End of NBA LIVE on PC

by **kp4life** on Tue May 24, 2005 3:45 am

You know how many people play this game on pc? I mean just look at the # of people who download andrew's roster patch. Plus, there are far more people out there who don't know about patching or about this site. Again, there is definite reason why Ea is keep releasing their sports games (mvp, fifa, nhl, nascar, etc..) on pc. They almost have monopoly in every sports games (MVP (not anymore since take-two got the licence deal with mlb), fifa (not right now but two years ago before winning eleven became big), nhl.

by **nickia** on Tue May 24, 2005 1:48 pm

kp4life wrote:You know how many people play this game on pc? I mean just look at the # of people who download andrew's roster patch. Plus, there are far more people out there who don't know about patching or about this site. Again, there is definite reason why Ea is keep releasing their sports games (mvp, fifa, nhl, nascar, etc..) on pc. They almost have monopoly in every sports games (MVP (not anymore since take-two got the licence deal with mlb), fifa (not right now but two years ago before winning eleven became big), nhl.

the number of people downloaded the patch is like an ant compare to the gaming population. PC has best hardware but in order to achieve the same graphical feeling as the consoles, PC gamer must spend a huge bucks to build a PC. At the end, console is the ultimate gaming platform for sport games. Ask yourself if you want to play NBA Live with three friends together in a 50" screen sitting on the sofa; or play NBA live by yourself in front of the tiny 17" monitor? :roll:

by **Metsis** on Tue May 24, 2005 3:02 pm

nickia wrote:the number of people downloaded the patch is like an ant compare to the gaming population. PC has best hardware but in order to achieve the same graphical feeling as the consoles, PC gamer must spend a huge bucks to build a PC. At the end, console is the ultimate gaming platform for sport games. Ask yourself if you want to play NBA Live with three friends together in a 50" screen sitting on the sofa; or play NBA live by yourself in front of the tiny 17" monitor?

You can put your PC screen to be shown on that 50" screen if you want to... Or just throw it on a wall with a projector... And when you're talking big bucks, that 50" screen must be like 15$ since you say it's so cheap.

You can get a couple of PCs now-a-days with the price of that 50" screen. And remember that every game that you buy for a console is always more expensive than if you were to buy that game for the PC...

You can get a very good PC for 1500$... A next generation console might cost like 500$... Then you get to buy all the extra pads -> 40$ a piece, total 120$. You buy that memory card that you just have to have 50$. And you start buying games... Already the cost of the console is up to 670$... You need that big ass television -> 5000$... And the games cost on average about 10$ more than for the PC...

The console stuff ain't that much cheaper in the long run... And when you get a console, most of us still have to have some sort of a PC to browse this site and maybe do some work or something so that puts in another 1000$ to the console price...

It's all relative... Consoles are obsolete when they come out... They're brand new and innovative for consolers, but they are old-tech for PC gamers...

by **Bang** on Wed May 25, 2005 12:05 am

Xbox 360 will go the way of the dreamcast and then EA Sports will realize its mistake and release it back on the PC, even if it does happen.

Why Xbox "360" will go the way of the dreamcast? Why history of course.

I believe these were the first entries to the next bit systems.

First 8 bit system: Sega Master System - failed somewhat
First 16 bit system: Sega Genesis - lost to SNES
First 32 bit system: Amiga CD 32 or maybe Saturn - failed badly
First 64 bit system: Atari Jaguar - miserable failure
First 128 bit system: Dreamcast - well I think we know what happened

All these systems failed because they were released way ahead of their competitors. I think this will happen again with the Xbox 360 seeing as it will be released way ahead of Nintendo and sony. I remember when everyone thought the dreamcast was doing so well, but after GameCube, ps2 and xbox came out it ran out of business. It was Time's gadget of the year and there was a cover even "Year of the dreamcast". Funny how it all changed so soon. This will be the exact thing that happens to Xbox 360.

by **Null17** on Wed May 25, 2005 12:08 am

in the case of Xbox360. the time gap between it's release vs it's competitors isn't really that great. Dreamcast on the other hand was released way too early

by **kp4life** on Wed May 25, 2005 1:56 am

Metsis wrote:
nickia wrote:the number of people downloaded the patch is like an ant compare to the gaming population. PC has best hardware but in order to achieve the same graphical feeling as the consoles, PC gamer must spend a huge bucks to build a PC. At the end, console is the ultimate gaming platform for sport games. Ask yourself if you want to play NBA Live with three friends together in a 50" screen sitting on the sofa; or play NBA live by yourself in front of the tiny 17" monitor?

