That's only because he wants to be. But all three of my games got rained out today, so I'm still willing to play.
Gurck, you are just so wrong here. Do you really think the millions of console gamers would switch to their PC if all the consoles of the world disappeared? Not hardly.
There is much truth to the notion that it costs more to build a gaming PC than to buy an Xbox. Just price it out, and you'll see. (And forget your silly premise that one must buy an HDTV to play Xbox. The overwhelming majority of people enjoying their consoles do NOT own an HDTV.)
And we've already gone over how different the PC and console gaming experiences are. If you don't recall, and would like me to go over them yet again, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Oh, it's far too late now. I'm talking about a what-if. While PCs certainly wouldn't get all the people who've instead gone to consoles, they would have gotten a lot of them - and a lot who wouldn't have gone to consoles as well. I've never said PCs don't cost more than consoles, only that those claiming a gaming PC costs $3k and must be upgraded twice a year are wrong. PCs would indeed be cheaper, as I've stated, due to economics of scale, if not for consoles. I'm talking about HDTVs in reference to the up and coming consoles; the ps3, xbox2 and whatever Nintendo's offering is (I'm assuming that one will make use of HD as well). Seeing as the biggest thing current PCs have over current consoles is resolution, it makes little sense to buy a next-gen console when they come out unless you already own, or plan to purchase, an HDTV.Originally posted by: Wingznut
That's only because he wants to be. But all three of my games got rained out today, so I'm still willing to play.
Gurck, you are just so wrong here. Do you really think the millions of console gamers would switch to their PC if all the consoles of the world disappeared? Not hardly.
There is much truth to the notion that it costs more to build a gaming PC than to buy an Xbox. Just price it out, and you'll see. (And forget your silly premise that one must buy an HDTV to play Xbox. The overwhelming majority of people enjoying their consoles do NOT own an HDTV.)
And we've already gone over how different the PC and console gaming experiences are. If you don't recall, and would like me to go over them yet again, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
sorry, the economies of scale only apply to the lower end of the pc market. economies of scale do not at all apply to 300 -600 dollar video cards the very elite pc gamers use to experience that top notch experience. you have a seriously distorted view of the world. people have always bought consoles from the very start. it wasn't as if one day 5 years ago the consoles arrived and snatched all the pc users. and actually the pc market just continues to get weaker. why spend more than a few hundred when what most people need to run is email and web. how many ghz does microsoft word need? and as such the systems sold are not very good for gaming, let alone upgradable in a practical way
and no one is claiming that pc's need to be upgraded twice a year except that strawman you like to bash. but if one wants to keep up with top notch gaming, you do indeed need to spend. or constantly lower your standards as you have with your 25fps wow experience. sort of nulifies the supposed advantage over consoles if you can't experience it because you've stuck to your ti4x00 card to save money. stop it with the delusion that things come free.
and no one is claiming that pc's need to be upgraded twice a year except that strawman you like to bash. but if one wants to keep up with top notch gaming, you do indeed need to spend. or constantly lower your standards as you have with your 25fps wow experience. sort of nulifies the supposed advantage over consoles if you can't experience it because you've stuck to your ti4x00 card to save money. stop it with the delusion that things come free.
Of course economics of scale don't apply to the newest & highest-end components; these have always been proportionally far more expensive, less commonly purchased and wholly unnecessary for a quality gaming experience.
This might come as a shock to you, but many non-gamers actually use their PCs for things other than AOL chatrooms, email, and reading the latest web-scoop on the Backstreet Boys... I do a lot of video & audio encoding and image editing, for example. PCs functioning as PVRs, a use growing in numbers, require at least a decent chip, and with postprocessing can put a hell of a load on even the fastest CPUs. With the h.264 video codec and Microsoft's equivalent just around the corner, a fast CPU is looking evne more useful.
Btw a lot of posters have made the 3k/6months claim in the thousands of xbox threads which have sprouted up over the past week. Being such a fanboy I'd think you'd have read them
These are no straw men. I wish they were, as the alternative, which is the unfortunate truth, is that posters on a tech board are so prone to FUD about PCs
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
hah you are delusional. most people just buy a tivo. pvr....that is a tiny portion of the total pc market. its the tiny hobbiest portion that spends gobs of money to pull off such as h.264 with hdtv tuners. early adoption with the benifits and costs. by the time it reaches mainstream it'll be done with one of the 20 dollar h264 chips being developed and released as we speak on a set top device like a tivo once more. sorry, its called reality.
Consoles were around before PC Gaming? So you mean there was a console before Moria in Unix? Did not know that.
I'd argue that. The only way a console would be best for mmorpg, rts, or fps would be if your tv was on a desk with a keyboard and mouse. And if you are using your console in that manner, might as well buy a pc.
These arguments are so silly. The console market will never take over the pc market (unless it becomes a pc) and the pc market will never take over the console market (unless it becomes a console). And what does this mean? Environment, thats all. The environment of a console if 5+ feet away from the TV with a controller in your hand. The environment of a PC is 3 feet away from a monitor with a keyboard / mouse / joystick / on a desk. The games for each system are designed with this environment in mind.
