- Status
riva2model64
Distinguished
- Jan 9, 2006
- 67
- 0
- 18,630
Sony itself does not plan to make a profit out of selling PS3s, as if they did intend that the price of the PS3 would be too high
Computer manufacturers (and parts manufacturers) do on the other hand want to make a profit of selling their stuff, and so is priced accordingly
yes, part of the fun of PC gaming for us PC gamers is worrying about framerates, boasting about framerates, spending money on our systems for their birthdays, taking loving time maintaining your system washing/oiling fans and heatsinks and stuff like that
err, perhaps some would say i don't have a life,
but who needs a life
Computer manufacturers (and parts manufacturers) do on the other hand want to make a profit of selling their stuff, and so is priced accordingly
yes, part of the fun of PC gaming for us PC gamers is worrying about framerates, boasting about framerates, spending money on our systems for their birthdays, taking loving time maintaining your system washing/oiling fans and heatsinks and stuff like that
err, perhaps some would say i don't have a life,
but who needs a life
I don't think you can really compare a PC to a gaming console.
Both of them are aimed at different things - PC's are more all-around working computers (sorry gamers, but most of the world will use a PC for non-gaming). Gaming consoles are solely aimed at gaming.
PC's will always catch up. Gaming consoles will always stay the same. Its like comparing a car that's just idling to a car thats racing along.
I think it all boils down to what games you want to play. A game might just be offered on the PS3, so you'll buy one. It might be offered on the PC, but you might not want the hassle of upgrading or shelling out, so you'll get a PS3. Or you might not want to even think about compatibility and get a PS3.
Does it matter which one is more powerful anymore? You'll probably get a good framerate either way. After 30fps, most human eyes can't tell the difference. After 60fps, I doubt anyone's eyes can really tell (sure there might be some, but there's always exceptions)
Both of them are aimed at different things - PC's are more all-around working computers (sorry gamers, but most of the world will use a PC for non-gaming). Gaming consoles are solely aimed at gaming.
PC's will always catch up. Gaming consoles will always stay the same. Its like comparing a car that's just idling to a car thats racing along.
I think it all boils down to what games you want to play. A game might just be offered on the PS3, so you'll buy one. It might be offered on the PC, but you might not want the hassle of upgrading or shelling out, so you'll get a PS3. Or you might not want to even think about compatibility and get a PS3.
Does it matter which one is more powerful anymore? You'll probably get a good framerate either way. After 30fps, most human eyes can't tell the difference. After 60fps, I doubt anyone's eyes can really tell (sure there might be some, but there's always exceptions)
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
Its a too-long post. I appologize. I bolded the most applicable parts if you want to skip to those, but you will miss out on some stuff.
LMAO,
Who really cares if you can overclock a console? Can you overclock a Saturn5 rocket? Can you overclock your pen, or your matress? Why would you want to, and who really gives a crap.
I dont think mechluke was asking about versatility--he was asking about a very narrow-very specific topic. Gaming
A console does what it does, play games. Anyone who knows anything about gaming, in this day and age, knows that in the verbal battle of mines bigger than yours, the size of your GPU that counts (sorry, couldnt resist) a little bit more than the size of you CPU
In that respect, both the 360 and PS3 should do/be doing well. When the 360 was introduced, its GPU was (supposedly) 3 generations ahead of what ATI was building for PCs. The NVIDIA chipset for the PS3 has been rumoured (please note that I say rumoured-as in unverifiable heresay-not fact and probably not true) to be as many as 7 generations ahead of anything NVDIA has on the market for PCs. So as games approach photo-realistic graphics as they are now, what you need is GPU power . Better GPUs = better/faster graphics rendering, the most tasking part of any game. Unless your still playing a BB D&D turn based RPG.
Looking at those rumours, and only those rumours, then, consoles would seem to be the better way to go. Really for all the people who keep whining about versatility/upgradability, CPU cores and clock speed, for craps sakes, let it go. Its not applicable to what mechluke was asking. Be honest now, how many of you plan on encoding MPEG4s, ripping CDs, running spread sheets or doing word processing on your XBOX or PS? Are you really going to produce your next PowerPoint market share presentation on your PS3? --- Sorry but I just cant resist the sarcasm.
Sarcasm aside, another (and in my opinion more important) factor in the console vs PC battle is one which I havent seen a single post on. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how big the consoles or PCs whangs are. It is title availability. I have seen several titles, which I would have liked to purchase for my PC (I dont own a console. Wouldnt waste the money on it) that simply arent ported for the PC, and never will be. So, I'll just have to by a console (NOT!) or do without. Boo-hoo.
Is this important? you bet your a** it is. Why? Because this is where MS and Sony have you by the short and curlys. Yes, a PC is better than a console, but WTF difference does it make if the games you want to play arent available for a PC? And dont think for one second that MS and Sony dont know that. With the release of the 360 and PS3, we will see continuing increase in the trend of non-PC ported game titles. Period. Why? Because Bill Gates doesnt want you to buy a PC equiped with MS software OR a XBOX, he wants you to buy BOTH. Thats not evil, its just smart business.
Furthermore, multiported games like NFS underground2 have had different graphics and performance options based on the platform they were ported for. You can play NFS U2 on several different systems (XBOX, PS*,PC, GC etc) and never experiance the same level of performance or graphical fidelity twice. Take a look at the game cube version of this game, its slow AND it looks like it was painted by a 3 year old, relative to other consoles. With the GC, its a performance issue since GC cant handle really handle NFS U2. But more to the point, its a precursor of things to come. Is this important. You betcha. Why? It aint gonna be nothin' but a thang' for the title manufacturers and console manufacturers to "reward" the console owners with better graphics/performance/options with in a given title. Not based the consoles or PCs capabilities, but as a marketing enticement to buy the damn console. Look, its simple. You gotta have the PC for word processing, email, video/audio encoding/ripping etc. But, if your PC can play games too, then why bother spending money on a console? How does a manufacturer make people want to buy the console if they dont need it? Simple, make them need it by not porting the games for PC, or offering limited performance versions for the PC.
Dont believe it? Check out Bill Gate's "grand plans". Gates doesnt want to see a computer in every home. He wants to see 5. One for entertainment, one for household appliance/enviromental control, one for word processing and business-productivity apllications/one for security/....and I forget what the 5th one was for. Why does Bill want this? Microsoft doesnt make computers after all. Ahh, but MS does make software and every computer needs its own OS/software. 5 computers in every home = 5 times the demand for MS's software. This = more mulah for MS and Bill.
Its just smart business. Why try to write, debug, produce, market and ship a new OS or series of software titles every year, if you can produce 1 set of each every 5 years, but have the consumer buy 5 copies. 5 times the profit for 1/5 the capitol investment. Very, very smart. Not to mention the problem of trying to convince everyone to run out to buy a new OS or buisiness suite once every 12 months. Bills already figured out that he's not going to sell us on new software every 12 months. The thing thats really biting at Bill's balls right now, is that he also wants to see us all buy seperate computer for gaming, but that conflicts with his wanting every houshold to have a XBOX. He cant figure out how to sell us on buying 2 separate items that do exactly the same thing. But if theres one person who can solve that problem, its Bill. Hell, he's been convincing half the planet that the widows OSs are the most secure OSs for years.
We do have hope, though sadly, for us, its fading. While the hackers/crakers and porters have been working hard to come up functional XBOX/PS2 emulators for the PC, they havent not achieved the same level of success as the arcade/PS/atari etc etc etc emulators have had.
So, ultimately you're left with thinking about what games you want to play. For the moment, if the titles you want are ported for PC, by all means, skip buying a console and save the cash. You'll need it, because sooner or later, you, me and the rest of us are probably going to have to bite the console bullet. Unless the emu-wizards can get their programs up and running for "XBOX1040", or "PS4&1/2" it looks like we're all going to wind up buying consoles if we want to play anything more than quake6/doom5/CnC Frocked 2nd Lieutenants Burnt-Umber Alert. Not because the future PCs wont be able to handle those notional future game titles, but because the industry wants to separate the consumer from more of their hard earned dollars/pounds/euros/yen etc etc etc. Again, not evil plot or a conspiracy, just smart business.