You can put your PC screen to be shown on that 50" screen if you want to... Or just throw it on a wall with a projector... And when you're talking big bucks, that 50" screen must be like 15$ since you say it's so cheap.

You can get a couple of PCs now-a-days with the price of that 50" screen. And remember that every game that you buy for a console is always more expensive than if you were to buy that game for the PC...

You can get a very good PC for 1500$... A next generation console might cost like 500$... Then you get to buy all the extra pads -> 40$ a piece, total 120$. You buy that memory card that you just have to have 50$. And you start buying games... Already the cost of the console is up to 670$... You need that big ass television -> 5000$... And the games cost on average about 10$ more than for the PC...

The console stuff ain't that much cheaper in the long run... And when you get a console, most of us still have to have some sort of a PC to browse this site and maybe do some work or something so that puts in another 1000$ to the console price...

It's all relative... Consoles are obsolete when they come out... They're brand new and innovative for consolers, but they are old-tech for PC gamers...

totally agree
and you don't need that much money to build a good pc
i mean with all the rebate stuff nowadays
i can build a good pc for just around $800-1000
i mean having a console system is excellent and i would love to have one if i can afford it. But if I had limited amount of money, i would upgrade or buy pc first.
It just all depends on what you like. But this has nothing to do with ea not releasing live for pc because again like andrew said "it hasn't happened until it's happened."

by **Mick** on Wed May 25, 2005 10:46 am

Just to note:

PC users upgrade their computers for other reasons than just gaming. I've never owned a console, and I'm not saying anything negative about them, but realistically for me, I can't justify having two devices which do the same thing. With my PC, I can work from home, do uni work and similar things as well as game which with a console I couldn't. Once I've got the basic PC, I can upgrade components which let me play the latest games without buying a whole new PC. Plus I can write upgrades off on tax

I can't imagine EA not releasing Live for the PC. I think they realised their error with 2002. To keep their market share strong, they need to keep their market interested, and by releasing Live for the PC each year they do that.

Cheers.

by **Bird123** on Wed May 25, 2005 11:10 am

So you think Live 06 for PC will look like Xbox360 or regular Xbox version?

by **Mick** on Wed May 25, 2005 12:13 pm

I'm not sure. I'm not really familiar with what's happening with Xbox360. My understanding is that in the past console games have had better graphics that the PC, however given the reports of 'much improved graphics' and the feelings of NBA Live PC fans regarding graphics, I think it's quite possible that EA have revamped graphics for the PC as well.

So if I had to choose one or the other, I would say that the PC would have graphics closer to Xbox360 rather than Xbox

cheers.

by **Alcoholic** on Wed May 25, 2005 1:07 pm

Remember these new consoles are very expensive too. Some people may have to only fork out 100 or 200 more dollars to get their PC in next gen shape, while other people are shelling out a whole new 500 dollars to get the console..

But another thing I think of about consoles is playing them with your friends. Sure theres some things like counterstrike that you can play online with your friends, but when you go over to their house or have a party, you want to have a console, so very casual or non gamers can play games they are FAMILIAR with, like Sumer Smash Brothers or Mario Kart or Soul Caliber or the like.. I think thats a consoles only strong point.

by **nickia** on Wed May 25, 2005 2:11 pm

but if you think of this way, XBOX360 equips a graphic card that is faster than the $400 Radeon x850 XT, and most of the Live gamers have a card around radeon 9600.

The new Live will be designed on XBOX360 which will maximize its graphic potential, that means all the PC gamers would either take hit in graphic quality or being forced to upgrade their entire PC to keep up with the next generation (64bit CPU & 1gb ram at least)

by **Metsis** on Wed May 25, 2005 4:59 pm

360 has a graphics card that is faster than X850... Please... Do you think the pedal is at the metal at Live 2006... I certainly don't think that any game done for the release of the new xbox will be running the machine to it's limits...

The graphics you see in the pics could very well be graphics that could have been done with the PC a couple of years back... The reason we haven't seen it is because we get lame console ports for the PC and the old consoles didn't have near the resources to pull these kinds of things off...

So be calm people... I think the graphics will be better on the PC than on the new xbox... Just because of the higher resolutions... Remember that televisions can only use the lower resolution settings and that is why a console ported game looks awful on the PC when you crank up the resolution to 1600x1200 mode...

PC has so much more power to run the graphics than some archaic xboxes and play station 2's... THE CONSOLES HAVE BEEN HOLDING BACK THE LIVE GRAPHICS FOR YEARS, trust me on this one.

by **MaD_hAND1e** on Wed May 25, 2005 5:27 pm

How did releasing a far superior console lead to Dreamcast's downfall? Is it cos of the price/ costs?

by **Null17** on Wed May 25, 2005 5:36 pm

the dreamcast was released way to early than the other consoles of it's generation. by the time the ps2, xbox and gamecube game out. the dreamcast hardware was too outdated compared to the others. less and less people (gamers and developers) supported the dreamcast to the point that SEGA gave up and just focused on making games

by **Metsis** on Wed May 25, 2005 6:32 pm

Null17 wrote:the dreamcast was released way to early than the other consoles of it's generation. by the time the ps2, xbox and gamecube game out. the dreamcast hardware was too outdated compared to the others. less and less people (gamers and developers) supported the dreamcast to the point that SEGA gave up and just focused on making games

And this is why it is beneficial to all companies involved to release their next generation hardware about the same time...

by **lemon** on Thu May 26, 2005 8:09 am

Just a couple of quick things -

1) you all seem to be forgetting that a PC's power is not devoted entirely to a particular game you're playing at the time. PC's are designed for so much else that their processing power is spread around.

2) Not sure about the 360 but the PS3's processor has been designed and built SPECIFICALLY for gaming/entertainment. (Note: not just graphics power but total game processing).

3) As an example, supposedly the PS3 has the power to render the CG spiderman character from the Spiderman2 movie in REAL TIME in a game environment. How many of your current PC's could handle that?

Consoles obviously have certain advantages over PCs, but of course the reverse also applies.

In saying all that, I believe EA would be idiots to not release the new gen of games on PC.

by **MaD_hAND1e** on Thu May 26, 2005 3:49 pm

lemon wrote:Just a couple of quick things -

1) you all seem to be forgetting that a PC's power is not devoted entirely to a particular game you're playing at the time. PC's are designed for so much else that their processing power is spread around.

2) Not sure about the 360 but the PS3's processor has been designed and built SPECIFICALLY for gaming/entertainment. (Note: not just graphics power but total game processing).

3) As an example, supposedly the PS3 has the power to render the CG spiderman character from the Spiderman2 movie in REAL TIME in a game environment. How many of your current PC's could handle that?

Consoles obviously have certain advantages over PCs, but of course the reverse also applies.

In saying all that, I believe EA would be idiots to not release the new gen of games on PC.

Anyone know the cost of converting the game to PC? because I think EA would be very stupid businesswise if they dropped the EA sports PC line, they basically rule it with no competition. If the cost isn't much to convert, then they are basically earning $$ for nothing.

by **Metsis** on Thu May 26, 2005 7:52 pm

PC graphics cards are just as much designed to run games as the console cards are... I think the console cards would do just fine with other PC duties as well, but the resources are not spread around as you say it...

The GPU runs the graphics... There is absolutely no way that the next gen consoles can produce better graphics than current PCs... Equal maybe, but not better... The fact is that by christmas PCs will already be ahead in this part of the process... Console games look great on television, but if they were linked to some really high resolution monitor, you'd see the awful state of the graphics. I know coders, they are lazy and this is the reason why they make the graphics only as good as they have to be. Even if they could do better.