Although, multiplayer technology has been playing a big role on consoles, if developers stopped making split screen games in favor of multiplayer games, the entire reason behind playing a game on a console would be lost. But as long as Nintendo is around, I don't think that will ever occur. If it does occur though, the PC environment will become the best environment to play a game on.
My stance? As long as I can afford every system on the market, I don't really care.
Between XB and XB360 it appears there will be slightly less then four years, but let's go with your five year statement(as several consoles do have that gap).
We are close to three years into DX9 level hardware and we have seen less then two dozen games that exploit the technology. What's more- excluding XBox ports there are still nigh no games that require DX8 level hardware to run(I can only think of a couple off the top of my head). NO games require DX9 level hardware to date. You can try and claim that is due to the consoles- but why isn't every title requiring DX8 level hardware as that has been a common baseline in consoles for just under FOUR YEARS. PCs trail the conosoles in terms of game development because of PCs themselves. If not, then the base requirements would be at least XBox level hardware.
That is a given. Step outside of North America and PC ownership is a fraction of what it is here- and that is ignoring the miniscule slice of that pie that is capable of anything resembling high end gaming.
RIGHT NOW the overwhelming majority of PCs being sold are inferior to the XBox by a sizeable margin in terms of being able to game. The leader in the PC market for graphics is Intel, and they don't have a chip that is close to competitive with the NV2A- not remotely close. PC gaming is only doing close to as well as it is because of the spillover from consoles.
You assume that people would take the money they spent on console games and instead spend that on PC gaming, furthermore you assume that if this were done it would lead to better development on the PC. What about the cost of maintaing a rig?
As you are touting the superiority or PC hardware then one must assume at the outside you are talking about people building a new rig every other year. If that is the case, and they build their own and shop around, they are dropping ~$1,000 every other year in hardware. So we figure it out to $500 a year. Compare that to console hardware costs which I'll stretch out and spot you to $500 for each console(mem cards, remotes, extra controllers- a new TV every other gen). In a five year console generation you are going to drop $2,000 dollars in hardware for your PC and $1500(incredibly overstated, but we'll go with it) on console hardware.
You have $500 to spend on games going the console route before you hit the hardware costs of the PC. If we look at the real world numbers, the overwhelming majority of people buy consoles when they are $150 or less and end up spending well under $300 per console on hardware(not to mention most homes own two maximum) putting real world hardware costs closer to $600 per gen and $1,400- twenty eight games worth- of gaming funds.
Now, if everyone moved from console gaming to PC gaming it seems to me that there would be a he!l of a lot less money being poured into publishers and developers coffers no matter how you looked at it. The industry at large would lose out. Game sales drive the industry.
Wal-Mart sells HDTVs now for under $600(27" Philips)- if you want to consider that then you are forced to factor in a comparable display for PCs. How much is a 27" monitor going for these days?
As a general point- you realize that currently you are arguing for PCs against an Intel employee and the most vocal supporter of PC 3D technology on these forums(and have been for many years)? You are also talking to two of the bigger PC gamers on these boards. The difference is we experience both sides of the fence all the time and can speak with considerable authority about both sides of the fence- something you seem incapable of doing. For that matter, I've yet to see you display that you can speak with authority about the PC gaming aspect except spitting out over and over that the PC can do whatever the consoles can(which, if modded the reverse can also be said).
Atari 2600, 5200, 7800, Intellivision and numerous others, what are you on about? Moria was circa 1983(I just double checked- wasn't ported to Unix until 1987 by Jim Wilson at UC/Berkely). By the time Moira hit Unix SMB on the NES was in the ~10 million units sold range- console gaming at that point was already a billion dollar industry.
Forgot to cover this- I already stated that PCs were better for RTSs or FPSs, as far as MMORPGs I would agree with you however there are a couple hundred thousand console gamers who seem to be liking FFXI quite a bit(personally I am playing it on the PC- although I ended up having to get a dual shock clone controller to make in playable, PC controls suck for that game).
Ok you got me, I figured Moria was older than that, but then again, google is my best friend:
1961 Steve Russell, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), creates Spacewar, the first interactive computer game. It runs on a Digital PDP-1 mainframe computer, and the graphics are made up of ASCII text characters.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gamestimeline1.html
Edit: damn... this is fun. Moria in 83 and Rogue in 80? Adventure came out in 1972 wtf?
You trying to prove my point?
A lot of fluff about nothing (and way to slip in the e-penis stroke there near the end - you think I give a shit?
); you've failed to state why a second PC is necessary, other than M$ & Sony telling us it is by having a few exclusive games and then proffering one for a price. PCs and games both would be much farther along in their development if not for consoles, but then Sony & M$ would have less money Wrong- you have failed to tell us why a gaming PC is necessary. Remember, Nintendo was dominating the console scene long before Sony and Microsoft got in the game- they were trying to compete with another dominant multi billion dollar player while PC gaming was still a few geeks in a basement borrowing their Mom's Apple ][.
PCs are the little b!tch in the gaming block- consoles were here first, they are bigger and they cost less then a single high end graphics card upgrade. You have failed to list games comparable to those on consoles out for the PC. You have failed to give a singular explenation of what PCs can do in gaming that not only consoles can't, but haven't already done. You have yet to given anything resembling a logical structure to your anti console rant- have yet to give any impartial person a reason to so much as pay your side more then a passing glance.
I've stated my stance on why I keep PCs around- they are a better at a couple of genres IMO and I will keep having every viable gaming platform available. I am a gamer. You, based on all of your comments so far, are not.
PCs are useful for far more than gaming and would be around either way. Adding a card, most of which are less expensive than consoles, enables them to game. Why buy a second one instead?
Still waiting on your answer, I gave mine. Or you can continue avoiding it, it's surely much easier to do
I've never made this claim, rather the claim that consoles are redundant. The best argument you can come up with for them is that many games for them aren't available on the PC. This, in turn, is because MS & Sony won't allow it, as it would hurt their profits. How's it feel being their bitch?
This from someone whose pro-console rant consists of gems such as "Have you suffered severe brain trauma?"? :roll:
You're not a gamer, you're a mark. You're the gaming equivalent of the Star Wars "fan" who buys the plastic lightsaber and Vader costume or the music "fan" who buys all 5 "greatest hits" releases which have the same songs on them, long after the artist in question is deceased. A corporation says jump, you ask how high. It's disgusting.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
A lot of fluff about nothing (and way to slip in the e-penis stroke there near the end - you think I give a shit?
); you've failed to state why a second PC is necessary, other than M$ & Sony telling us it is by having a few exclusive games and then proffering one for a price. PCs and games both would be much farther along in their development if not for consoles, but then Sony & M$ would have less money [/quote]You seem to be really, really obsessed with penises, circle jerks, and even protein shakes. Are you trying to tell us something?
:lips:Originally posted by: DonVito
You seem to be really, really obsessed with penises, circle jerks, and even protein shakes. Are you trying to tell us something?Originally posted by: Gurck
A lot of fluff about nothing (and way to slip in the e-penis stroke there near the end - you think I give a shit?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
we are talking about what most people use, not the alpha geek with his top tier pc. a 300-500dollar pc with intergrated graphics is useful enough for most people and has been for years and will even more so in the future. such a computer is not cost effectively upgraded for gaming. sorry. sorry, most people don't use their computer to compile or encode anything of real difficulty. spending 150 on an xbox gets you a new separate system with capabilities that cannot be had on pc for such a price. and frees up the pc for use by another person when gaming is going on.
you are sadly not self aware. you are the worst pc snob i've seen. one who's feelings of condescension and superiority are definitely delusional and unjustified.
Are you supporting the technical superiority of PCs or not? The GameCube is $99 and the XBox and PS2 are $149. For video cards in that price range you are talking about X700Pro and 6600 non GT- you may be able to pick up a R9800Pro for that price too. While they have the edge over the NV2A at this point, it is marginal compared to a 6800U SLI setup. But there are more costs associated of course since you are claiming that a PC can do everything a console can. You need to opt for a PC with 5.1DD out-taking the cheapest route it will only cost you a few dollars more going with an integrated solution. You also need a controller- figure the cheapest truly comparable option, a USB-PS2 adapter and a DualShockII and you are out ~$30. You also need to make sure that you have a vid card with TV out so you aren't stuck to small screen gaming-obviously requiring a vid card with TV out. You factor in the real cost of getting the most basic setup comparable to a PC and you are moving in to X700 non pro 6200 territory- not exactly showing a huge technical edge over the NV2A(still clearly superior feature set, but the performance gap isn't close to resembling your five year statement).
Games, no patches needed, guaranteed to run as the developer intended out of the box every time, fixed control interface allows for significantly greater levels of tweaking by the developers, more thorough testing and flexible multiplayer support. I wouldn't consider this 'a second one' however- this is most gamers primary focus by far.
Gaming PCs are redundant- not the other way around. Consoles were here first, they are bigger, they have a vastly superior library of games and they are significantly faster per dollar spent on hardware overall. Why have a gaming PC?
For the most part, not true. There are platform exclusives, but there certainly aren't any 'console exclusives' due to contractual obligations. MS and Sony may keep their first party titles off of the PC- but that certainly doesn't stop RockStar from releasing GTA on the PC at some point- or Capcom from releasing ResidentEvil on the PC. Sometimes they choose to, the overwhelming majority of the time they don't. MS and Sony's profits for gaming are hurt by each other, not the weak little b!tch on the gaming block.
I get my console hardware for under cost and make Sony and Microsoft eat the loss- nothing like your brilliance paying ATi a staggering markup for your PC gaming parts. How do you feel about being their b!tch?
When it comes to PC gaming you are absolutely right. I have to have a rig that can handle all of the latest games without question- so that means I need to pay enormous markups on hardware to deal with disgustingly coded bloatware games that take a staggering amount of resources to run compared to what the console counterparts do. At least my sensible side keeps the consoles around for their significant value where the maring are far more in line with reasonable then on the platform that supports financial mugging.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter