Who else won't be buying the Xbox 360?

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Looks like I'm not the first person to figure you out.

Link


Seriously, there's no need to defend the amount of your day you spend on a msg board. It's your life. If trying to irritate people that you don't really know on a msg board 26+ times a day is what you need, then knock yourself out. (Seems you really enjoy it.)

I'm not defending it, I'm just wondering why you're not calling out other posters with similar or higher PPD. Looks like you have nothing else to go on, so you're making a blanket statement... Take ten deep breaths. Maybe try a lil herb. That much stress isn't good for ya.

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck
PETA is like a forum troll... their goal isn't to affect change, but rather to rile people up. That's why I dislike them.

You really posted that, huh? Interesting.

I sure did. Sorry (well not really, but we gotta say these things) that my opinions differ from yours, I'm sure you feel the world would be a much better place if everyone was a wingznut clone, standing around in circles of 8-12 masturbating furiously onto game consoles... It doesn't mean that stating mine is trolling, however. Hopefully when you get a bit older you'll be able to see in at least a few shades of grey; the black & white you currently see in must get awfully tiring

And this is your MO... Can't be logical, so twist people's words around. And then attack them, accusing them of exactly what you are doing. Certainly not the first time I've seen this in this discussion.

But to clarify one last time... It's not important to me that others have the same opinion. Hell, life would completely suck if everyone thought the same way. There is no place in this thread, or any other, that supports any other conclusion as to my thoughts on the matter.


Well, if you ever want to have a rational discussion, I'm very much up for it. But for now, I've grown tired of your game. Besides, I have a little league game to coach in a couple of hours, as well as a softball league game to play in after that. (Coaching your son and then playing ball at the ballpark, under the lights... Life just doesn't get much better than that!)

Oh, I'm sure it doesn't compare to posting on a msg board 26+ times in a day... But frankly, I don't know what that feels like. You enjoy your evening.

Maybe you can bring up other people masturbating another few times. You do seem to really enjoy thinking about that.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
I never buy consoles when they first come out.

If the Xbox2 is anything like the xbox1 as far as games, HELL NO.

Xbox doesnt come close to the great titles PS2 offers.

I'll have to wait and see.

Yea lets see, just with exclusive titles that you can't play on PS2 or anywhere for that matter except on the PC in some cases, you have ::

Star Wars: KoTOR
Star Wars: KoTOR 2
Jade Empire
Ninja Gaiden
Ninja Gaiden: Black (soon)
Halo
Halo 2
Morrowind

Thats just what I can think of off the top of my head, there are quite a few more I'm sure. And then there are all the games that are A LOT better on Xbox then on any other console, which is the rule.

No I am not an Xbox fan boi - Ninja Gaiden was simply the greatest game of its kind and Black will be better. Then you have Halo, also the single greatest game of its kind on a console, and KoTOR which was the single greatest game of its kind on the console.

Just my opinion, but oh wait - KoTOR, Halo and Ninja Gaiden were also called the greatest games of their kind by pretty much everyone who reviewed them and played them, pretty much the best rated all around games on any console were Xbox exclusive. Even GTA was a lot better on the Xbox when it finally got there. What does PS2 have? Final Fantasy and thats it for me any way, GT4 has some of the worst graphics I've ever seen - which is too bad because GT3 was good and PS2 really kicked ars at the beginning.

That being said, if Xbox 360 is anything like the Xbox, I'll definetely be getting one. I was a PS2 only console guy until I had to play a few games that I had to buy Xbox for, and have since come to like my Xbox more. I agree though, I won't be buying it for a few months at least.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: frx218
I got fooled into the console game as well, sure the thing was a beast but the games cost me a fortune and there are non few that keep me playing for over a few weeks!

Hmm....I never thought too much about the value per game thing, but you do have a point. This is why I :heart: PC games and their sometimes limitless ability to be modded...

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Looks like I'm not the first person to figure you out.

Link


Seriously, there's no need to defend the amount of your day you spend on a msg board. It's your life. If trying to irritate people that you don't really know on a msg board 26+ times a day is what you need, then knock yourself out. (Seems you really enjoy it.)

I'm not defending it, I'm just wondering why you're not calling out other posters with similar or higher PPD. Looks like you have nothing else to go on, so you're making a blanket statement... Take ten deep breaths. Maybe try a lil herb. That much stress isn't good for ya.

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck
PETA is like a forum troll... their goal isn't to affect change, but rather to rile people up. That's why I dislike them.

You really posted that, huh? Interesting.

I sure did. Sorry (well not really, but we gotta say these things) that my opinions differ from yours, I'm sure you feel the world would be a much better place if everyone was a wingznut clone, standing around in circles of 8-12 masturbating furiously onto game consoles... It doesn't mean that stating mine is trolling, however. Hopefully when you get a bit older you'll be able to see in at least a few shades of grey; the black & white you currently see in must get awfully tiring

And this is your MO... Can't be logical, so twist people's words around. And then attack them, accusing them of exactly what you are doing. Certainly not the first time I've seen this in this discussion.

But to clarify one last time... It's not important to me that others have the same opinion. Hell, life would completely suck if everyone thought the same way. There is no place in this thread, or any other, that supports any other conclusion as to my thoughts on the matter.


Well, if you ever want to have a rational discussion, I'm very much up for it. But for now, I've grown tired of your game. Besides, I have a little league game to coach in a couple of hours, as well as a softball league game to play in after that. (Coaching your son and then playing ball at the ballpark, under the lights... Life just doesn't get much better than that!)

Oh, I'm sure it doesn't compare to posting on a msg board 26+ times in a day... But frankly, I don't know what that feels like. You enjoy your evening.

Maybe you can bring up other people masturbating another few times. You do seem to really enjoy thinking about that.

Your blatant denial of reality on a few counts here is astounding. Good luck in your LL game, perhaps a 4-4 night will lighten up your mood, it certainly seems like you could use it.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Again, I did not say "the majority can't be wrong" (note that *you* used that phrase, not me) -- rather that, in this case, I believe the majority is right. If "the majority can't be wrong" is a laughable view, so is "the majority can't be right".

Let me know when you're interested in actually discussing something, rather than having a one-sided argument or trying to derail the discussion by focusing on semantics. I made my points above.

If you meant "in the case of consoles, I'm of an opinion shared by the majority of people", fine - but you didn't say it. As with my comment on Islam, things don't always sound the way you want them to, but don't pretend what you said did - otherwise you wouldn't have to clarify it. Any time you want to go back on topic, feel free. I don't think much more can be said about it. The horse isn't just dead, but actually starting to decompose.

Well, I hope I've made it clear what I meant by now. And I'm not the one who went off-topic by dragging religion into a thread on video game consoles. Again, feel free to actually repond to the points I stated above. I'll summarize them again here:

Look, nobody's putting a gun to your head (or anyone else's, for that matter) and making you buy a console. Chill out. Seriously. If people didn't think they were a good deal, they wouldn't vastly outsell PCs. That's the way a free market works.

Well, hopefully with XBox2 using WGF, and all the next-gen GPUs being a lot more like PC video cards (and with games running at similar resolutions), ports from those consoles will be smoother than console ports in the past. But basically the only way to make what you're asking for happen is to rewrite the game engines and rework the art assets completely for every platform, which is not realistic (as it would at least double/triple development and testing time).

Even if future ports are smoother, within 1-2 years of the xbox2's & ps3's releases game developers will have to hold back and games will look nowhere near as good as they could for a PC for the next 3-4 years, until the xbox3 & ps4.

If your argument is "games would look better if they only had to be made for one platform", then yes, that is true. And yes, the PC is currently the best(-looking) game platform available -- although it is also so expensive at the high end that if it was the only gaming platform available, the gaming industry as a whole would be a lot smaller.

Ports from a less powerful/capable system will never look/play as good as native titles on the better system. But unless the gaming industry settles on a single platform (unlikely to happen soon for a number of reasons, plus such a situation would likely result in hardware stagnation due to monopolistic effects and so is probably not a good idea), it's just something you will have to deal with. Whining about it does not help, and just antagonizes people.

I never said that consoles were the "best" solution, or were better than the PC, just that many people seem to find them worth the amount of money that they retail for. Ridiculing people because they have different tastes or find value in different things than yourself is foolish at best.

You also might find this book interesting.

 

[Fern]

Who else won't be buying the Xbox 360?

I don't intend to buy one.

I've never had an urge to get a console. I believe the PC route is cheaper in the long run for me. That could change if I had access to reasonably priced console games. I also don't have a great TV. I think I'd want an HDTV if I got a new XBox.

If I was a non-PC enthusiast I'd prolly have a console though. I imagine many parants who are PC illiterate have probs when junior gets a new PC game. What with dealing with the minimum specs, game gfx settings, patches etc. See it on the game site forums all the time.

But I'm glad they're elevating the level of tech in the consoles, I think it'll translate into better gfx across the board. At least future "console ports to pc's" will have better gfx and hopefully bigger maps.

Fern

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You're saying a PC can't play a racing game?

Point a racing game out on the PC that is close to as good as GT4 or Forza.

You're missing my point. There's no reason the PC can't handle any type of any game better than consoles. Many games/genres are only available on consoles (or are better on consoles) because without that manufactured need for consoles, people might only buy a PC instead of a console or two and a PC. They're swinging people around by the sac and people just lap it up with a stupid look on their face and maybe a "ur dummyhed lololol" for anyone who tries pointing it out to them. I'm waiting for the day when each game will require its own console... I'd put money on fanboys justifying it by saying the console is tweaked for that game in particular, and of course, backing this up with the gratuitous insults & namecalling that already make up such a large chunk of their argument.

So instead of "bending over" you decided to not play these games? That...is simply astounding. You are so wise Gurck, so wise....:laugh:

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Look, nobody's putting a gun to your head (or anyone else's, for that matter) and making you buy a console. Chill out. Seriously. If people didn't think they were a good deal, they wouldn't vastly outsell PCs. That's the way a free market works.

