a lowly game dev on 30 grand or whatever they make turns around to John Riccitiello and tells him that his big game release isn't going to be ready for another month because he wants to make sure the optimisation for 6 core AMD systems using a certain chipset and an Nvidia graphics card with low latency RAM, i guarantee you with no uncertainty that Mr. Riccitiello will get a technician to find him some figures, exclaim that it's 1.2% of the potential player base and tell him to get the game gone gold my midday. Same thing with Microsoft. The developers simply aren't as lazy as they think you are, and your blindness to the bigger picture is not to be commended. I doubt anybody is holding Rockstar's employees by the balls. I seriously doubt it. But it's not really my conscern, I pay for the product, I can complain. And when it comes to Rockstar and Microsoft, I have plenty of reasons to complain. Basically what you're saying is I shouldn't expect the devs to do their jobs properly (which also involves optimization) because theit bosses are assholes? Well I've never had a stable job but I did have my fair share of asshole bosses and I don't think I ever expected the client to take the fall for that. But fine! If it just can't be done then don't release the game on PC anymore! I'm A-OK with that. Google 'foxconn suicides' for more on computer component manufacturer working conditions. The only people living on anything above bread and fucking water at Nvidia are the scientists and the stupid motherfuckers in the boardrooms. Agaian, people who have no concern for that game developer 6 months from now who's working through his lunch to optimise for people just like you; in spite of what people (strangley not) unlike you are telling them. Again, not my conscern. This crap isn't cheap, someone is profiting off it, that someone has to deliver. For protecting their investment? They aren't. It was more of a 'sit here and flap your arms or do something about it' statement. Protecting their investment so they can dump more cash into the Xbox* Yes. Whether or not their CEO's and shareholders approved the scheme is another matter. This paradigm is what is making indie titles so popular as of late; the developers are real, tangible gamers who love to play and create fun stuff and they know the concerns of consumers on a first hand basis. In a fantasy world, maybe. Indie games, due to their often low budget, tend to be less demanding on one's system. Imagine giving an independent dev 20mil to play with and make a AAA title without there being more than a few bugs to iron out. Yes, because they are well optimized. Something big time developers can't be bothered to do. Take Worms Revolution for example. It has the look and feel of an indie game but somehow I can't run it at maximum frame rate...

I do hope you know the answer to this, and I have a suspicion that if this argument was happening in reverse you'd be the first to pipe up and hammer out a response. The 360 has maybe three hardware setups. They differ in the likes of hard drive space, cooling and so forth but generally no major architectural changes are made throughout a console's lifetime. This means it's easy for a developer to spend a lot of time examining that particular hardware's strengths, weaknesses, stability issues and potential, because the number of hardware variables is so minimal. When you compare to developing for PC, it's a different story altogether. True. Which means developers are not only greedy, but also lazy. Maybe, but the differences between the various models or versions of the components aren't as big as to call every single model "unique". The difference between a GeForce 510 and a geforce 590 isn't that great, the 590 is simply an upgraded version of the 510 (which probably costs just as much to manufacture, but I guess Nvidia employees gotta eat drive Rolls Royces too...). I seriously doubt the Xbox 360's components haven't been modified at all since the first 360 model. Take indie game developers for example. Do you really think they tested their games on every component in existance and modified them accordingly? I doubt it. Yet, their games work for everyone... well except Terraria but that one uses XNA, I'm surprized it doesn't crash every two seconds. For their customers? The people that pay $$$ for it? Basically what you're saying is that it's perfectly ok for PC games to have problems, and that Microsoft and the game developers should keep it that way. True. But you're saying that as if Microsoft isn't to blame. Do you really think that game developers would make their games compatible with a DX alternative if someone were to create one? Most of them are in Microsoft's pocket ome way or another.

Proof regarding which part of what I said? There's a quote feature for a reason bro. Remember that I asked you for proof on that. Seeing as Rockstar was dealing with Microsoft at the time, that seems highly unlikely. True. But you wouldn't need to spend more than $500 - $700 on a PC if developers optimized their games properly and if Microsoft even bothered to optimize their operating system. Why is it that a piece of low budget crap like the Xbox 360 can run games at 60 FPS with only 512 MB of RAM, a triple-core 3.2 GHz CPU and an upgraded ATI X1800 GPU? You're probably iching to tell me "well duhz it's a different technolojy" well I'm ichning to tell you NO! It's not. They are all computers, all the parts inside the Xbox 360 game console exist in one form or another for personal computers as well. Can't answer that? Well I can, the answer is very simple: because it's not slowed down by Windows. The second most popular excuse the so called "gaming specialists" (console fanboys) tend to come up is "well yesh mister PC's are made to run a wide variety of programsh n' shit" oh and the Xbox isn't? You didn't get TV, wi-fi, radio, web browsing, etc etc etc since the Xbox 360 first launched? Please. There are a handfull of games out there that work on Linux (maybe more, haven't toyed with it in quite some time). Try running some of them, see if you still need a 2000$ rig after that. Sure, games probably won't look so great on Linux, due to a lot of the software that PC games use being made specifically for Windows. I'm not saying PC games should demand the same amount of resources as console games do, being able to combine different components does have it's drawbacks, but the system requirements that PC games have these days is just ridiculous, and they wouldn't have them if Microsoft and the game developers gave a shit. Oh and like I said some time ago, PC's might be more expensive if you compare the initial costs to that of the console's, but try taking the following into ecuation: -consoles break more often than PC's, and when a PC breaks you can usually just replace the broken component, not the whole thing. -you can maintain and fix minor problems with your PC yourself. tinker with your Xbox 360 and see if Microsoft doesn't throw your warranty off the window. -PC games are A LOT cheaper than console games, even more so if you're a sale hound on Steam. -on the PC you don't risk getting banned from the network for god knows what reason, and be forced to buy a new one. -there are more free games on PC than on consoles, and most of them are better ones.