If geeks love it, we’re on it

Sorry, PCs! Consoles are the better deal

Sorry, PCs! Consoles are the better deal

Ed note: Our staffers don’t always agree on matters of the dollar, and we’re totally not above taking that fight out to the flagpole at 3:00. Today it’s on like Donkey Kong as Matt Jancaitis has a bone to pick with Cliff Forster’s “Forget the console…” op-ed published on Monday.

When you have to throw an arbitrary $400 price tag onto the cost of a 360 just to make your numbers work out, it kind of feels good to be a part of the console gaming world, doesn’t it?

My good friend Cliff based his argument that the PC is a better gaming value by — and I’m not making this up — adding a $400 price tag to the 360′s cost because “[e]veryone needs a computer.” Yessir, whether you want one or not, you’re getting a computer out of this deal. Ever a salesman, my friend Cliff is.

Examining the argument

What if a gamer has an aging computer? That PC is perfectly capable of handling email, web surfing, chat, Skype and even movies. It cannot, however, run Mass Effect or Dead Space. What’s a chap to do? Why, buy a brand new computer for $750, of course! “But wait,” I hear you thinking: “Why not just a $300 console that plays those games?”

“Why not?” is a fantastic question, and a scenario that Cliff doesn’t even pretend to ponder. If you’re into gaming, you must be buying a new computer right now. It doesn’t matter that you already has one that does almost everything you want; now you can have a second one that can do more, and for just over twice the price! Some value, right?

Cliff offers a blanket statement that, for the purposes of comparison, precludes the price of a TV and home theater equipment or, in the case of a PC, a monitor, speakers or headphones. Is that, however, a valid comparison? Consider the market: If you’re building a brand new gaming computer as Cliff is assuming you are, why would you have a spankin’ hot monitor or a great gaming headset already? Now continue to consider the market: How many people already have a TV? How many people have a TV and consider a home theater system a requirement to game on it? You can leave that cost out. The TV has speakers that are just fine for most.

Let’s pretend for fun that you’re a laptop user, and can do everything you want on it except game. You could get a $300 console that attaches to your current TV, or you could buy Cliff’s $750 PC hardware. Don’t forget to include the extra $200-$400 for a nice new monitor and a headset. Some value, right?

Cliff also proposes that “[e]ach platform should be viable for at least two years,” but omits the part where both Microsoft and Sony have pledged 10-year console life-cycles, which likely means five or six years of primary development. Over those 5-6 years, developers are tweaking their skills, improving their engines, and managing to pull more out of the console than when it first arrived. Some of the Playstation 2′s best titles launched in the console’s 10th year. Meanwhile, your 6-year-old-PC will be lucky to play a modern game at a fraction of the image quality settings it managed for titles six years ago. Some value, right?

Considering the costs of console ownership

Now let’s take a look at the cash flow for owning a console: Xbox Live’s cost? Sure, Live pricing is ostensibly $50 for 12 months, and it’s worse if you do it monthly, but let’s not ignore the frequent deals on 12+1 month cards that go for under $40.

How about game prices? I’ll admit that PC game prices frequently have the edge on consoles– $60 on console vs. $50 on PC. But when was the last time you tried selling a PC game back to a store for a partial refund? Oh, right. Nobody does that. You certainly can’t sell back your Steam purchases. Meanwhile, console gamers can pick up a used copy from eBay, Gamestop, or a friend’s place, pop it in their console, and play away. Some of the big used game retailers even let you return a game for a full refund within a few days of purchase. Not the game you wanted? Beat the game already? Get bored of the game already? Just take it back for a full reimbursement.

Even for new games, console gamers can eventually sell them off for somewhere between $4 and $45. They can turn around and immediately use those proceeds on a new game. If we pretend (conservatively) that a console gamer can reclaim 25% of a game’s initial purchase price with a trade-in, console games are suddenly $45, too.

In the interim, consolers don’t have to worry about activation, no-CD cracks, or if the game will even function correctly on their machine. Some value, right?

