MXS for Console?

[pinit24/7#12]

The point is, so many kids don't want their pacifier (XBox) pulled out of their mouth's. It's too easy to just turn on a console and drop a game in. Plus the parent's comp mat not always be available.

Yeah, I don't want to see this kind of game brought to console. I own a ps3 and I play many game with my buddies on it like NHL, MAG and BF3. I wouldn't want to play those games(minus BF3) on pc. But I also wouldn't want to play mx sim on console. I think you'd get way more kids bashing into you online then you already do. Plus it'd run like shit and not look that great. Gates would probably be limited to 12-16 riders and not 40, and it would cost twice as much. Not worth it in my oppinion.

How would it cost twice as much? are u kidding? A computer to run mx sim costs a minimum of $400. ps3's are $300 along with 250gb xboxes. So idk where you came up with that. the main reason people originally came up with this idea is pretty much to save money. they'd rather not have to spend more money on a gaming computer when they could just use there gaming system, Especially the people who would only use it for mx simulator.

[shawn1331]

The point is, so many kids don't want their pacifier (XBox) pulled out of their mouth's. It's too easy to just turn on a console and drop a game in. Plus the parent's comp mat not always be available.

Yeah, I don't want to see this kind of game brought to console. I own a ps3 and I play many game with my buddies on it like NHL, MAG and BF3. I wouldn't want to play those games(minus BF3) on pc. But I also wouldn't want to play mx sim on console. I think you'd get way more kids bashing into you online then you already do. Plus it'd run like shit and not look that great. Gates would probably be limited to 12-16 riders and not 40, and it would cost twice as much. Not worth it in my oppinion.

How would it cost twice as much? are u kidding? A computer to run mx sim costs a minimum of $400. ps3's are $300 along with 250gb xboxes. So idk where you came up with that. the main reason people originally came up with this idea is pretty much to save money. they'd rather not have to spend more money on a gaming computer when they could just use there gaming system, Especially the people who would only use it for mx simulator.

$42 dollars for mx sim on pc. Probably around $70-80 for it on console. Thats what I meant.

[pinit24/7#12]

$42 dollars for mx sim on pc. Probably around $70-80 for it on console. Thats what I meant.

Not really. New ps3/xbox games cost $60 regularly. So id guess around that. And even if so think about it. If you get a ps3 or xbox its probably more flexible on graphic settings as if you buy a $400 computer your not gonna get much what so ever for the price, and its still $100 more.

[shawn1331]

$42 dollars for mx sim on pc. Probably around $70-80 for it on console. Thats what I meant.

Not really. New ps3/xbox games cost $60 regularly. So id guess around that. And even if so think about it. If you get a ps3 or xbox its probably more flexible on graphic settings as if you buy a $400 computer your not gonna get much what so ever for the price, and its still $100 more.

Your not looking at the whole picture. You would get a very toned down lame version of mx sim for more money. Besides I got my computer for $75 off a lease from an old office building that couldn't afford to keep the computers. $15 bucks of ram off kijiji gave me 8gb and a 1.9Ghz. Sure it's not great but it plays the game with 20 riders no problem. A new ps3 wouldn't run mx sim at 20riders. You'd be limited to 12-16, graphics would be toned down, physics would be toned down, and there would be no user content. You would be buying DLC out the ass like alive. So your paying more money for a lesser product in the end.

And besides a new desktop from best buy runs about $500 anyways, it's not like gaming is the only thing you can do on a pc.

[pinit24/7#12]

$42 dollars for mx sim on pc. Probably around $70-80 for it on console. Thats what I meant.

Not really. New ps3/xbox games cost $60 regularly. So id guess around that. And even if so think about it. If you get a ps3 or xbox its probably more flexible on graphic settings as if you buy a $400 computer your not gonna get much what so ever for the price, and its still $100 more.

Your not looking at the whole picture. You would get a very toned down lame version of mx sim for more money. Besides I got my computer for $75 off a lease from an old office building that couldn't afford to keep the computers. $15 bucks of ram off kijiji gave me 8gb and a 1.9Ghz. Sure it's not great but it plays the game with 20 riders no problem. A new ps3 wouldn't run mx sim at 20riders. You'd be limited to 12-16, graphics would be toned down, physics would be toned down, and there would be no user content. You would be buying DLC out the ass like alive. So your paying more money for a lesser product in the end.

And besides a new desktop from best buy runs about $500 anyways, it's not like gaming is the only thing you can do on a pc.

You can you even compare this game to alive? the creator of the game would be the one to choose wether or not to do a buttload of dlcs, and jlv would never in a million years make us pay more to get tracks, bikes, etc. and how do u know if it will or will not run mx simulator. after seeing some of the newer games graphic details, theres no doubt in my mind that it couldnt run mx simulator even with a 40 man gate. and as for physics, it wouldnt even make a difference. graphics,physics,dlcs are all for the creator of the game to choose AKA:Josh.

[pinit24/7#12]

sorry for dp but i meant can't in the first part

[shawn1331]

sorry for dp but i meant can't in the first part

Example: BF3 on ps3/xbox has 24 players.

BF3 on PC has 64 players with better graphics, more vehicles and better lighting.

Ultimately it wouldn't be up to JLV if the game had dlc or not, he doesn't have the resources to make, and distribute a console port. it's not simply a digital download you can google and put on your xbox, it would have to be approved by microsoft and sony which is big bucks. In order for that to work jlv would have to sell the game out to a big company such as EA and then there would be dlc. I'm starting to get the idea you don't know a whole lot about consoles, pc's, the market, and gaming in general.

[pinit24/7#12]

sorry for dp but i meant can't in the first part

Example: BF3 on ps3/xbox has 24 players.

BF3 on PC has 64 players with better graphics, more vehicles and better lighting.

Ultimately it wouldn't be up to JLV if the game had dlc or not, he doesn't have the resources to make, and distribute a console port. it's not simply a digital download you can google and put on your xbox, it would have to be approved by microsoft and sony which is big bucks. In order for that to work jlv would have to sell the game out to a big company such as EA and then there would be dlc. I'm starting to get the idea you don't know a whole lot about consoles, pc's, the market, and gaming in general.

Oh believe me, i know alot thanks. and even if jlv sold out the game he still would be apart of what goes on with it, so yes he would have somewhat of a say for dlcs,updates,etc. Most people that make there games big with ea sports, sony, ubisoft, microsoft, etc dont just walk away and say oh well, they usually stick around and become a partner and still get a say in what goes down for there game, just not full power.

[shawn1331]

sorry for dp but i meant can't in the first part

Example: BF3 on ps3/xbox has 24 players.

BF3 on PC has 64 players with better graphics, more vehicles and better lighting.

Ultimately it wouldn't be up to JLV if the game had dlc or not, he doesn't have the resources to make, and distribute a console port. it's not simply a digital download you can google and put on your xbox, it would have to be approved by microsoft and sony which is big bucks. In order for that to work jlv would have to sell the game out to a big company such as EA and then there would be dlc. I'm starting to get the idea you don't know a whole lot about consoles, pc's, the market, and gaming in general.

Oh believe me, i know alot thanks. and even if jlv sold out the game he still would be apart of what goes on with it, so yes he would have somewhat of a say for dlcs,updates,etc. Most people that make there games big with ea sports, sony, ubisoft, microsoft, etc dont just walk away and say oh well, they usually stick around and become a partner and still get a say in what goes down for there game, just not full power.

Now you're contradicting yourself, first you say there would be no dlc. Then some. Face it, this game wouldn't be good on console.

[pinit24/7#12]

I never said that. I said that even if he did sold the game he would still have a say in dlcs,updates,etc because he wouldnt sell all of the rights probably. he just wouldnt be in full control of everything like he would if owned all the rights.

[shawn1331]

I never said that. I said that even if he did sold the game he would still have a say in dlcs,updates,etc because he wouldnt sell all of the rights probably. he just wouldnt be in full control of everything like he would if owned all the rights.

Really? You never said that?

jlv would never in a million years make us pay more to get tracks, bikes, etc.

Musta been another pinnit.

[pinit24/7#12]

I never said that. I said that even if he did sold the game he would still have a say in dlcs,updates,etc because he wouldnt sell all of the rights probably. he just wouldnt be in full control of everything like he would if owned all the rights.

Really? You never said that?

jlv would never in a million years make us pay more to get tracks, bikes, etc.

Musta been another pinnit.

EXACTLY! Before he signed any contracts at all he would ask them what they have rights too and would make sure that doesnt include making everything dlc wise without his approval. and im pretty sure after how much bad rep alive got for doing that, no1 in the gaming industry is gonna think of doing something like that.

[tannerblake821]

I never said that. I said that even if he did sold the game he would still have a say in dlcs,updates,etc because he wouldnt sell all of the rights probably. he just wouldnt be in full control of everything like he would if owned all the rights.

Really? You never said that?

jlv would never in a million years make us pay more to get tracks, bikes, etc.

Musta been another pinnit.

He said jlv would never make us pay!

DLC doesn't necesarilly mean it costs anything, there's free add-ons for some games.

Also, again he said jlv woud never make us pay. If jlv got backing by lets say EA and you have to buy DLC.. Well then, that wouldn't be jlv making us pay now would it?

lose the attitude, it's like everyone has to prove they're better than the other one in these forums. If you don't think the person knows what you're talking about then explain yourself better till they understand it. Don't just go bashing someones intellect all willy-nilly.

[shawn1331]

I never said that. I said that even if he did sold the game he would still have a say in dlcs,updates,etc because he wouldnt sell all of the rights probably. he just wouldnt be in full control of everything like he would if owned all the rights.

Really? You never said that?

jlv would never in a million years make us pay more to get tracks, bikes, etc.

Musta been another pinnit.

He said jlv would never make us pay!

DLC doesn't necesarilly mean it costs anything, there's free add-ons for some games.

Also, again he said jlv woud never make us pay. If jlv got backing by lets say EA and you have to buy DLC.. Well then, that wouldn't be jlv making us pay now would it?

lose the attitude, it's like everyone has to prove they're better than the other one in these forums. If you don't think the person knows what you're talking about then explain yourself better till they understand it. Don't just go bashing someones intellect all willy-nilly.

I just clearly explained multiple reasons why the game wouldn't work on console and he ignored everyone of them. Consoles just aren't good enough to compete with pc's on the same level. Sure you could run the same game but it would be toned down like I've said numerous times. Think of any console and pc port you want, everyone of the console ports have been optimized compared to the pc version. Heres a few off the top of my head.

BF3
BC2
Skyrim
GTA 4- and SA
MVA series
Hell, even the sims is better on pc than console.

[tannerblake821]

You're correct, no way will a console ever be able to compete with a pc and they're not trying to. A console is a safe bet that you can play all games for around 6+ years without having to spend more than around $400. A console when it first comes out and even through out it's entire life will still be competitive with NEW pc hardware of double the price if not more!

They're trying to make it affordable to game, that's the point behind consoles..