PC GPU is designed to run graphics and movement on the screen. Games are but certain series of pictures linked together in a chain that resembles realistic motion... To the human eye that is...

You have all seen what a television screen looks like through a video camera... The camera can see the screen change and you can see it through the video camera and that is what our slow eyes don't see.

Games are great... PC games are more build for to be played alone and console games are fun to play with friends and are usually simple enough to entertain even an experienced player who has friends coming over... Console games are like crazy action movies, just great for tuning out, getting a beer and just enjoying all the action...

by **The X** on Thu May 26, 2005 8:59 pm

Sega Genesis better than SNES (Y)

by **Jowe** on Thu May 26, 2005 9:34 pm

what is this? 1996?

by **Sauru** on Sat May 28, 2005 8:34 am

there is 1 main reason why EA will still make the games for the PC, and that is the cost of the new consoles. for me personally, there is absolutly no way in hell i would go out and buy one of these new consoles at the prices they want just for nba live. i will eventually own a ps3 and that probably wont happen til gta4 is out. EA understands that people are not gonna want to drop however much money on a new console then dish out another 50 for the game. many will just cause they will get the console right away no matter what, but for the rest of us we have the PC version.

on a side note to everyone who tried to compare the pc price the console price. if you build your own compute you can do so for basicly the same exact prive if you match the specs. infact if you wait 6 monthes you can buold a pc that beats out the new consoles, and do it for the same price of the console. buying computers is for suckers.

by **Bird123** on Sun May 29, 2005 2:48 am

Computers and consoles are completely different. Actually consoles are more efficient, but are made to be that way. They have no big bloated OS to worry about, which runs tons of things in the background. Take for example my current PC, and I run a VERY VERY lean setup, uses about 180MB of RAM at startup and in idle mode. I imagine that the average user has a ton more things running in the background that they don't even know about, which could easily push you toward 400-450MB in just idle mode or at startup. If you have 512MB RAM you're already approaching your virtual memory. You'd be hardpressed to find a console that uses 2 to 3 MB of physical memory to startup.

Check out the current XBOX. It has Doom 3 on it, although it's not quite at the level of a top notch PC, how good it runs is staggering on the limited hardware. The XBOX CPU is an Intel733 Mhz CPU and the GPU is based on a low end GeForce4Ti graphics card, and a total system memory of 64MB. Ninja Gaiden and Halo 2 don't look that bad either on way way inferior hardware. Now try running Doom3 on a PC with those specs. The PS2 specs are much worse, but it can still push out a racer like Gran Turismo 5 and push a lot of polys in the Tekken series and that machine is almost 6 years old.

Like I said it's just different, not necessarily better or worse. Some people like buying consoles every 5 years and some people like upgrading thier PC's or buying new PC's. It's a matter of taste.

BTW, EA will continue to put out Live on the PC now because it's 1)Easy to port over equals little development time 2)Prove profitable because there is no competition on the PC and the costs to produce it is low. If this was during the Live 96-2000 era, then we might be in trouble because Live on the PC was so much better with the 3D accelerators becoming popular on PC, they were able to make a much much better game than it's console counterparts, but it required more development time and more people working on it to get it that way. Now they just port over the console version to PC.

With the patchers here though, it will ALWAYS be more fun to play Live on the PC!

by **c_cryder15** on Sun May 29, 2005 3:14 pm

No way they will end this for PC. Its all us pc users have for nba games. I will stop buying EA Sports products if they stop Live for PC

by **MaD_hAND1e** on Sun May 29, 2005 4:11 pm

c_cryder15 wrote:No way they will end this for PC. Its all us pc users have for nba games. I will stop buying EA Sports products if they stop Live for PC

If they stop providing EA Sports for PC, you'd have no choice really but to stop buying EA Sports products :roll:

by **Sauru** on Mon May 30, 2005 2:41 am

they make alot more than just nba live.

End of NBA LIVE on PC

!!!!!!

Re: !!!!!!

Who is online