Oh, just for shits-n-grins, lets go back to the "mines bigger than yours" for a second. With the current graphics battle between ATI and NVIDIA raging out of control, I doubt that the rumoured "advanced" graphics capabilities the 360 or PS3 have over the PC will stay advanced for too long. That is unless MS and Sony forced ATI and NVIDIA to sign some kind of "technology advancement restraining" clause. I doubt it, but ya never know.
LMAO,
Who really cares if you can overclock a console? Can you overclock a Saturn5 rocket? Can you overclock your pen, or your matress? Why would you want to, and who really gives a crap.
I dont think mechluke was asking about versatility--he was asking about a very narrow-very specific topic. Gaming
A console does what it does, play games. Anyone who knows anything about gaming, in this day and age, knows that in the verbal battle of mines bigger than yours, the size of your GPU that counts (sorry, couldnt resist) a little bit more than the size of you CPU
In that respect, both the 360 and PS3 should do/be doing well. When the 360 was introduced, its GPU was (supposedly) 3 generations ahead of what ATI was building for PCs. The NVIDIA chipset for the PS3 has been rumoured (please note that I say rumoured-as in unverifiable heresay-not fact and probably not true) to be as many as 7 generations ahead of anything NVDIA has on the market for PCs. So as games approach photo-realistic graphics as they are now, what you need is GPU power . Better GPUs = better/faster graphics rendering, the most tasking part of any game. Unless your still playing a BB D&D turn based RPG.
Looking at those rumours, and only those rumours, then, consoles would seem to be the better way to go. Really for all the people who keep whining about versatility/upgradability, CPU cores and clock speed, for craps sakes, let it go. Its not applicable to what mechluke was asking. Be honest now, how many of you plan on encoding MPEG4s, ripping CDs, running spread sheets or doing word processing on your XBOX or PS? Are you really going to produce your next PowerPoint market share presentation on your PS3? --- Sorry but I just cant resist the sarcasm.
Sarcasm aside, another (and in my opinion more important) factor in the console vs PC battle is one which I havent seen a single post on. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how big the consoles or PCs whangs are. It is title availability. I have seen several titles, which I would have liked to purchase for my PC (I dont own a console. Wouldnt waste the money on it) that simply arent ported for the PC, and never will be. So, I'll just have to by a console (NOT!) or do without. Boo-hoo.
Is this important? you bet your a** it is. Why? Because this is where MS and Sony have you by the short and curlys. Yes, a PC is better than a console, but WTF difference does it make if the games you want to play arent available for a PC? And dont think for one second that MS and Sony dont know that. With the release of the 360 and PS3, we will see continuing increase in the trend of non-PC ported game titles. Period. Why? Because Bill Gates doesnt want you to buy a PC equiped with MS software OR a XBOX, he wants you to buy BOTH. Thats not evil, its just smart business.
Furthermore, multiported games like NFS underground2 have had different graphics and performance options based on the platform they were ported for. You can play NFS U2 on several different systems (XBOX, PS*,PC, GC etc) and never experiance the same level of performance or graphical fidelity twice. Take a look at the game cube version of this game, its slow AND it looks like it was painted by a 3 year old, relative to other consoles. With the GC, its a performance issue since GC cant handle really handle NFS U2. But more to the point, its a precursor of things to come. Is this important. You betcha. Why? It aint gonna be nothin' but a thang' for the title manufacturers and console manufacturers to "reward" the console owners with better graphics/performance/options with in a given title. Not based the consoles or PCs capabilities, but as a marketing enticement to buy the damn console. Look, its simple. You gotta have the PC for word processing, email, video/audio encoding/ripping etc. But, if your PC can play games too, then why bother spending money on a console? How does a manufacturer make people want to buy the console if they dont need it? Simple, make them need it by not porting the games for PC, or offering limited performance versions for the PC.