Well, hopefully with XBox2 using WGF, and all the next-gen GPUs being a lot more like PC video cards (and with games running at similar resolutions), ports from those consoles will be smoother than console ports in the past. But basically the only way to make what you're asking for happen is to rewrite the game engines and rework the art assets completely for every platform, which is not realistic (as it would at least double/triple development and testing time).

I've already responded to these. In fact you quoted my response to the second one below.

Even if future ports are smoother, within 1-2 years of the xbox2's & ps3's releases game developers will have to hold back and games will look nowhere near as good as they could for a PC for the next 3-4 years, until the xbox3 & ps4.

If your argument is "games would look better if they only had to be made for one platform", then yes, that is true. And yes, the PC is currently the best(-looking) game platform available -- although it is also so expensive at the high end that if it was the only gaming platform available, the gaming industry as a whole would be a lot smaller.

Ports from a less powerful/capable system will never look/play as good as native titles on the better system. But unless the gaming industry settles on a single platform (unlikely to happen soon for a number of reasons, plus such a situation would likely result in hardware stagnation due to monopolistic effects and so is probably not a good idea), it's just something you will have to deal with. Whining about it does not help, and just antagonizes people.

The gaming industry might not settle on a single platform, but I think it's safe to say that, as people get even dumber, PC gaming will finish the slow death it's currently experiencing. I disagree about hardware stagnation; I think that, as we move toward seperate consoles for each specific game, consoles will adopt the competitions between ATI & Nvidia, Intel & AMD, etc. from PC gaming.

Anyone with an opinion different from yours is whining? From wingz, it was expected... how old are you?

I never said that consoles were the "best" solution, or were better than the PC, just that many people seem to find them worth the amount of money that they retail for. Ridiculing people because they have different tastes or find value in different things than yourself is foolish at best.

I'm not ridiculing anyone for having differing tastes, rather for being victims & propagators of FUD about PCs. Ask the average Joe why he'd rather game on a console than a PC, you'll get mostly "PCs cost $3k & must be upgraded every 6 months", which is entirely untrue.

You also might find this book interesting.

Can write a book on anything, just because you agree with one doesn't mean jack. Example: the world's top bestseller.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck
I've already responded to these. In fact you quoted my response to the second one below.

Okay, I guess you have nothing further to add there.

The gaming industry might not settle on a single platform, but I think it's safe to say that, as people get even dumber, PC gaming will finish the slow death it's currently experiencing.

You have, again, implicitly assumed that people who choose to purchase game consoles instead of a gaming PC are "dumb". Being a little more open-minded wouldn't hurt. PC gaming has issues right now because of a high entry cost and a lack of innovation (IMO).

I disagree about hardware stagnation; I think that, as we move toward seperate consoles for each specific game, consoles will adopt the competitions between ATI & Nvidia, Intel & AMD, etc. from PC gaming.

I still don't understand -- at all -- where you're getting this "consoles for each specific game" idea from. If anything, console releases seem to be getting further apart, as the designs have gotten so complex that the companies can't release new systems all the time.

With limited exceptions, people are not going to shell out for $100+ worth of hardware for one specific game. You have to really have a 'killer app' type of game to make people spend that kind of money -- Microsoft managed it to some extent with Halo on the XBox, but I don't know how many people would have spent $200-300 for one on launch if you told them that would be the only XBox game.

Also, console makers thus far have been making little to no money (and in some cases, losing money) on the hardware and making up for it with royalties on the software, peripheral sales, etc. For them to turn a profit on hardware -- especially game-specific hardware, which would have a much smaller number of units produced -- they would have to raise prices considerably, which is very hard to do in a competitive marketplace. IMO, the only way someone could get away with that is if they had a monopoly on the hardware market (which seems unlikely to occur).

Anyone with an opinion different from yours is whining? From wingz, it was expected... how old are you?

You're whining. Feel free to disagree with me if you can do it without insulting people and repeating the same thing over and over.

I never said that consoles were the "best" solution, or were better than the PC, just that many people seem to find them worth the amount of money that they retail for. Ridiculing people because they have different tastes or find value in different things than yourself is foolish at best.

I'm not ridiculing anyone for having differing tastes, rather for being victims & propagators of FUD about PCs.

You haven't seemed to draw much distinction. It certainly seems in this thread and others that you are basically attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your position that consoles are horrible.

Ask the average Joe why he'd rather game on a console than a PC, you'll get mostly "PCs cost $3k & must be upgraded every 6 months", which is entirely untrue.

There is a higher cost of entry into the PC gaming market right now -- I don't think you can really dispute that. If you don't own a PC (or you own one but it's so old you can't upgrade it anymore), and don't have the desire and know-how to build one yourself, you're going to spend at least $1000 plus the cost of a monitor to get a modern, upgradable gaming system. Even with the know-how, it's gonna be at least $500-600 (assuming you need a new MB/CPU/RAM/video card). And that's at the low end of gaming PCs these days.

You also need Internet service -- preferably broadband -- to really get the most out of it (another $20-50 a month in most areas). And you will need to upgrade it to continue being able to play the latest games -- not every 6 months, if you pick the right components to begin with -- but you never have to upgrade a console (unless you choose to buy a new or different one). Barring your position that eventually you will have to upgrade your console for every new game, that is.

There's also not a huge pricing difference in the games -- new PC titles usually cost $40-50, just like console games. If PCs cost more but the games were $10 each, then there would be an economic advantage there. But currently, I'm not seeing it. PCs have a higher cost of entry, require more maintainence/upkeep, and you don't save much (if anything) on the games.

Of course, on the flip side, a PC is much more capable than a game console, and you can argue that it gives a richer gaming experience (better graphics/sound, much better online play, far superior interface for some types of games).

You also might find this book interesting.

Can write a book on anything, just because you agree with one doesn't mean jack. Example: the world's top bestseller.

Sorry for trying to intrude a new idea on your worldview. I thought maybe you were interesting in looking at other people's points of view. You can put your head back in the sand now. :roll:

Oh, I'm 23, by the way. Thanks for asking.

 

[Trey22]

Will never buy a console.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
You have, again, implicitly assumed that people who choose to purchase game consoles instead of a gaming PC are "dumb". Being a little more open-minded wouldn't hurt. PC gaming has issues right now because of a high entry cost and a lack of innovation (IMO).

I've assumed nothing. Many, many people here on AT have given the $3k/6months argument. This is a PC-focused tech site; it stands to reason that the masses are far less computer-savvy, thus more likely to make this argument

I still don't understand -- at all -- where you're getting this "consoles for each specific game" idea from. If anything, console releases seem to be getting further apart, as the designs have gotten so complex that the companies can't release new systems all the time.

With limited exceptions, people are not going to shell out for $100+ worth of hardware for one specific game. You have to really have a 'killer app' type of game to make people spend that kind of money -- Microsoft managed it to some extent with Halo on the XBox, but I don't know how many people would have spent $200-300 for one on launch if you told them that would be the only XBox game.

It'll happen because people will pay it. It's only a matter of time until business catches on and exploits this niche.

Also, console makers thus far have been making little to no money (and in some cases, losing money) on the hardware and making up for it with royalties on the software, peripheral sales, etc. For them to turn a profit on hardware -- especially game-specific hardware, which would have a much smaller number of units produced -- they would have to raise prices considerably, which is very hard to do in a competitive marketplace. IMO, the only way someone could get away with that is if they had a monopoly on the hardware market (which seems unlikely to occur).

All the more reason to do it. I never said these game-specific consoles will be cutting-edge. Rather, they might do this toward the middle or end of a console cycle (ie. 3-4 years after a big release such as the xbox2 or ps3) with cheaper hardware.

You're whining. Feel free to disagree with me if you can do it without insulting people and repeating the same thing over and over.

:laugh: In the same sentence as an insult, and after you've repeated points you'd made which I had already responded to... this has got to set some kind of new record for hypocrisy, one moment while I call Guinness

There is a higher cost of entry into the PC gaming market right now -- I don't think you can really dispute that. If you don't own a PC (or you own one but it's so old you can't upgrade it anymore), and don't have the desire and know-how to build one yourself, you're going to spend at least $1000 plus the cost of a monitor to get a modern, upgradable gaming system. Even with the know-how, it's gonna be at least $500-600 (assuming you need a new MB/CPU/RAM/video card). And that's at the low end of gaming PCs these days.

What would it cost if consoles didn't exist or weren't as popular? People want to game, and PCs would fill the role (and far better than consoles ever could, I might add). Economics of scale would lower that figure dramatically, much as they have for PCs vs. Macs.

You also need Internet service -- preferably broadband -- to really get the most out of it (another $20-50 a month in most areas). And you will need to upgrade it to continue being able to play the latest games -- not every 6 months, if you pick the right components to begin with -- but you never have to upgrade a console (unless you choose to buy a new or different one). Barring your position that eventually you will have to upgrade your console for every new game, that is.

- Current & future consoles require the same internet access you're listing as a downside to PC gaming
- Depends on playstyle, I personally don't play any games online
- Internet access is useful for far more than simply playing games

There's also not a huge pricing difference in the games -- new PC titles usually cost $40-50, just like console games. If PCs cost more but the games were $10 each, then there would be an economic advantage there. But currently, I'm not seeing it. PCs have a higher cost of entry, require more maintainence/upkeep, and you don't save much (if anything) on the games.

The upper range of PC game prices approaches the more standardized console game price, and the faster advancement means PC games only 1-2 years old can be had for a steal out of the bargain bin.

Sorry for trying to intrude a new idea on your worldview.

Interesting, my stated opinion is whining, yours is a kindhearted attempt to expose others to new ideas :laugh:

Oh, I'm 23, by the way.

It shows

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Gurck

There is a higher cost of entry into the PC gaming market right now -- I don't think you can really dispute that. If you don't own a PC (or you own one but it's so old you can't upgrade it anymore), and don't have the desire and know-how to build one yourself, you're going to spend at least $1000 plus the cost of a monitor to get a modern, upgradable gaming system. Even with the know-how, it's gonna be at least $500-600 (assuming you need a new MB/CPU/RAM/video card). And that's at the low end of gaming PCs these days.

What would it cost if consoles didn't exist or weren't as popular? People want to game, and PCs would fill the role (and far better than consoles ever could, I might add). Economics of scale would lower that figure dramatically, much as they have for PCs vs. Macs.

So, are you really saying that if gamers had less options (PC only) that PC prices would come down? Both hardware and software?

As for your one game per console theory... I have no idea what evidence you have to support this. Like I said before, there have been multiple consoles out there, each with exclusive titles, as long as modern PC gaming has been around. There has been no data to show a trend towards your theory. So, what makes you think this is probable?

I think it's safe to say that a majority of people on this board are PC saavy, and fully understand what the PC has to offer. Yet there are so many who enjoy gaming on a console as well. You've said that one of the main reasons consoles are so popular is because of the "FUD" surrounding how much a PC costs. Now, why do you think many of the people on this board who have a PC capable of gaming, still choose to spend at least some of their time gaming on consoles?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Matthias99
You have, again, implicitly assumed that people who choose to purchase game consoles instead of a gaming PC are "dumb". Being a little more open-minded wouldn't hurt. PC gaming has issues right now because of a high entry cost and a lack of innovation (IMO).

I've assumed nothing. Many, many people here on AT have given the $3k/6months argument. This is a PC-focused tech site; it stands to reason that the masses are far less computer-savvy, thus more likely to make this argument

I think the argument that PCs have a higher cost of entry and require upgrades and maintainence is a compelling one, and you haven't really said much against it. $3000 initially and a major upgrade every 6 months is extreme, but $1500 and a few hundred dollars every 12 months is probably realistic at this point.

I still don't understand -- at all -- where you're getting this "consoles for each specific game" idea from. If anything, console releases seem to be getting further apart, as the designs have gotten so complex that the companies can't release new systems all the time.

With limited exceptions, people are not going to shell out for $100+ worth of hardware for one specific game. You have to really have a 'killer app' type of game to make people spend that kind of money -- Microsoft managed it to some extent with Halo on the XBox, but I don't know how many people would have spent $200-300 for one on launch if you told them that would be the only XBox game.

It'll happen because people will pay it. It's only a matter of time until business catches on and exploits this niche.

But people won't pay it, at least not very often. If they charge more per game (either directly, or indirectly by having mandatory hardware upgrades), people will buy fewer games. If they try to increase profits by making the hardware more expensive, they will sell fewer systems unless they compensate by lowering game prices. And with three major players in the console arena, there's too much competitive pressure for any one of them to raise prices significantly.

Also, console makers thus far have been making little to no money (and in some cases, losing money) on the hardware and making up for it with royalties on the software, peripheral sales, etc. For them to turn a profit on hardware -- especially game-specific hardware, which would have a much smaller number of units produced -- they would have to raise prices considerably, which is very hard to do in a competitive marketplace. IMO, the only way someone could get away with that is if they had a monopoly on the hardware market (which seems unlikely to occur).

All the more reason to do it. I never said these game-specific consoles will be cutting-edge. Rather, they might do this toward the middle or end of a console cycle (ie. 3-4 years after a big release such as the xbox2 or ps3) with cheaper hardware.

And you think people will pay, effectively, 3-4 times as much per game and buy the same number of games because?

You're whining. Feel free to disagree with me if you can do it without insulting people and repeating the same thing over and over.

:laugh: In the same sentence as an insult, and after you've repeated points you'd made which I had already responded to... this has got to set some kind of new record for hypocrisy, one moment while I call Guinness

I repeated my points because you never addressed most of them. And yes, I felt you were whining earlier in this thread and in others.

There is a higher cost of entry into the PC gaming market right now -- I don't think you can really dispute that. If you don't own a PC (or you own one but it's so old you can't upgrade it anymore), and don't have the desire and know-how to build one yourself, you're going to spend at least $1000 plus the cost of a monitor to get a modern, upgradable gaming system. Even with the know-how, it's gonna be at least $500-600 (assuming you need a new MB/CPU/RAM/video card). And that's at the low end of gaming PCs these days.

What would it cost if consoles didn't exist or weren't as popular? People want to game, and PCs would fill the role (and far better than consoles ever could, I might add). Economics of scale would lower that figure dramatically, much as they have for PCs vs. Macs.

I'm not talking about some hypothetical situation here. Plus, why do you contend that 'console' gaming hardware makers would jack up prices and screw the consumer, but somehow 'pc' gaming hardware makers would "dramatically" lower prices? Wouldn't they start doing the same things as the console manufacturers (such as making you buy different video cards to play different games)?

Game consoles are already cheap because they benefit from economies of scale. Prices are driven even lower because of competition and (to some extent) loss-leader sales tactics (the old Gillette model -- sell 'em a razor cheap, and then make the money on the blades).

You also need Internet service -- preferably broadband -- to really get the most out of it (another $20-50 a month in most areas). And you will need to upgrade it to continue being able to play the latest games -- not every 6 months, if you pick the right components to begin with -- but you never have to upgrade a console (unless you choose to buy a new or different one). Barring your position that eventually you will have to upgrade your console for every new game, that is.

- Current & future consoles require the same internet access you're listing as a downside to PC gaming

Today's consoles certainly don't "require" it, not to the extent a PC does. Maybe the next round will be more focused on online play; I don't know. I don't use online connectivity with my consoles, nor do I feel I'm really missing out on anything.

- Depends on playstyle, I personally don't play any games online

I guess you don't like having patches or driver updates, either.

- Internet access is useful for far more than simply playing games

As is a PC as a whole. If it wasn't, nobody would buy them.

There's also not a huge pricing difference in the games -- new PC titles usually cost $40-50, just like console games. If PCs cost more but the games were $10 each, then there would be an economic advantage there. But currently, I'm not seeing it. PCs have a higher cost of entry, require more maintainence/upkeep, and you don't save much (if anything) on the games.

The upper range of PC game prices approaches the more standardized console game price, and the faster advancement means PC games only 1-2 years old can be had for a steal out of the bargain bin.

I get most of my console games from Gamefly and Gamestop for under $20, and most are only a year or two old. Game prices on both platforms are comparable whether or not you live at the cutting edge. Being able to rent console games is (IMO) another advantage, although demos are also available for many PC games, which sort of balances out.

Sorry for trying to intrude a new idea on your worldview.

Interesting, my stated opinion is whining, yours is a kindhearted attempt to expose others to new ideas :laugh:

I recommended a book that influenced my view on this matter. I honestly thought you (and others) might be interested in it.

Oh, I'm 23, by the way.

It shows

Ah, I figured you'd have a pithy insult to throw in response to that. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Darkon]

Holy fvcking christ guys specs for Playstation 3 have been announced It does 2,18 teraflops

 

[Baked]

People "buy" games for their XBox? I thought they just rent and copy.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck

There is a higher cost of entry into the PC gaming market right now -- I don't think you can really dispute that. If you don't own a PC (or you own one but it's so old you can't upgrade it anymore), and don't have the desire and know-how to build one yourself, you're going to spend at least $1000 plus the cost of a monitor to get a modern, upgradable gaming system. Even with the know-how, it's gonna be at least $500-600 (assuming you need a new MB/CPU/RAM/video card). And that's at the low end of gaming PCs these days.

What would it cost if consoles didn't exist or weren't as popular? People want to game, and PCs would fill the role (and far better than consoles ever could, I might add). Economics of scale would lower that figure dramatically, much as they have for PCs vs. Macs.

So, are you really saying that if gamers had less options (PC only) that PC prices would come down? Both hardware and software?

As for your one game per console theory... I have no idea what evidence you have to support this. Like I said before, there have been multiple consoles out there, each with exclusive titles, as long as modern PC gaming has been around. There has been no data to show a trend towards your theory. So, what makes you think this is probable?

I think it's safe to say that a majority of people on this board are PC saavy, and fully understand what the PC has to offer. Yet there are so many who enjoy gaming on a console as well. You've said that one of the main reasons consoles are so popular is because of the "FUD" surrounding how much a PC costs. Now, why do you think many of the people on this board who have a PC capable of gaming, still choose to spend at least some of their time gaming on consoles?

PC doesn't mean less options, it means choices. When was the last time you got to choose which chip/gpu went in your console? Prices would certainly come down, due to economics of scale.

It's nothing specific to consoles which suggests they'll move to a console-per-game model, but rather a trend in business. We already have access to the things we need, there are few if any real fronteirs left for business to explore. Rather, it has adapted to our current world by filling in niches, and creating them when there are none, as we've seen with consoles. It's actually not at all dissimilar to mafia protection rackets. People have shown they're willing to pay any price for anything (check some of the ebay threads in OT, some guy sold an empty envelope for nearly $10k USD). Business just needs to exploit this trait, it's not a matter of if, but when.

I'd like to think people on this board are tech savvy, but reading so many pro-console posts here making the $3k/6months argument, often in threads where a previous post refuted it (ie. they didn't even read the thread before responding ), has shown me the average "computer IQ" here might not be nearly as high as I'd thought. People with capable gaming PCs who own consoles are unprincipled. You could probably take air away from them and start charging them to breathe, and they wouldn't utter a word about it. They might even defend the megacorporations behind the air cartel on internet message boards

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Gurck
I'd like to think people on this board are tech savvy, but reading so many pro-console posts, often in threads where a previous post refuted it (ie. they didn't even read the thread before responding ), has shown me the average "computer IQ" here might not be nearly as high as I'd thought. People with capable gaming PCs who own consoles are unprincipled. I'd think you could take air away from them and start charging them to breathe, and they wouldn't utter a word about it. They might even defend the megacorporations behind the air cartel on internet message boards

Ok, let's take me as an example.

I own three very capable PC's. (3.0ghz, 3.6ghz, and 3.6ghz... All with 1gb of PC3200 and 9800 PROs.) I also own all three of the latest consoles.
I do game on the PC, WoW is my current favorite. But I also game on the consoles. Forza Motorsport, God of War, RE4, etc.

I am obviously quite capable of understanding what PC's have to offer, so why do you suppose I choose to spend much of my gaming time on a console?

 

[0roo0roo]

still being gurcked i see.
the conomies of scale are already working for consoles. single platform = less development costs spent to make software work on a wide variety of configurations. making lots of one thing is certainly easier than making a wide variety. being able to choose your gpu on the console would destroy all that. its like choosing which company makes the laser in your cd player, a total waste of time.

and ebay? oh come on..those are the exception to the rule, that is why they are talked about. people aren't willing to pay any price for anything...sorry, the market isn't that stupid. if that were true no company would go out of business, and no product would be a failure. and no..if anythings becoming a niche market, its pc gaming, not consoles.

and no one is talking about 3k/6months here..atleast not seriously besides the straw man u like taking whacks at. but simply if you really want to keep up or beat consoles and play the latest games at high settings you must spend quite a bit. theres no way around it. and no, playing wow on your old sh*t card at 25fps like gurck doesn't count. you haven't saved money, you've sacrificed quality..and lowered your standards. thats just sad. such low standards while you bash away at the consoles supposed inferiority as if you hold the high ground. either you are just too poor to buy this pc superiority or too cheap, either way it damages your whole arguement over the undeniable supiority of pc's when you can't seem to partake in its advantages yourself.

t, often in threads where a previous post refuted it (ie. they didn't even read the thread before responding ), has shown me the average "computer IQ" here might not be nearly as high as I'd thought. People with capable gaming PCs who own consoles are unprincipled. You could probably take air away from them and start charging them to breathe, and they wouldn't utter a word about it. They might even defend the megacorporations behind the air cartel on internet message boards

could you be any more of a computer snob? to continuously upgrade and do your own pc tinkering you sink totals of hundreds of hours into reading reviews/how to's and installing/reinstalling software hardware etc. that is a high price to pay, but many of us do it for fun and thats fine. but not being able to see that for what it is ...is just sad. there are console games that are never going to be on pc's..and other games that are great for when people come over.(most people don't carry their pc's around...just a reality check for gurck) those are perfectly good reasons to get a console when you've already got a pc. and seriously..talking about mega corporations when you keep sinking money into the pc microsoft monopoly? just stfu really.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I think the argument that PCs have a higher cost of entry and require upgrades and maintainence is a compelling one, and you haven't really said much against it. $3000 initially and a major upgrade every 6 months is extreme, but $1500 and a few hundred dollars every 12 months is probably realistic at this point.

Closer to ~$800-$1k initially (lower if you already have a monitor and/or other peripherals) and $50 or so a year. What's an HDTV go for again?

But people won't pay it, at least not very often. If they charge more per game (either directly, or indirectly by having mandatory hardware upgrades), people will buy fewer games. If they try to increase profits by making the hardware more expensive, they will sell fewer systems unless they compensate by lowering game prices. And with three major players in the console arena, there's too much competitive pressure for any one of them to raise prices significantly.

They won't? I've thought that a lot about people thoughout my life... "They won't listen to Linkin Park enough for them to be around after this radio single" .. "They won't keep watching MTV if it stays this bad or gets worse" .. "They won't watch reality TV enough for it to become popular" ... I've been brutally wrong. It's tempting to assume others are like ourselves, thus intelligent people will assume intelligence of others... but it's a trap. If nothing else, our species has proven that it'll get used to just about anything and that there are no limits to the depths of potential stupidity.

And you think people will pay, effectively, 3-4 times as much per game and buy the same number of games because?

At first? Probably not, it might start out as $99 packages and creep up from there.

I repeated my points because you never addressed most of them. And yes, I felt you were whining earlier in this thread and in others.
I recommended a book that influenced my view on this matter. I honestly thought you (and others) might be interested in it.

Pretty easy & simplistic, anyone who disagrees with you is whining, if someone refutes your points, just ignore them, everything you do is helpful & beneficial... This isn't P&N, a little accountability here would be nice...

I'm not talking about some hypothetical situation here. Plus, why do you contend that 'console' gaming hardware makers would jack up prices and screw the consumer, but somehow 'pc' gaming hardware makers would "dramatically" lower prices? Wouldn't they start doing the same things as the console manufacturers (such as making you buy different video cards to play different games)?

Game consoles are already cheap because they benefit from economies of scale. Prices are driven even lower because of competition and (to some extent) loss-leader sales tactics (the old Gillette model -- sell 'em a razor cheap, and then make the money on the blades).

I'm not claiming they're jacking up prices, I'm questioning the need for them in the first place. In typical fashion for modern-day businesses, makers have strongarmed their way to profits. There was no need, so they manufactured the need. "But we can play these games on a PC" was answered with licensing to keep many games exclusive to consoles, at least for a set amount of time.

I guess you don't like having patches or driver updates, either.

This is the only legitimate argument for a PC needing internet service where a console doesn't, and it hardly requires broadband.

Oh, I'm 23, by the way.

It shows

Ah, I figured you'd have a pithy insult to throw in response to that. Thanks for proving me right.

Just calling it as I see it. Rare is the ~20 year old who doesn't think he knows everything there is to know in the world, and rarer yet is the one who knows anything at all...

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You're saying a PC can't play a racing game?

Point a racing game out on the PC that is close to as good as GT4 or Forza.

You're missing my point. There's no reason the PC can't handle any type of any game better than consoles. Many games/genres are only available on consoles (or are better on consoles) because without that manufactured need for consoles, people might only buy a PC instead of a console or two and a PC. They're swinging people around by the sac and people just lap it up with a stupid look on their face and maybe a "ur dummyhed lololol" for anyone who tries pointing it out to them. I'm waiting for the day when each game will require its own console... I'd put money on fanboys justifying it by saying the console is tweaked for that game in particular, and of course, backing this up with the gratuitous insults & namecalling that already make up such a large chunk of their argument.

So... Somehow you are personally insulted by the consoles. And the true reason you don't like them is that you don't like the large corporations Sony and Microsoft. Although, I'm not sure why you haven't brought up Nintendo. Interesting.

You are right about one thing... If the PC offered a better racing game than the ones mentioned, I'd buy it. Unfortunately, I live in the real world and realize that there isn't one.

So, rather than limit my experiences and be angry because of what "could be" or "only if"... I choose to enjoy myself in actuality.

And it is also interesting how put down others for "insults and namecalling", yet you participate in the practice just as much. If that's not irrational, I'm not sure what is.

Consoles simply dont have to deal with the level of software piracy that is rampant on the PC, lets face it, PC users are technically savvy and wont pay for something if they know they can get it for free. The ease of which you can get something for free for the PC has grown infinitely since broadband became widespread. Bittorrent and other services (newsgroups) are havens for free - two click and it's cracked, software.

The reason why consoles exist is to protect and limit the amount of piracy that goes on, the reason why PC games sales have stayed flat is because good developers abandoned the PC for consoles for better sales and less piracy.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: xts3
Consoles simply dont have to deal with the level of software piracy that is rampant on the PC, lets face it, PC users are technically savvy and wont pay for something if they know they can get it for free. The ease of which you can get something for free for the PC has grown infinitely since broadband became widespread. Bittorrent and other services (newsgroups) are havens for free - two click and it's cracked, software.

The reason why consoles exist is to protect and limit the amount of piracy that goes on, the reason why PC games sales have stayed flat is because good developers abandoned the PC for consoles for better sales and less piracy.

I dunno... console modding is a pretty big business. Have any links to numbers or the industry's take on it as it relates to consoles vs. PCs?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck
I'd like to think people on this board are tech savvy, but reading so many pro-console posts, often in threads where a previous post refuted it (ie. they didn't even read the thread before responding ), has shown me the average "computer IQ" here might not be nearly as high as I'd thought. People with capable gaming PCs who own consoles are unprincipled. I'd think you could take air away from them and start charging them to breathe, and they wouldn't utter a word about it. They might even defend the megacorporations behind the air cartel on internet message boards

Ok, let's take me as an example.

I own three very capable PC's. (3.0ghz, 3.6ghz, and 3.6ghz... All with 1gb of PC3200 and 9800 PROs.) I also own all three of the latest consoles.
I do game on the PC, WoW is my current favorite. But I also game on the consoles. Forza Motorsport, God of War, RE4, etc.

I am obviously quite capable of understanding what PC's have to offer, so why do you suppose I choose to spend much of my gaming time on a console?

As I've said, I see those in your position as unprincipled. It's why I made the car analogy & asked about it, it's why I've said you probably wouldn't bat an eye at being charged for breatheable oxygen.

 

[aidanjm]

I'd like to know how they can offer that level of hardware sophistication for such a low price

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I'd like to know how they can offer that level of hardware sophistication for such a low price

As has been gone over ad nauseum in this and the other 5,292,253 threads on the xbox, it's a combination of economics of scale and the fact that they sell them at a loss, recouping money on games & licensing.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Gurck
As I've said, I see those in your position as unprincipled.

Unprincipled? Are you serious?

So, your whole issue is that you are pouting because developers sometimes choose to develop for the console instead of the PC?

What other facets of this life does this same "principle" affect for you? Because, all over this society there are choices to be made in what products you select, based on what they have to offer.