The gaming experience

That, of course, leads me to my next point: People buy consoles because they guarantee a consistent experience with every game, no matter who owns the console you’re playing on. There are no 1337 NICs or high-DPI mice that some pro can pwn you with. His GTX295 and Core i7 God-platform doesn’t mean instant death as soon as you try to load the round with your E8400 an 8800GT. No, everybody is using the same black box, and the only variable is the network connection. If Apple’s growing market share is teaching us anything, it’s that consumers like things that they perceive to just work. You never have to worry if an Xbox 360 game will run suitably on your 360. It’s guaranteed to.

I’ll even go ahead and nitpick at the gas cost analysis. If a console gamer is really concerned about it, plenty of retailers like Best Buy, Amazon, and Gamestop, offer release day delivery (often free, particularly in Amazon’s case) for new games. This reduces the consumer’s gas cost to zero. The online purchase may even be tax-free (Ed note: lol use tax) if the company doesn’t have a warehouse in your state.

Running the final numbers

You can say the PC will get you a vastly superior visual experience, but I say my 65″ DLP TV has the final say in my household. When both the monitor and TV are 1080p, but one of them is deliciously huge, I see no reason to sit in front of a desk on the weekend when it’s what I do all week.

So, Cliff, let’s rework your numbers, shall we?

Consoles

  • $300 for console
  • $90 (conservatively) for two years of XBL (or free PSN)
  • $0 for a pre-existing, perfectly suitable computer
  • $675 for games (since we’re evening it out at $45 per title)
  • $50 for the occasional gas and taxes you might feel like expending taking a joyride to the store
  • $40 for DLC (I’ll give it to Cliff, the MS tax can screw some console gamers)
  • $0 for sitting on the couch!

Total: $1065-1155

Computers

  • $750 for hardware
  • $675 for games

Total: $1425.

Just to be a good sport, I’ll leave out the $250 upgrade to the processor/RAM/motherboard or GPU upgrades that gaming PCs need roughly every three years. You can factor that in if you want.

Long story short

Consoles offer a consistent experience to which everyone that owns one is entitled, a fantastic price point, and plenty of ways to save money. Console life cycles frequently last far longer than a competitive gaming machine, and the technology within console games continue to improve throughout that life cycle.

Tacking $400 onto the hardware’s price “because you’ve gotta have a PC,” over exaggerating console costs, and neglecting to account for the myriad cost-saving and cost-reclaiming options available to console gamers made your analysis wildly one-sided. Make your arguments about whether keyboard and mouse trump a gamepad or whether the community’s better on PC or console, but the price wars aren’t won yet.

Comments

  1. mas0n
    mas0n OK, but consoles are still totally ghey.
  2. kryyst
    kryyst It wouldn't be an expose from Snarkasm without the inherit snark.

    But I tend to fall into this camp so.... yeah.
  3. MAGIC
    MAGIC Me, I own a Playstation 3, and I own no games for it. It's tough to settle this argument on cost because people get more or less utility from PCs than they do from Consoles.

    Me I prefer the convenience of a gaming computer. All of my games are within mouse clicks so i don't have to bother with disks. Most games can be purchased online so I don't have to go looking around for games or being disapointed when its rented out at blockbuster. I can do work, play a game, ragequit, go back to work, get distracted by the internet, look at porn, play another game all from the same spot. You can't beat that value.

    And, keyboard/mouse is still, by far, the best game controler ever.
  4. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster Lets just first establish a fair ground rule. We should be talking about value as present tense going forward. We are here, Aug 12th 2009, we can make some educated guesses about what the future of each platform may bear, but nobody knows for certain.

    So if you are buying today, you are not getting a ten year cycle out of a 360. Mine did not get past the first ten months without a red ring, glad I had the Best Buy warranty at $129 to replace it (something I left out to be fair to consoles). And don't counter it with MS did the right thing and replaced them for free, because the average time from cardboard coffin to refurb is about eight weeks. Two months, no games because your poorly manufactured junker of a console failed, that's value!! Or you could add the $129 like I did to get a replacement plan. Either way 360 owners are getting hosed.

    You can't sell something back and not account for some kind of deficit. It's just not logical. I want to the flea market this weekend, I had a copy of Twilight Princess that it occurred to me that I would never, ever get to finish. I paid $50 for it, I sold it for $20 to recoup some expense. Snark, that is a $30 net loss, not a $30 game. Selling your games back at a fraction of what you paid for them is not adding any value for the consumer, especially when the games margins are so inflated, and the trade in value is so insultingly low. All you are doing is giving back content at a loss.

    Saying that that consoles don't have mishaps that destroy the user experience is just wrong. I can give you a hundred examples, but I will start with this recent bug destroying peoples Far Cry 2 game save files. Do these things happen a little less on console? Perhaps, but to suggest that consoles take you to this imaginary Utopia where bugs and crashes suddenly disappear is misleading.

    http://digihub.smh.com.au/node/316

    Oh, and people do need a PC. So, you have that existing $400 PC, fine, go buy a Radeon HD4770 which has fairly low requirements for power so it will work in most OEM systems and I promise you the visual experience will be at least on par with the aging consoles, and look you only spent $109.

    We could spin the numbers a million ways and never account for every scenario. What still holds true, no matter how you spin it, is that PC's for gaming are priced far more reasonable than they ever have been, and people should know so they can make an informed decision about how they want to game before they water down their experience on an aging piece of console hardware technology.
  5. MAGIC
  6. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx "Just to be a good sport, I’ll leave out the $250 upgrade to the processor/RAM/motherboard or GPU upgrades that gaming PCs need roughly every three years. You can factor that in if you want."

    I always hate this point. The fact is, if you're doing it right, you don't need this 'obligatory' upgrade. I built my PC in 07. I'm still playing every new game at maximum settings with no struggling. I know most PC gamers make upgrades like this regardless - not because they need to, but because they're tech enthusiasts.
  7. MAGIC
    MAGIC
    UPSLynx said:
    "Just to be a good sport, I’ll leave out the $250 upgrade to the processor/RAM/motherboard or GPU upgrades that gaming PCs need roughly every three years. You can factor that in if you want."

    I always hate this point. The fact is, if you're doing it right, you don't need this 'obligatory' upgrade. I built my PC in 07. I'm still playing every new game at maximum settings with no struggling. I know most PC gamers make upgrades like this regardless - not because they need to, but because they're tech enthusiasts.
    Recently there haven't been many new ground breaking engines that push hardware like cryENGINE and crytek did. For a while there with Doom 3, Farcry, and then Chrysis you really had to be the cutting edge of hardware to run those games at max settings. However, not so much in the last year or so.
  8. Thrax
    Thrax ^ Ding. Those games don't get made because they don't sell, now. But even so, 3-4 years out, that title will come out and you will need that upgrade.
  9. mas0n
    mas0n
    MAGIC said:
    Me I prefer the convenience of a gaming computer. All of my games are within mouse clicks so i don't have to bother with disks. Most games can be purchased online so I don't have to go looking around for games or being disapointed when its rented out at blockbuster. I can do work, play a game, ragequit, go back to work, get distracted by the internet, look at porn, play another game all from the same spot. You can't beat that value.

    And, keyboard/mouse is still, by far, the best game controler ever.

    This right here is why I don't care if my PC costs even 10 times as much as a console.

    Value is not purely a dollar sign and that is why this discussion has no end.
  10. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm If you're buying right now, Cliff, you're not getting any red rings of death - Jasper eliminated that little bug, so you can throw that little sticking point out. And Microsoft DID do right by consumers there, even if you don't like the timeline - RMAs for your computer hardware take multiple weeks as well (if you even qualify to get one). They recognized an issue with the hardware, extended the warranty, took a multiple-billion-dollar loss on it, and re-engineered it. Remember the last time something in PC hardware failed miserably resulting in ridiculously high return rates? Has nVidia fessed up to the die substrate failures yet?

    I'm similarly not sure where you're going with your deficit argument. If I buy a game for $60 and get $15 back for it on resale, that game was $45. Same thing for my next game. And my next game. And my PC ga- oh, wait. It may be a net loss, but it's the same net loss you proposed in your article. I'm really not sure how you can't call "getting money back on something" good for the consumer - since that's exactly what it is.

    You'll also note that I never once said console gaming was without bugs or crashes. What point did I make, Cliff? Console gaming is a consistent experience - you can reasonably expect everybody you're playing against online to be getting the same framerate, response time, and accuracy.

    Meanwhile, if you have that existing PC and you throw a honking graphics card in it, that's great - but maybe now you have a great graphics card with 2gb of RAM and a slow processor choking it up. What good has that done you? Now you need to spend more money to make your 4770 perform at its appropriate level. :p

    I have never - not once - said gaming PCs are too expensive. I build them routinely, and I know as well as you do what good cheap hardware is available. My point was simply that your methods getting to that point and coming up with those numbers was irresponsibly misleading, and doesn't take into account the primary situation faced by most gamers out there - they have a computer already.
    UPSLynx said:
    I always hate this point. The fact is, if you're doing it right, you don't need this 'obligatory' upgrade.
    What, if I might ask, was the cost of your full PC in 2007, Lynx? Does it currently run Crysis on high? Bioshock on high? Mass Effect on ultimate, or whatever the kids are calling it these days?

    Console gamers don't have to worry about what level of detail their computers can handle or their opponents are seeing. They see what everybody else does.

    As for you, Magic, I can't blame you not owning any games for the PS3... it's a pretty sad library.

    I own two consoles and a gaming computer, and find all three of them serving different purposes for me. My problem wasn't with your message, Cliff - it was with your argument.

    'Sides, you know that AMD rig won't last three years. :p
  11. Ryder
    Ryder I don't care about the cost.

    I have a PC, I am into PC's.. not Consoles. Used to have Nintendo 64 that is as far as I went.

    If I want to game it will be on my PC.
  12. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster Where exactly is that console version of Crysis anyway?? hmmmm.... where did I put it, oh that's right, it won't run on the 360 or PS3.

    Matt, lets be fair, you are right, over the two-three year period, there will be some scaling to do on the PC I built, but it will always provide a visual experience at least equal to what the 360 offers, and mostly better because of its superior DirectX 10.1 capable graphics hardware.

    http://img153.imageshack.us/i/crysis2008012117242433zu9.jpg/
  13. kryyst
    kryyst
    Snarkasm said:

    I'm similarly not sure where you're going with your deficit argument. If I buy a game for $60 and get $15 back for it on resale, that game was $45. Same thing for my next game. And my next game. And my PC ga- oh, wait. It may be a net loss, but it's the same net loss you proposed in your article. I'm really not sure how you can't call "getting money back on something" good for the consumer - since that's exactly what it is.
    That's not actually true. If you buy a PC game for $45 you still have that console game. If you buy a Console game for $60, turn around and sell it for $15. You no longer have that game. So that doesn't mean your net rice was $45, since you have nothing left to show for that $45. For your scenario to work the PC gamer would have to throw away his game.

    Even if we take that $15 and apply it as trade on the next purchase, then that game is not a $45 game, it is in fact now a $105 game since that's how much you've shelled out for what you currently have in hand.

    Where that resale value comes in is in that you are getting trade for a game you'd shelf and never play again. The pc game collects dust and you get some value back. You are recouping some of your loss.

    But the bigger point of console gaming is that you save money on being able to buy used games. That's where the savings come in, in buying a used game, not in selling a game.

    Just saying, for the point of clarification.
  14. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm I don't disagree with that point at all, Kryyst - you wouldn't consider selling a game back until you'll never want to play it again.

    Hey, Cliff - how much do you think it cost the guy in hardware to get that nice little screenshot? :p

    As Cliff has said, this argument isn't even touching whether you should buy one or the other - you're going to prefer what you're going to prefer. Even the people you game with can determine which console or PC you're buying. Our points were, respectively, to show that gaming PC's aren't as expensive anymore, but that consoles still offer a competitive (if not better) price, longevity, and consistency.
  15. shwaip
    shwaip A pc that can run crysis on ult-high-awesome is significantly more than $750, even now.
  16. MAGIC
    MAGIC Look at it as buy 5, get one free....

    Anyways, anybody who purchases a game at new retail cost is a fool when there are options such as gamefly and gamestop used games.
  17. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx I wasn't contributing to the argument, Snarky, I just hate that line. Everyone (especially the console specifics) fall back on that one ever. single. time.

    My PC cost ~$1000. It plays Crysis on very high. It plays bioshock on maximum with flying colors. Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, FEAR2, TF2, GRID, nothing gets passed me.

    Well, GTA4 does, but it's an awful port, and we've had that discussion before.

    I don't need an upgrade right now, and I'm at that 2-3 year threshold that everyone so enthusaistically talks about. I won't upgrade for at least a year, and even then I won't need to, but I will just because I want DX11.

    And that's the underlying point of all of this. We are enthusiasts, this whole discussion is pointless. None of us, none, will settle for the minimal, or most efficient. This is our hobby, our trade, and we'll take it to the maxiumum because that's what we do, it's what we're passionate about. I could PC game on a 17 inch CRT and crummy Apple earbuds that I have laying around for audio, and leftover Dell OEM keyboards that are PS2 interface. But I won't, because I love gaming and want the best experience. I'm going to buy a 22inch widescreen display, a digital, 500 watt 5.1 sound system, and backlit keyboard USB interface.

    It's exactly how a console gamer isn't going to play PS3 on a 20 inch CRT television with the built in speakers. They're going to buy a 40 inch plasma with HDMI cables, digital audio optical cabling to a 5.1 reciever output to a really nice sound system.

    The ground point is this - no one can make the argument that 'PC gaming is too expensive to get into' for two main reasons. 1. PC gaming is affordable as ever, and it holds the greatest value it ever has. 2. Console gamers, though entry level prices may be slightly less, will STILL pay lots of more in secondary costs to achieve the same level of clarity and experience that PC gamers are getting practically out of the box for their setups.

    Both sides of the fence will blow more and more money to make their own experiences better. And that is why it's a true hobbyist trade, and not a casual system.
  18. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm
    UPSLynx said:
    2. Console gamers, though entry level prices may be slightly less, will STILL pay lots of more in secondary costs to achieve the same level of clarity and experience that PC gamers are getting practically out of the box for their setups.
    Still going to need elaboration on that point. I had a nice TV and Z5500s set up as my home theater before I ever got a console, and I know there are people like me. What experience are you getting out of your PC that consolers need to pay for?
  19. Koreish
    Koreish It's time we settled this like men. Everyone grab your sharpest stick, IT'S TIME FOR WAAAAAAR!!!! Last man standing is right.
  20. MAGIC
    MAGIC ...or im right.
  21. Ryder
    Ryder THERE IS NO WRONG.

    You guys just like to argue.
  22. MAGIC
    MAGIC You're wrong. Get out of here.

    Gaming computers are better!
  23. Thrax
    Thrax I AM THE LAW.
  24. UPSLynx
    UPSLynx
    Snarkasm said:
    Still going to need elaboration on that point. I had a nice TV and Z5500s set up as my home theater before I ever got a console, and I know there are people like me. What experience are you getting out of your PC that consolers need to pay for?
    Re-read the first part of that post. we are an exclusive example. Most gamers don't have an extra set of Z-5500's lying around their house or a nice TV (HD or large format SD).

    IF you buy a console, you need extra fixings to crank it up to the HD presentation factor. I've seen so many people do it. It just becomes a cash dump. Like all serious gamers, it becomes a hobby, a cash dump.

    Oh, and you guys are still having to pay for online gaming. Archaic. (well, PS3 not entirely)

    PC's have been gaming at HD resolutions for a long long time now, and with digital displays being the defacto standard, you have HD gaming at time of purchase now. I don't believe HDTVs are standardized and affordable yet for the average household, upgrading is mandatory to achieve said HD.

    But again, it's still all pointless garbage for use to argue, because we are not like everyone else, and we don't generally care about affordable components or getting by with the minimum, because we never do.
  25. MAGIC
    MAGIC
    Thrax said:
    .
    That period means discussion over.
  26. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm (PS3 not at all - PSN is entirely free.)

    Just like you don't buy a PC only to game, you don't buy a TV only to game. Both are items you use otherwise. As monitor sizes move into TV-sized territory, it'll be entirely moot anyway - one stop display shopping.
  27. kryyst
    kryyst
    UPSLynx said:

    PC's have been gaming at HD resolutions for a long long time now, and with digital displays being the defacto standard, you have HD gaming at time of purchase now. I don't believe HDTVs are standardized and affordable yet for the average household, upgrading is mandatory to achieve said HD.
    The flaw in that though is that you don't need an HD tv to hook up your console. That 36" TV in the corner, that 17" pc monitor, they all do just fine. Buying a new console doesn't mean having to buy a new TV as well.
  28. GnomeQueen
    GnomeQueen Pardon me if this has already been said- I'm at work, and I don't have time to read all of the replies super closely- but I think a big part of the cost discussion here comes down to whether or not someone needs to buy a PC or not. When I built my gaming rig, I needed a PC, making building that computer cheaper for me than buying a console. If I had already had a working computer and just wanted to game, getting a console would be cheaper. It's all very subjective, and I think the core problem here is that everyone is determined to say that one is cheaper over the other, when really, that's rather subjective to each circumstance.

    In other news, I should probably hook up the XBox 360 thats been sitting in its box for 5 months in my room, eh?
  29. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm The core problem was that Cliff presumed anybody looking to game would need to buy a computer anyway - and he used that $400 price tag to prop up the argument that PC gaming was cheaper.
  30. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster The reason I left the home theater peripherals and monitor out of the equation in my original piece was because I felt it was actually unbalanced and unfair to the console to include them.

    An average sized 1080P capable HDTV is much more expensive than the 24" 1080P monitor I sit in front of. I think either way, the HD set is going to be desirable in most homes, gaming on it or not, and some kind of computer monitor, weather its attached to a laptop, or desktop PC is also going to be desirable. My point being, is having one, does not preclude most people from "needing" the other.

    I still stand by the need for a PC as a valid argument. You can debate my $400 stat to a small extent, but the point is that the console does not replace a persons requirement for a home computer. If you already have it, fine, upgrade it for less than a new console and the same argument still holds water.
  31. shwaip
    shwaip So I can upgrade my socket A + agp card machine which will run all non-game related tasks (that you claim i need) for less than the price of a console?
  32. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm I have a laptop that does everything I want for my standard computing tasks. Its integrated graphics will NEVER run a reasonable game. I should what - invest in a desktop replacement for $1k, or a gaming computer and monitor for $1-1.2k?

    People have different kinds of (and some people even have no) computers, Cliff. This is what's getting you in trouble with your analysis.
  33. Koreish
    Koreish Same could be said about TVs which is vital to your console argument.
  34. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm Correct - but the numbers say more people have TVs than have computers.
  35. mas0n
    mas0n
    Snarkasm said:
    I have a laptop that does everything I want for my standard computing tasks. Its integrated graphics will NEVER run a reasonable game.
    image

    WHAT NOW.
  36. lordbean
    lordbean
    RyderOCZ said:
    I don't care about the cost.

    I have a PC, I am into PC's.. not Consoles. Used to have Nintendo 64 that is as far as I went.

    If I want to game it will be on my PC.
    What he said.

    It's entirely possible consoles may be better value. I really think it depends how well you plan your PC upgrades.

    I'm an enthusiast, and my dollars are not always perfectly logically spent. However, I enjoy doing it. It's my way of life. If we define "value" as "enjoyment gained per dollar spent", I am quite certain my PC-spent dollars have more value for me than any dollars I could spend on a console.
  37. NiGHTS
    NiGHTS Wait did we discuss how the PC is a dying medium for games, yet?
  38. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster Nights,

    People have been declaring the death of PC gaming ever since the Dreamcast got online. PC is the worlds most accepted and widely available format for gaming. Games for windows are not going anywhere soon.
  39. NiGHTS
    NiGHTS MMORPGs for Windows, I think you mean.
  40. Koreish
    Koreish It was long though that a good RTS would never come out on console. Then big ol' EA comes along with their recently purchased Westwood Studios and bam two decent RTS on console followed by Bungie's Halo Wars. My point being that MMORPGs will not last forever on PC.

    I'm telling you guys 5-10 years from now we will no longer see exclusive titles. And it will come down to preference only. Controller vs. Keyboard/Mouse.
  41. Thrax
    Thrax Fine by me. I know which one wins. ;)
  42. rolleggroll
    rolleggroll
    Thrax said:
    Fine by me. I know which one wins. ;)
    Joysticks obviously!
  43. kryyst
    kryyst
    Koreish said:
    It was long though that a good RTS would never come out on console. Then big ol' EA comes along with their recently purchased Westwood Studios and bam two decent RTS on console followed by Bungie's Halo Wars. My point being that MMORPGs will not last forever on PC.

    I'm telling you guys 5-10 years from now we will no longer see exclusive titles. And it will come down to preference only. Controller vs. Keyboard/Mouse.
    MMORPG's are already launching on consoles. Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star Online and the new Champions MMO are all on consoles.
  44. MAGIC
    MAGIC If they released WoW or EQ2 for the PS3 along with a keyboard/mouse perif i would definetly buy it. The one thing that the console has on the pc is portability.
  45. QuadyTheTurnip
    QuadyTheTurnip I'm at work, so this thread is tl;dr.

    But I will say this. As a guy who has no money to buy a gaming PC or a console...

    SCREW YOU ALL.

    (Alternatively, shouldn't I be writing a "Portable gaming is teh winz" now? GAMEBOY FOREVAR)
  46. Hawk
    Hawk This has very good portability and plays all the latest games I want to play when I'm traveling/ away from home.
    Runs Crysis fluently on highest settings in turbo mode.
    Does well with multi-threaded apps too.
    Not to mention I use it for video calls, faxing, online banking & accounting.
    I bought it for business, but also chose the specifics for gaming, watching DVD's, streaming movies over the net, etc.
    We have not had a console since our Atari with 100+ games we got at a yard sale for $40 many moons ago.
    So I can't join you on which is better.
    Just that we prefer PC's for the multiple uses that we get out of them.

    image
    MSI GT725
    Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4G
    17" WSXGA+ screen
    4GB DDR2
    320GB Sata HD
    DVD Super Multi
    ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 / 512MB DDR3 VRAM
    Modem, Gigabit LAN and WLAN
  47. _k_
    _k_ wait why are we even talking about how cheap either item can be? I thought IC was a little more about go big or go home, where is :life: if we are just trying to be cheap
  48. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster _k_,

    I may be the riffraff responsible. I will say, I don't want to dissuade anyone from gaming no multiple platforms if they are fortunate enough to have the means. For some of us, we have to make some tough decisions based on the budget, and the fear of not being able to feed our kid next week. Trust me, I walk by PS3's all the time thinking "that would be so livin the icrontic life sitting next to my HDTV". Unfortunately I am left making some hard decisions and for me, PC offers a great value in comparison to a console.
  49. Koreish
    Koreish I'm :life: by going big for as little as possible.
  50. _k_
    _k_ Koreish gets what I really meant. That kind of thinking is whole reason ICHQ is HD now.
  51. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm mas0n, I said a reasonable game. ;D

    Hawk, the laptop's nice, but it needs a price to join in this argument - and the lowest price I can find online is around $1600.

    That's not helping the PC's argument, but it IS a nice piece of hardware.
  52. Hawk
    Hawk Sorry Snark,
    It was $1,350 at Newegg with Windows Vista Home Premium OS with the Win 7 upgrade option.
    It also included a laptop carrying case.
    A bunch of Software...
    MS office among other stuff.
  53. primesuspect
    primesuspect Wow. I go away for two days and .... THIS...

    <3
  54. Idiot_Slayer
    Idiot_Slayer lol the amount of RAAAGE in this thread makes me laugh.
    But _k_ (I can't believe I'm saying this) having this fight over monetary value is asinine. Preference for the most part has nothing to do with how much money we spend on our insane hobbies.
    I love PC because I love mouse and keyboard. That's that. It's not an argument. Its a fact. I was born on PC and I'll die on PC. Everything else is just splitting hairs.
  55. GHoosdum
    GHoosdum My previous laptop cost me $1600 new, and I used it for FOUR years. I downsized my desktop rig twice in that timeframe and three years into ownership of the laptop, I moved back to using it as my primary and only PC. It had a Mobility Radeon 9600 in it. I ran every game up to Oblivion, HL2, and TF2 just fine, once I got over the idea of playing "full settings ZOMG". I came to realize that a laptop was all I needed.

    My current laptop cost me $499. It has integrated graphics, a GeForce 8200M. By all benchmarks these integrated graphics outperform the old laptop's graphics card. Sure, maybe I miss the screen real estate of my last desktop's 23" LCD, but the fact that I have one PC that goes anywhere with me (and I've spent two weeks at home in the last two months) and does everything I ask it to do including play the occasional game of TF2 and even L4D really outweighs the need to spend money upgrading all the time.

    I also own a 360. I bought it on a winter clearance deal from Dell at 20% off, I got the first Jasper arcade edition so I can avoid RRODs. I spent $40 on a refurb 20GB HDD and second controller kit from Circuit City, and another $40 on a 12+1 month Gold Xbox Live sub. All told I'm into the Xbox hardware and subscription for about $240. I only use it to play social games... I don't think my mind could even encompass using anything but a keyboard and mouse to play an FPS.

    With everything, I've spent about $740 in hardware between the laptop and the 360, and I can game for the next year. Another $40 and I get a second year. Add the cost of the games I've purchased in the past year and we're maybe hitting $900.

    How does that $900 stack up against the dollar charts you guys came up with in your articles?

    It doesn't matter.

    Every user's situation is going to be different. I am willing to play a game at less than full graphics settings, so I can get away with a lot cheaper than most people can, and I can go without PC upgrades for a while.

    Ryder has been saying this same thing: there's no winner in this debate. Both sides have their merits.

    I'd go one step further and say that right now, both platforms are such good options, and can be bought at such a great hardware value, that the real winners are the users.
  56. Cliff_Forster
    Cliff_Forster
    GHoosdum said:

    I'd go one step further and say that right now, both platforms are such good options, and can be bought at such a great hardware value, that the real winners are the users.
    Shhhhhhhh....... Where is the fun in that?
  57. Ginh
    Ginh This is a thought to give you guys on what else is possible in the future.

    esearchers work on using the brain(whatever waves it sents) is used to control plane's by thoughts currently used in simulators, this will trigger or has already triggered idea's for gaming aswell.
    for example i believe it's said that each individual has his/hers own brainwaves patterns like a signiture of fingerprint, and with some type of implant or regular brainwave particles that could transmit a signal to a main server by receptors on the console, from your home, or whereever you are, and play on it on your big HDTV.

    So basically a console with storage capacity for a game, with receptors to receive brainwave particles which sends it to the server so whatever you think is set in motion.
    But the hardest thing is, it's like learning to walk.

    ^_^
  58. Snarkasm
    Snarkasm That would certainly be interesting. OCZ actually already has a neural control system out, the NIA.

    Tech's not quite there yet, but we're getting there. It'll be neat.
  59. Ginh
    Ginh I had no idea that such portable controlling system existed for consumers yet.
    All i knew it was tested in simulators of moving objects and stuff.
    I'm sure the technology will get there.
  60. Gattsu
    Gattsu Until the day I am placed directly into a game, Matrix style. I'm sticking with a mouse and keyboard.

Howdy, ! Got something to say?