Dont believe it? Check out Bill Gate's "grand plans". Gates doesnt want to see a computer in every home. He wants to see 5. One for entertainment, one for household appliance/enviromental control, one for word processing and business-productivity apllications/one for security/....and I forget what the 5th one was for. Why does Bill want this? Microsoft doesnt make computers after all. Ahh, but MS does make software and every computer needs its own OS/software. 5 computers in every home = 5 times the demand for MS's software. This = more mulah for MS and Bill.
Its just smart business. Why try to write, debug, produce, market and ship a new OS or series of software titles every year, if you can produce 1 set of each every 5 years, but have the consumer buy 5 copies. 5 times the profit for 1/5 the capitol investment. Very, very smart. Not to mention the problem of trying to convince everyone to run out to buy a new OS or buisiness suite once every 12 months. Bills already figured out that he's not going to sell us on new software every 12 months. The thing thats really biting at Bill's balls right now, is that he also wants to see us all buy seperate computer for gaming, but that conflicts with his wanting every houshold to have a XBOX. He cant figure out how to sell us on buying 2 separate items that do exactly the same thing. But if theres one person who can solve that problem, its Bill. Hell, he's been convincing half the planet that the widows OSs are the most secure OSs for years.
We do have hope, though sadly, for us, its fading. While the hackers/crakers and porters have been working hard to come up functional XBOX/PS2 emulators for the PC, they havent not achieved the same level of success as the arcade/PS/atari etc etc etc emulators have had.
So, ultimately you're left with thinking about what games you want to play. For the moment, if the titles you want are ported for PC, by all means, skip buying a console and save the cash. You'll need it, because sooner or later, you, me and the rest of us are probably going to have to bite the console bullet. Unless the emu-wizards can get their programs up and running for "XBOX1040", or "PS4&1/2" it looks like we're all going to wind up buying consoles if we want to play anything more than quake6/doom5/CnC Frocked 2nd Lieutenants Burnt-Umber Alert. Not because the future PCs wont be able to handle those notional future game titles, but because the industry wants to separate the consumer from more of their hard earned dollars/pounds/euros/yen etc etc etc. Again, not evil plot or a conspiracy, just smart business.
Oh, just for shits-n-grins, lets go back to the "mines bigger than yours" for a second. With the current graphics battle between ATI and NVIDIA raging out of control, I doubt that the rumoured "advanced" graphics capabilities the 360 or PS3 have over the PC will stay advanced for too long. That is unless MS and Sony forced ATI and NVIDIA to sign some kind of "technology advancement restraining" clause. I doubt it, but ya never know.
lol I cant believe some people still dont understand that PC will always be better than consoles.
They prob bought a really expensive Alienware with a P4 and 7800 GTX @ stock and think that its the best PCs can do.
Try my pending setup -- Im gonna get 2 7900 GTXs in SLI when they're out in March. Is it an expense? Not really there's still a market out there for my old parts since they're so high end and I upgrade very often.
They prob bought a really expensive Alienware with a P4 and 7800 GTX @ stock and think that its the best PCs can do.
Try my pending setup -- Im gonna get 2 7900 GTXs in SLI when they're out in March. Is it an expense? Not really there's still a market out there for my old parts since they're so high end and I upgrade very often.
Wgfalcon
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2006
- 316
- 0
- 18,780
gaming systems will always be on par with computers when they are first released. the reason pc's are better is because the technology is constantly improving every three to six months. not everyone can constantly keep up with those upgrades but the computer you buy now will be as good as the ps3xbox 2 and the computer you buy in six months will be better.
"The ps3 will be much more powerful than any pc that exists today"
hahahahahahahah....*gasp for air*....hahahahahahahahahahah...
How naive can you get....
hahahahahahahah....*gasp for air*....hahahahahahahahahahah...
How naive can you get....
theolendras
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2006
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
I have to agree with mechluke, PS3 should deliver relatively the same quality as PC for some time. Probably not for 5 years.
Paying 500$ for PS3 which boast a capable GPU almost as efficient as the very best GPU on the PC market.
But many here seems out of their mind. I think the second you make them think they might have paid too much for the same quality of software experience make them go nuts.
I'm not here to play the arrogant, the PC will always be up to speed in hardware & at least a generation or two in advance than the consoles. Does that mean that the software experience is better. Not at all.
The key with console is efficiency, the code path is optimize for only one machine, that has no OS and drivers overhead. The result is something almost twice faster than the equivalent speced PC.
The result is that you get a PC with better hardware running the same software much less efficiently. Vista should help a little, but it's not panacea.
What is interesting this time around tough, is that going HD mean the consoles will try to play in the same ground than the PC.
Try not to forget that a GPU equivalent to the PS3 is the price of the PS3 system.
Personnaly, I think it comes down to preference and budget. You can do a lot of things with a PC that a console will never do. And the consoles will always let you have peace of mind (no software & hardware maintenance skills required though it can be seen as a hobby).
For the sole purpose of gaming the only major difference will be gameplay (mouse versus controller pad) and costs for some time.
Paying 500$ for PS3 which boast a capable GPU almost as efficient as the very best GPU on the PC market.
But many here seems out of their mind. I think the second you make them think they might have paid too much for the same quality of software experience make them go nuts.
I'm not here to play the arrogant, the PC will always be up to speed in hardware & at least a generation or two in advance than the consoles. Does that mean that the software experience is better. Not at all.
The key with console is efficiency, the code path is optimize for only one machine, that has no OS and drivers overhead. The result is something almost twice faster than the equivalent speced PC.
The result is that you get a PC with better hardware running the same software much less efficiently. Vista should help a little, but it's not panacea.
What is interesting this time around tough, is that going HD mean the consoles will try to play in the same ground than the PC.
Try not to forget that a GPU equivalent to the PS3 is the price of the PS3 system.
Personnaly, I think it comes down to preference and budget. You can do a lot of things with a PC that a console will never do. And the consoles will always let you have peace of mind (no software & hardware maintenance skills required though it can be seen as a hobby).
For the sole purpose of gaming the only major difference will be gameplay (mouse versus controller pad) and costs for some time.
Bullshit. Just absolute utter crap.
Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!
Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!
Bullshit. Just absolute utter crap.
Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!
Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!
SuperFly03
Distinguished
- Dec 2, 2004
- 2,514
- 0
- 20,790
My question is, that if nVidia and ATI are capable of producing GPU's for consoles that are 7 and 3 generations ahead, respectively, why wouldn't they bring them to the PC market to trump the other company? We all know its ATIv Nvidia in WW4 (WW3 is AMD v Intel lol).
I'm not bashing consoles, i have about 8 (i keep all my old ones, who can live without the original sonic?). They are just desinged around a diffrent premice. I hate that there are console only games (Halo 2 in particular), but its marketing at its best. But because I have to have a PC to get through life (school work necessitates one), I figure why not trick a PC out instead of having 2 machines to do the same thing?
I've seen and played with the 360 but for some reason it can't compare to sitting down in a chair 2ft away froma 1600x1200 lcd with 4xAA and 16xAF in a comfratable ass chair sniping people in BF2. Then once I'm bored with that, its back to OC'ing. A computer, TO ME, is just much more entertaining than a $400 box that is strictly for gaming.
To each his own, but I won't give up my PC
I'm not bashing consoles, i have about 8 (i keep all my old ones, who can live without the original sonic?). They are just desinged around a diffrent premice. I hate that there are console only games (Halo 2 in particular), but its marketing at its best. But because I have to have a PC to get through life (school work necessitates one), I figure why not trick a PC out instead of having 2 machines to do the same thing?
I've seen and played with the 360 but for some reason it can't compare to sitting down in a chair 2ft away froma 1600x1200 lcd with 4xAA and 16xAF in a comfratable ass chair sniping people in BF2. Then once I'm bored with that, its back to OC'ing. A computer, TO ME, is just much more entertaining than a $400 box that is strictly for gaming.
To each his own, but I won't give up my PC
theolendras
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2006
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
Well as a matter of fact I'll probably go for a PC cause I like to tinker and a PS3 isn't great platform to work on. But, let's stay objective fluff ! PC is better premium hardware with a more bloated software compared to consoles.
This fact is well known, though it can be argued how much it affect performance. But a simple test would be to try to play Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 on a PC with a celeron 733Mhz and a geforce 3 64 of grapchic RAM to see if it is better than the Xbox. My bet is it will be awful and the Xbox version run just fine.
This fact is well known, though it can be argued how much it affect performance. But a simple test would be to try to play Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 on a PC with a celeron 733Mhz and a geforce 3 64 of grapchic RAM to see if it is better than the Xbox. My bet is it will be awful and the Xbox version run just fine.
riva2model64
Distinguished
- Jan 9, 2006
- 67
- 0
- 18,630
I'm not bashing consoles, i have about 8 (i keep all my old ones, who can live without the original sonic?). They are just desinged around a diffrent premice. I hate that there are console only games (Halo 2 in particular), but its marketing at its best. But because I have to have a PC to get through life (school work necessitates one), I figure why not trick a PC out instead of having 2 machines to do the same thing?
To each his own, but I won't give up my PC
the answer: no one can live without the original Sonic, SuperFly!
yes. lots of people have modern computers for their daily computing needs, why not use it to play games as well (got dangit even teh high school computers with their powerful P4 2.4s with a graphical and memory upgrade may be able to play Call of Duty 2).
other than that, the only reason i would get the console is if it has a game i really want to play that is not available on PC, not because it may be more powerful than my current PC
theolendras
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2006
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
if nvidia and ati did bring out there best cards which are 3 - 7 gens ahead and stomp the competition, then no one would buy their products since everyone will have one... say amd wins over intel and intel went bye bye.. then everyone would have an amd so then why would someone else buy anymore? especially the general consumer market. they upgrade like every what? 2 - 5 years? how would the company make money for r and d? they need each other to survive.
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
As I said, the generational advances were rumoured. I can neither confirn nor deny. Just (much to my own disappointment) regurtitate. The whole point was arguing about hardware and performance is pointless because its all about marketing, and the manufacturers will have their way with us unless the fringe groups figure out how to emulate the newest consoles
But, if the generation advance rumors are even partially true, it makes sense, from a marketing perpsective. Use the advance to push the consoles sales and keep selling the PC hardware in sequential order. Why skip selling a single generation, or multiple generations of PC GPUs after youve spent a whole bunch of $ R&D-ing them? You lose all that R&D $ if you do that. Additonally, if you look at the newest games out there right now, theres not a whole lot out there thats bringing the top end ATIs & NVIDIAs to their knees. For the moment. Remember when Doom3 was released? There wasnt a card on the market that met the highest perfromance setting requirements.
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
But, if the generation advance rumors are even partially true, it makes sense, from a marketing perpsective. Use the advance to push the consoles sales and keep selling the PC hardware in sequential order. Why skip selling a single generation, or multiple generations of PC GPUs after youve spent a whole bunch of $ R&D-ing them? You lose all that R&D $ if you do that. Additonally, if you look at the newest games out there right now, theres not a whole lot out there thats bringing the top end ATIs & NVIDIAs to their knees. For the moment. Remember when Doom3 was released? There wasnt a card on the market that met the highest perfromance setting requirements.
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
i forget who posted this quote, but it basically sums up this whole thread.
"To argue with an idiot, you have to step down to their level, and then they'll beat you with experience."
If you have your head between sony and m$'s legs, you might not get that quote.
I'm probably repeating so many others, but i want to chip in. You can't compare the price of a console to a PC. Even if you want to compare the graphics. PC offers to much, and can do so much more, compared to a console that is solely for gaming.
Hey, by the way, what is a console? It's a fcuking computer.
Even if XBOX360(gay name), or sony PS3(gayer name) have nice GPU's(that are comparable to what's out right now, not what's coming to the market) they have crummy CPU's compared to what is available for desktops. Crummy CPU performance=crummy GPU performance. They need each other.
I do agree that whether you want a PC or console depends on what games and functions you like/need.
Console games=idiotic
PC games=brains + skill + pwning graphics
Any FPS that is decent will be on a PC. Any strat game will be on a PC. Any RPG worth playing will be on a PC. Any sports game will be on a PC.
All other games envolve jumping and spraying and slashing like a dumb neanderthal. Those games are meant to entertain 12 year olds or less. And I actually know many youngins that play PC's, cause they know what's up, while you consolers look down like Sony and M$ tell you. Good little boys you are.
Let's not mention that PC games multiplayer options and ease completely wipe the floor with a console. Also, many more players can play in a multiplayer universe on PC, while consoles are restricted to like a max of 24 players.
Consolers just settle for less, and just buy what is marketed at them. Good little boys you are. You even advertise and spam forums for Sony and M$ for free. Wish I could brainwash peeps to do shit for me.
"To argue with an idiot, you have to step down to their level, and then they'll beat you with experience."
If you have your head between sony and m$'s legs, you might not get that quote.
I'm probably repeating so many others, but i want to chip in. You can't compare the price of a console to a PC. Even if you want to compare the graphics. PC offers to much, and can do so much more, compared to a console that is solely for gaming.
Hey, by the way, what is a console? It's a fcuking computer.
Even if XBOX360(gay name), or sony PS3(gayer name) have nice GPU's(that are comparable to what's out right now, not what's coming to the market) they have crummy CPU's compared to what is available for desktops. Crummy CPU performance=crummy GPU performance. They need each other.
I do agree that whether you want a PC or console depends on what games and functions you like/need.
Console games=idiotic
PC games=brains + skill + pwning graphics
Any FPS that is decent will be on a PC. Any strat game will be on a PC. Any RPG worth playing will be on a PC. Any sports game will be on a PC.
All other games envolve jumping and spraying and slashing like a dumb neanderthal. Those games are meant to entertain 12 year olds or less. And I actually know many youngins that play PC's, cause they know what's up, while you consolers look down like Sony and M$ tell you. Good little boys you are.
Let's not mention that PC games multiplayer options and ease completely wipe the floor with a console. Also, many more players can play in a multiplayer universe on PC, while consoles are restricted to like a max of 24 players.
Consolers just settle for less, and just buy what is marketed at them. Good little boys you are. You even advertise and spam forums for Sony and M$ for free. Wish I could brainwash peeps to do shit for me.
I dare to disagree under specific conditions!
BUNG for BUCK playstation is a better value than PC for games.
First of all Play Station cost is say about $ 250.00 and good PC would cost you at least 6 x that amount.
Play Station is geared toward programs designed for Play Station and the performance altough "weaker" CPU for the money is not worst than on PC.
The money are made by selling software and Play Stations are sold below the fair manufacturing value, sometimes with loss.
I believe that play station might run on under LINUX, or multi operating systems with less overhead than WindoZ PC.
Play Station PSX
On other hand the top PC with the top equipment could perform multitasking which ofcourse console can not.
By looking at specs of the PSX for the price it is really not weaker.
Using PC only for games is really waste of money, industry marketing hipe and waste of PC power, on other hand if you have a powerfull PC there is no real need to get console!
so there is room for all!
Resolution of playstation is geared toward TVs or projectors so it doesn't need such expensive graphic cards.
Iraquis So Damn Assan was buying Play Stations as that was the cheapest PC when modified powerful enough to use for predatory military applications.
And that operating system is... whatever you want it to be, apparently.
"Sony is looking into having Linux installed from the start on the PS3 hard disk. Referring to Linux as being "legacy," Kutaragi adds that it's just the start, as with Cell, the operating system runs as an application on top of the basic Cell OS. The presence of the Cell OS allows for multiple operating systems to run on the machine simultaneously, including, of course, Linux, but also making room for Windows and Apple's Tiger OS."
PSX 3
Sony says Spring, analysts say Summer (in Japan) at the earliest
We’ve already brought you stories within the past few days that have looked at the PS3’s hopeful 2006 launch date and how the console will cost Sony around $800 to produce. Adding more fuel to the Sony PlayStation 3 fire is this latest article from Reuters.
sony PS 3
Exactly.
Quite frankly some of the responses from the pro PC 'lobby' are embarissingly juvenile.
Seems some are trying to justify spending massive amounts of cash on hardware that offers tiny performance gains. If thats your thing, fair enough, seems like money down the drain to me.
I have consoles and a top spec PC. What amazes me is that you can have visually stunning games such as GT4 and MGS3 on the 5+ year old PS2hardware, just shows what can be squeezed out of the available hardware given time.
Each generation of console software see's performance/graphical improvements on the same spec hardware.
Of course we never see this on th PC as software developers simply wait for the lastest and greatest hardware to be released.
Everyone accepts the PC will eventually catch up with the PS3, if it has to catch up at all.
The point is top spec PC's make up a tiny number of the total number of PC's out there, and cost 5x as much as a PS3/Xbox360.
Even with less powerful hardware, a console can be capable of producing superior graphics etc.
As for the multi function of a PC, great, but you can do all that on a £300 PC, you can then buy a console for the cost of a top spec graphics card.
I guess many PC owners will also be splashing out on a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive soon, no doubt these will cost almost as much as the Blu-Ray enabled PS3!
Heyyou27
Splendid
- Jan 4, 2006
- 5,164
- 0
- 25,780
Ahhh, your post has some good and some bad. Some console games are good, but this thread isn't about the games; it's about a naïve kids dream.
The quality of games on a PC vs. a console is really hard for me to comment on. Some console games are better than some PC games, and vise versa.
As far as hardware, a 400$ game console will play games much better than a 400$ PC, but when the PC is 2,000$ and up it's a different story.
The quality of games on a PC vs. a console is really hard for me to comment on. Some console games are better than some PC games, and vise versa.
As far as hardware, a 400$ game console will play games much better than a 400$ PC, but when the PC is 2,000$ and up it's a different story.
SuperFly03
Distinguished
- Dec 2, 2004
- 2,514
- 0
- 20,790
I know you can use emulators, but there is something therapudic about sitting on a couch with a genesis controller in your hand playing Sonic the Hedgehog on your TV. There is just something missing on the emulator. I guess it just reminds me of a simpler time before I had to learn Option Pricing lol.
Side note:
The consoles have a much better life cycle to me. Honestly I am getting tired of the 3-4 month BS that graphics card companies are pulling. Leaving a console out for 5 years is a bit long, but at least the hardware gets mostly utilized (there is always a bit left over). With GPU's coming out every 4 months programmers can be lazy (not meant literaly) and just utilise some new features that nVidia has created. On a console they can do it, it just takes more understanding which is evident in each generation.
Honestly, if I had the spare cash I would probably buy one. However as is, I must deal with just my comp (i know my life is hard lol). I do really enjoy Halo 2 optimatch. There are specified gametypes and palyer ranks. Wish that kind of diversity would come to the PC. I know it is availible, but BF2 seems prime for something like that. Come on CTF with planes dropping bombs on you? Bad ass.
PS - I want to break open a 360 and custom rig a watercooling loop just bc I can lol.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News AMD Radeon RX 9070 series prices leak on Micro Center — starting at nearly $700 for XT versions- Started by Admin
- Replies: 129
-
-
News AMD estimates of Radeon RX 9070 XT performance leaked: 42% – 66% faster than Radeon RX 7900 GRE
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 83
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Some RTX 5090s are shipping with missing ROP units, leading to less gaming performance: Report
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 81
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram