PCs versus consoles

• Conclusion
• Media centre apps
• Hacking, modding, tinkering
• Games
• Cost
• Online gaming
• Load times
• Noise
• Graphics
• Controls
• Appearance
• Interface
• Setup

this is an interesting set of posts. Consoles are great to play with your friends, in a room together with some beers/joints/whatever - nothing can beat evenings I've had glued to Mario Kart64 & Goldeneye with a load of my friends :) I view my PC as a workhorse that can play some good titles - Battlefield 2 could never be played as well on a console, too many commands and lack of being able to create your own levels/mods. SimCity4 is miles better (and I can use GMAX to create my own models). But the old (original) Final Fantasy games and other Square titles on the SNES had me glued for hours as well (days actually...well, weeks...OK OK it was a few months dammit) and even though I love GTR-2 there isn't a racing game on the PC that can match Gran Turismo on the PSx. Costs-wise let's take it all into account... --PC: AMD 5000BE: £55, NF590MB: £68, 4Gb OCZ6400: £60, Keyboard & Mouse: £25, 8800GT: £140, Samsung 501LJ: £55, iCute jet case: £30, 24"TFT: £210, X-Fi Platinum: £100, 7.1 speakers: £60, 1 game: £40 - total = £843 --PS3: £290, 26"LCD TV: £300, 5.1 speakers: £100, 1 game: £40 - total = £730 - only £100 difference!

Comment by EdArch at 3:19am 9th April 2008

I have been a PC gamer for a very long time now, and my complaint is that PC gaming is not only becoming a complete headache but is getting very expensive by the day. With a large range of GPU’s being released its very hard for the consumer to decide which one to go for, simply because not everyone can afford the best of the best. Just when everyone was settling for an 8800 series graphics card, Nvidia has released its 9 series. Also with games like Far Cry 2 being released for both PC and console, I dare not to think how it will run maxed-out on my Apple 30”?! Is it worth upgrading to a £200 GPU, or shall I just play it on my Xbox 360 via VGA cable which would cost near to nothing?? However, my main point is regarding exclusive titles released on consoles. Being a PC gamer, the last time I played Metal Gear Solid on PC was almost four years ago and since then the company have moved away from the PC platform. It’s the same with many other games, some of them being huge production titles which the PC will never ever see, and because developers are taking this approach of moving away from the PC (due to console demand)—only a handful of genre are left mainly consisting of RTS titles. This is where the console has the upper hand. So I think console gaming is- in a lot of ways -better and cheaper than PC in the long run. Of course, both have their ups and downs but PC gaming has the heavier negative side. Damn, whoever purchased an Xbox 360 back in 2005 will still enjoy games in 2011 without any sort of upgrade. In that case I would rather opt for the console!

Comment by sys_shock2 at 4:46pm 3rd April 2008

Same to you... take it easy.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 3:43pm 31st March 2008

Take care.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 8:18pm 28th March 2008

Likewise! This has certainly been an interesting debate. take care!

Comment by Cyberspice at 7:05pm 28th March 2008

Just wanted to say it's been nice to meet you

Comment by WoodSpoon at 5:44pm 28th March 2008

how on earth have I responded with fanboyism? I've argued repeatedly that both the console and the PC have their merits, tand that neither can be considered "superior". Maybe your definition of fanboyism differs to mine, but to me, that aint fanboyism. I'm fed up of this debate now, I've tried being logical, and reasonable, but you always come back with your "I'm right, you're wrong, consoles are better because I say so and anyone who disagrees is insane" attitude. I know you're going to think you've won this debate but frankly I don't care. Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded

Comment by Cyberspice at 5:30pm 28th March 2008

I didn't turn anything "around" and you were wrong, and I proved it, it was something you asked me to do, and you congratulated me for it, and I accepted the congratulations! Now you act as if I played some trick on you or something, you all of a sudden have a case of amnesia. Those were "your" words, not mine, go back and read them! The bottom line is that you can't refute "facts", something you tried desperately and unsuccessfuly to do since this debate began. I produce facts, you respond with fanboyism. I produce market data and expert industry analysis from the "PC side" (your own side) backing up my claims and you respond with attacks, contradictions, double standards, opinions, and half-truths. You want to say the PC is "cheaper" than a console..."in the long run". This is out right insanity! You fail to take into account the maintenance and the constant upgrading (something that has turned away many potential and "former" PC gamers) to keep the PC up adds to the initial high costs of owning a PC! How many video cards were released from Nov '07 until now?!! At least 15 with more coming! The whole 3800 series with OCs, the 8800GT with many OCs, a new 8800GTS with OC'd models the 9800 series (with more coming)! Thats been in 4 months alone!! Each tweaked just a wee little bit different than the last! It's confusing, stupid, ridiculous and a racket! People are tired of it. You say PC games are "cheaper" than console games but use Amazon as a reference?!! They sell used games! How about referencing Ebay?!! You purposely and completely ignored the retail market because you "know" that PC games cost the same depending on the game. Crysis debuted at $49.99-$59.99 same as UTIII and Gears of War! Speaking of costs, how much does it "cost" to play WoW and other such games? Exactly!! Do you "really" want to add it up?!! Consoles and console games actually have trade-in value as well! You can actually recieve money back or store credit for used consoles and console games, further adding to their value! This is not done with PC games!! Nobody wants them back, as there is no demand. The PC and console in direct competition? How about "in competition" with the console since the console is cannabalizing the PC's games, gamers, developers, sales and market share! You have to be a fool not to see it. Did you know that World in Conflict is now coming to the 360!!! There will be no stone left unturned when its all said and done, and adding in the intial and subsequent high costs it leaves little reason to own a dedicated "gaming" PC. In the words of the Guru of 3D when reviewing Quad SLI "I'm leaving pricing out of the equation as everybody know that gaming at such an investment doesn't really make sense anymore"-The guru of 3D. Guess what, it never did. Please don't compare a community of gamers on a website trading tips and rumors, to a full blown service such as Xbox Live. It's a joke. Live is an "original", Steam a copy, give credit where credit is due. Staying on "innovation" didn't AMD just drop a "cripple" core processor? The 360 has had a triple core in it for the last 3yrs! No gaming PC has more than 4 cores... but the PS3 does and it had it first! As a matter of fact 3yrs ago the triple core CPU and unified shaders lead the PC! The innovation will continue with the new engines that will debute on the next, next gen consoles! The problem with "PC innovation" is that it doesn't always work! From games to hardware, there are always a massive amount of bugs and fixes the gamer or "user" must endure as the cost of doing business on the PC! This wastes their valuable money and time, especially money! This is not a rampant problem on the console like the PC. You buy it, play it, it works...guranteed!! Listen, I'm not saying that the PC isn't good or doesn't have good games. But the console has "proven" to be the better gamer. It is "superior" to the PC in "gaming" and NOTHING can out-game a console...NOTHING! Yes, you can build a more powerful and expensive "gaming" PC or whatever you want to call it. But the console will "do the river dance" on it in every area that matters. This is not "opinion" it is fact, and until "you" start producing facts your argument is hollow. PC developers and gamers have seen both sides and have made their choice...the console! The reason there is argument on either of these machines is something I said very early in this debate, the PC side sees the console increasingly encroaching on it's territory and it doesn't like it! As a matter of fact it's even scared! The writing is on the wall, "change or be assimilated"...Borg style! Change "is" coming to the PC, what that is or means is yet to be seen. Hopefully the PC can "learn" from the console such as intial and subsequent high costs, security, standardization ect, it can rebound. But if it can't then pick up that game pad your doctor gave you and learn how to use it!

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 3:11pm 28th March 2008

This is actually like hitting my head off a brick wall.... you fail to understand any of my arguments and often turn them round and use them as "proof" that I am wrong. I mentioned my old PC playing supreme commander to highlight the flexibilty of the PC as a gaming platform, showing that, even if you have an older PC, you still have the option to play modern games, something that can't be done on a console. I still think it's unfair to compare PC's sold as media centres and workstations to consoles as they are not designed for gaming and are not sold as such, the fact that they can be upgraded to play games is another example of flexibility. You are wrong about older gaming PC's being considered a problem, the problem as they see it is largley due to so many PC's being sold with integrated graphics cards that are incapable of running games. This is a totally different side to the argument, which I will get to later. I'll concede to your point about the makers of oblivion charging pc gamers for extra content, however, this is a relativley uncommon occurence, and there is still a wealth of user generated mods and maps available for alot of games for free, something that is far less common on consoles. With regard to cost, you are wrong about the cost of PC games compared to console games, just go look at play or amazon. Theres a difference of £10 - £20 on most games, no matter how old. The gap seems to narrow down with older games, but it's still there (half life 2:orange box - £13 cheaper on PC, COD4 - £10 cheaper on PC, Guitar Hero 3 - £20 Cheaper on PC including controller). With regards to PC maintinance, your wrong again, the old PC I mentioned I owned for 5 years. Over all that time, I had to pay money to repair it once. And that was £30 for a new power supply, which I replaced myself. Again, this is an advantage of PC's. If a PC breaks down after 4 years, you can probably fix it yourself. If a console breaks down, you have to send it back. If it breaks down outside the warrenty period, you have to pay for it. As for your accusations of my being a PC fanboy, thats just plain wrong and another example of hypocrisy on your part. I am not the fanboy, you are. The reason? I don't see the console and PC markets as being in competition, you do. I'm not arguing to prove the superiority of one over the other, you are. I don't get worked up and ridicule all opinions that disagree with my own, I don't lie about myself to try and give my arguments more weight, I don't accuse all those who disagree with me of being liars and hypocrites. You do all these things. I am arguing the fact that neither machine is superior, they both have as many positive and negative points as each other. In terms of raw power, modern gaming PC's have the edge, in terms of flexibility, gaming PC's have the edge. Consoles are easier to set up out the box and they're better for social gaming. Consoles cost less at first, but games are more expensive, PC's cost more, but games are cheaper. Consoles you need to pay for 90% of the extra content for games, with PC's 90% of it is free, and theres alot more of it, plus, if your that way inclined, you can make extra content yourself. Personally, I think they're pretty evenly matched, therefore the better machine is down to what suits you best. Of course, an often recurring theme in your argument has been that consoles sell more games. This is definatly true, but why? The answear of course, is the same as it is for anything that sells succesfully. Marketing. Consoles are for games, nothing else. Sure they have media centre functions, but these are pretty poor compared to dedicated players and PC's. Therefore they are sold as gaming machines so people who buy them want them for games. PC's are marketed in a completley different way, the adverts you see for PC's outside of dedicated PC channels are from places like Dell & PC world. Try and buy a PC from these places and they'll puch you a £300 - £400 machine, with integrated graphics that's sold for doing work, playing videos and looking at pictures. These are not gaming machines and should not be compared to consoles, they simply aren't capable of playing games, full stop. PC Gaming is sold as an enthusiast hobby, not as a casual hobby. This is why consoles sell more. The point I agreed with your links on, was how PC gaming COULD be sold. Would it really be such a huge stretch for Dell & PC world to bundle their budget end PC's with a Radeon 3850? They're cheap and would provided a decent gaming experience straight away. Even doing something so simple would provide a huge boost to the PC gaming market. On this point, yes I wholeheartedly agree. It is pure laziness on the part of these manufacturers that keep PC gaming from competing with consoles in terms of sales. The way I see it at the moment, the PC and console markets are not in direct competition, rather they complement each other. Console gaming has brought gaming into the mainstream, something that could not have been achieved by the pc market. This means more games, bigger games and better games for both platforms. The PC market pushes high performance hardware, which means better graphics, more interactivity, better game engines. The hardware that gets developed to cope with the demands of PC gamers is what goes into the next generation of consoles, and so the cycle repeats. The PC also pushes alot of gaming innovations AND market innovations. MMORPG's orginated on the PC, Survival horror originated on the PC, FPS originated on the PC, Downloadable content and games originated on the PC (harp on about xbox live all you like, the fact is, online gaming communities have been around on the PC since the mid 90's at least! downloadable content has only been available on the latest generation of consoles, downloading full major games straight to your machine isn't even available on consoles yet). At the end of the day, both markets bring something important to gaming, which is our shared hobby. Why on earth should we spend so much time arguing which is better instead of debating where both markets could learn from each other and what could be done to improve both? As I've said before, I'm not arguing which machine is superior, I'm arguing against warriors "consoles are better, consoles kick the pc's a$$" attitude. It's a shame warrior, because you have made some good points with the links you've posted, your attitude has kept this from being a reasonable debate.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 11:10am 25th March 2008

Thank you for the compliment. it was well deserved. You kept asking me to prove you wrong...and I did! But now you say I took "several" quotes from you and used them "out of context"?!! How? They were "your" quotes! "You" asked "me" to (and these are your EXACT words) "Prove that most PC's can't run modern games. Prove that most Pc's are as low spec as you've been claiming".-cyberspice1. Since this is recognized as one of the many problems areas that are thought to be hindering PC gaming's growth! I intially made the claim, I then posted links from various sources who echoed the claim, "you" then made the same claims, then cited the links "I" posted and said you "agreed" with them!!! So how were you "used out of context"? But, what you seem to "want" to do is hypocritical and contradicts the very statements you said you agreed with!! You do not want to compare those lower end PCs with consoles but want to compare consoles with only the latest mid to high end PCs! You said that my eMachine with the GeForce4 was not fair to compare a machine such as that to modern gaming consoles, as theres a huge technology gap! "But" you said you have/had a PC like that as well (these are your EXACT words) "Actually, Supreme Commander played fine on my old PC. That was an Athlon 2600 with a Radeon9700 graphics card... sure I had to turn everything down, but at least I had the option. that's a 5/6 year old computer, so I think "most" PC's would play supreme commander just fine". So why can't these machines be included in the pool with everything else? My eMachine PC can't play Crysis but it can play WoW and other popular "modern" MMOs, RTSs and Sim games. So these PCs are included, especially since they can still game and they're considered part of the overall problem! You can't have it only one way! The next point that you asked me to do was to prove you wrong on downloading extra maps for "free" on the PC...I did! Not everything is always "free" and you were proven wrong...again! You're not being taken out of context, you're being proven wrong!!! The problem with you and WoodSpoon are that you want to say things to support what you're saying at the moment, but forget about what you said before and end up totally contradicting yourselves! You can't say that a 5yr old PC can play Supreme Commander just fine and (these are your EXACT words) "so I think "most" PC's would play supreme commander just fine". Then turn around and say that most PCs can't play modern games so they shouldn't be compared!! Another point you seem to have wrong is the actual price of console games! You seem to think that they are all vastly more expensive than PC games! This is not true. "New" PC games and console games are the roughly the same price depending on the game! Some console games are actually cheaper and some are a little more expensive. Once a game is old, used or in a bargin bin you could pay anything for it! You've been proven wrong again! You also seem to ignore the fact that you must constanly update and maintain a PC to keep it running well or even at all, which adds to the cost of even owning it! You're a typical PC fanboy who can't see past a video card. There are many reasons that PC gaming is declining and it seem that the mid/high end video card is one of them. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/03/11/ultra_high-end_graphics_are_a_terrible_mistake/1

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 5:55am 23rd March 2008

You've called me a liar and a hypocrite yet you yourself have been prooved to be one that makes you no better than those you accuse. regarding the previous comments about not every console brand being able to run every game, I've explained exactly what I ment and how I ment it, I made the same point in this thread and in the other one, you just failed to understand it. I did not deny what I said you just misunderstood how I ment it in the first place. You are prooven as much of hypocrite and a liar as you accuse me of being, making any further comments worthless on both sides. I'm sure you'll no doubt try and claim some sort of victory and say I have no arguement left or something similar but the truth is you cannot argue with someone who is as much of a liar and hypocrite as those they accuse. So go ahead take whatever victory you wish to from this as you've made it meaningless by doing things you accuse others of.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 4:39pm 21st March 2008

Well done warrior, you've taken several quotes from me and used them completely out of context. The point I was trying to make when I said some PC's aren't built with gaming in mind is that it's hardly fair to compare a PC built as a media centre or workstation with a games console. They're both different machines designed for different things. It IS fair to compare a PC built for gaming with a games console. These are the machines that will have mid-high end hardware, and these are the machines that provide higher performance than consoles. As I've already said though, these aren't for everyone and can't rival the plug and play simplicity of a console, this is why consoles sell more. It does NOT make any console superior to a gaming PC. Another point is, this eMachine with the GeForce4 you keep going on about, It's hardly fair to compare a machine such as that to modern gaming consoles, as theres a huge technology gap! I'll say it again, prove to me that most GAMING PC's can't run modern games. Oh, and how about you address my point about the price difference of games on a console Vs Games on a PC? You can't, because it would mean admitting that the "other side" has a point. Something a 12 year old fanboy such as yourself is unwilling to do.

Comment by Cyberspice at 5:08pm 21st March 2008

The ONLY version that matters is the 360 version. Thats the ONLY version that ever mattered because it's the ONLY version that exists. You tried to take something I said about it running on all consoles and take it out of context...again. Once I told you to "prove" it, and you realized that you couldn't...(and you can't). You then tried to deny ever saying that and instead said you meant that the only reason it "couldn't" was because it didn't exist! It was a lie!! That was also something that "I" even alluded to before you did ("Is the game even available on the PS2 or Xbox? EXACTLY!!! Is it available on "ALL" PCs? EXACTLY"!!)-Warrior24_7. Your words are right there. You've also admitted to purposely taking something else I said out of context and using it. Which was no mistake. But all you're doing now is switching your statements back and forth trying not to get contradicted and exposed as a liar and a hypocrite, but as you can see thats already happened... and keeps happening. For me to continue to expose you is a waste of time and keeps the debate off topic (the PC vs Console) which is right where you want it because you can't counter, and have have no answers to whats really happening in the PC market as of late. The bottom line is that you've lost this debate and you realize that. It's over, the console side prevailed and the PC side failed to show why it's dominant over the console. It's not. The "myth" has been expoloded and the PC side exploded it! The market is saying that, PC developers are saying that, industry insiders are saying that, now many PC gamers are saying that! The console has game and NOTHING can out game a console. All the hardware envy in the world will not change that!

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 1:58pm 21st March 2008

You've taken lots of my comments, most of which have been explained before and listed them for no apparent reason, are you trying to say their wrong? how can what I said be wrong if you "have no idea where your coming from, where your going, or what you mean". I'll explain again. The apparently simple point that I was trying to say was that on previous occasions now and in the past you've generalised Pc's saying something like they have to turn the graphics down to run a game it but it will run fine on consoles, which is wrong, it will be fine on some consoles not all consoles as not all consoles can run all console games. I used Supreme Commander as an example, where you said that "not all Pc's can run Supreme commander but all consoles can" which as I've previously explained is not right, you generalized about the PC by saying not all can play it (which is correct) but did not apply the same generalization to consoles as not all consoles can play it.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 12:42pm 21st March 2008

""A "mis stated fact" is a lie!" not true, a mis stated fact is only a lie when it's intended deceive if it's not intended to deceive then it's just a mistake"-WoodSpoon.... "I'll admit, yes I took what you said and used it out of context in an attempt to demon straight your apparent belief that the format is dying"-WoodSpoon... "You said "has nothing to do with having a PS3, 360, or Atari 7800. It has to do with the game on that system!" but it does because as you have pointed out not everybody has high end gaming rigs, but not everybody has PS3's & Xbox360's either, So saying All consoles will run, for example, Supreme commander is wrong".-WoodSpoon... "I didnt say they weren't capable of playing it just that you could'nt, like you cant play mario galaxy on a PS2 or motorstorm on an Xbox360."-WoodSpoon... Honestly WoodSpoon, I have no idea where your coming from, where your going, or what you mean. I "know" you don't either. Take a deeep breath and start over. Look at it factually. The ONLY console version that matters is the 360 version. This version is the point of reference when comparing with the PC versions...ALL pc versions. From the best that could possibly be played, to the one the PC will spit back in your hand if you try and insert the disc! Somewhere in between lies the 360 version, in whatever final form the game ships in! It's not expected to be the best, but it's not the worst either. All it is, is a statement game that says if you missed it on PC, here it is! It's also a solid PC game that says alot about the strength of the 360 to be able to handle it! Since I own all platforms I would personally prefer to play this game on the "PC" vice the 360! I encourage you to re-read the preview article and what it says about he 360 version.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 2:50am 21st March 2008

"A "mis stated fact" is a lie!" not true, a mis stated fact is only a lie when it's intended deceive if it's not intended to deceive then it's just a mistake. "But what I actually said was "there is no way they could run (if at all) without turning things down", so if it eventually comes out for them it will be toned down"-WoodSpoon..."I didnt say they weren't capable of playing it just that you could'nt, like you cant play mario galaxy on a PS2 or motorstorm on an Xbox360". what's wrong with that? just because a machine cannot run a game does not mean it's not capable of running it even if it's with stuff turned down, if your refering to the (if at all) bit it was a reference to the fact that the game in question may not be ported across to that system, now who's picking out words to use out of context or try to proove a point? As for being accused of exagerating and out right lying, let he who has not cast the first stone, are 12year olds allowed stones?

Comment by WoodSpoon at 12:05am 21st March 2008

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=95042

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 12:10am 21st March 2008

"If you feel the need to pay a bit more for getting MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE in your games then go ahead. But me, instead of spending the $300 for an 8800GT right now I'll buy COD4 for the PS3 and bank the $250 for another day." Warrior24_7, 13 feb 2008. something I remembered seeing in the last thread.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 11:48pm 20th March 2008

A "mis stated fact" is a lie! You seem to "mis state" facts in every post! You need to be corrected constantly and you contradict yourself repeatedly! It's pathetic. As you've done just now. You should be ashamed. "But what I actually said was "there is no way they could run (if at all) without turning things down", so if it eventually comes out for them it will be toned down"-WoodSpoon..."I didnt say they weren't capable of playing it just that you could'nt, like you cant play mario galaxy on a PS2 or motorstorm on an Xbox360"-WoodSpoon. Ummm...yes you did. Now you're trying to change the statement around because you're caught...again! As far as you "generalizing", you're actually trying "pick out" words, and take them out of contexted, to switch the argument, or try and prove a point and play up on them. In other instances you exaggerated or out right lied! These are no mistakes, they are calculated attempts by you to try and misrepresent what I said. You have not and will not be successful as you weren't here! You will just continue to expose yourself because I've been consistant in what I've been saying and I have the PC industry backing up my claims...you don't! Also, are you now saying that a so called "gaming" PC will not have to turn down graphics?

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 11:54pm 20th March 2008

This is child's play. I've completely out debated you in my sleep! This is all you have left! I have you nit picking at words, outright lying, contradicing yourself, resorting to hypocrisy, and to add insult to injury...I have you agreeing with me! You ask me to prove that "most PC's can't run modern games". Why should I have to prove that when you proved it yourself ("It's true to say that not all PC's are created equal, but than, not all pc's are built with gaming in mind, and most are not marketed as such")-cyberspice1. And this ("This is actually one point I did agree with from some of the links warrior posted. Most of the mainstream PC manufacturers don't market PC's correctly and ship them with integrated graphics cards. These won't play most games") -cyberspice1...And oh, do the contradictions abound!!! ("I think "most" PC's would play supreme commander just fine"). ("One is that modern PCs built for gaming will have mid-high end hardware")-cyberspice1, (most PC's that are built with gaming in mind will have reasonably high end hardware inside") -cyberspice1...What...but I thought... didn't you just... oh what the hell?!! "As for your statements about the PC market declining, thats another thing you can't prove"-cyberspice1, "With regards to the "state" of the PC market, yes, retail sales (ie, over the shelf) are declining"-cyberspice1... *sigh*, "hasn't it been possible to download extra maps for various games on the PC since the mid-90's? And correct me if I'm wrong again, but isn't it free to do this on the PC"?-cyberspice1 ...Okay, I'll correct you (http://obliviondownloads.com/StoreCatalog_ProductList.aspx?SubCategoryId=1) and to correct you further ("You yourself have admitted that the sales figures that would "prove" this are incomplete and therefore meaningless)-cyberspice1 actually "I" NEVER said such a thing..."you did" when discussing services & subscriptions and I agreed. ("all these statistics fail to take into account things like MMO subscriptions, download services (ie. Steam and ign's Direct2Drive) and subscription based services (such as the one offered on this very website). As these statistics are incomplete, they cannot be used to prove anything")-cyberspice1... ("Another point was price, a decent gaming machine can be built for £400-£500 which is only £100-£200 more than a console. Fair enough, it's more expensive")-cyberspice1...Actually console go "down" in price and still have the same level of performance, PCs actually go "up" in price due to the upgrades needed and up keep and lose performance over time giving the console a distinct advantage here. (" Those that are marketed as gaming machines are sold for upwards of £1000. This creates the illusion that PC gaming is more expensive than it really is")-cyberspice1...There is no "illusion" it's a "fact", if it costs more than it's more expensive! Look, as entertaining as this is, I could sit here and pick you apart all-day-looong! But that would be boring and quite pathetic since its so easy. I will absolutely refuse to let you off the hook and make any attempt to take this debate off the console vs PC issue. As I said before, you can't prove me wrong, and can't prove yourself right, YOU'VE LOST THIS DEBATE! GET OVER IT!!

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 7:36pm 20th March 2008

"The game has not been announced for ANY Sony system, the PS3 included so does that mean it can't run on that machine? Hardly" Yes it does actually, as I said before, you cannot play a game that hasn't been released, I didnt say they weren't capable of playing it just that you could'nt, like you cant play mario galaxy on a PS2 or motorstorm on an Xbox360. "You ask if you must turn down graphics in a console game why buy a new console?" I Didnt say anything of the sort!, again what I actually said was "If older consoles could play new console games with out turning stuff off or down what's the point in new consoles?" which is a very different question. You said "You MUST turn down graphics and other effects just so the game will run...straight outta the box" that all depends on what PC the game is running on. Yes it is possible you could buy a brand new mid range Pc with the latest card and still have to turn it down it's unlikely but it is possible, however that's a mid range PC with the latest card in it not a gaming PC, there is quite a difference. As for being a hypocrite, I generalized to demonstraight a point about you generalizing however your hardly flawless in that area either are you? questioning other peoples facts, correcting people and calling them hypocrites when all they have done is just mis stated facts, yet we know you've lied about your age or marital status (what is it really?) and you yourself have needed to be corrected, so the hypocrisy applies to you as well as me.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 6:52pm 20th March 2008

stay tuned...

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 6:06pm 20th March 2008

Thats not any proof at all. You simply don't have an answer! What you should really do is stop talking about console games altogether because you're really ignorant in this area! The PS1 and Xbox have been "discontinued" for some time now. That means that they're not making them anymore. The game has not been announced for ANY Sony system, the PS3 included so does that mean it can't run on that machine? Hardly. So you have yet to prove anything and I'm still waiting. Yes, I know that you generalized and thats why you're a proven hypocrite. But your next statement takes the cake and puts into question your whole argument. You ask if you must turn down graphics in a console game why buy a new console? The answer is...you don't! You don't turn down ANYTHING in a console game except the volume! The game comes with its graphics set and optimized for that console no other action is required from you! The PC on the other hand is different. You MUST turn down graphics and other effects just so the game will run...straight outta the box! You could actually buy a brand new mid range system with the latest card and STILL have to turn down graphics from the word go! So why even think about buying a gaming PC! So this is one time that I think you might be onto something.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:37pm 20th March 2008

Thats not any proof at all. You simply don't have an answer! What you should really do is stop talking about console games altogether because you're really ignorant in this area! The PS1 and Xbox have been "discontinued" for some time now. That means that they're not making them anymore. The game has not been announced for ANY Sony system, the PS3 included so does that mean it can't run on that machine? Hardly. So you have yet to prove anything and I'm still waiting. Yes, I know that you generalized and thats why you're a proven hypocrite. But your next statement takes the cake and puts into question your whole argument. You ask if you must turn down graphics in a console game why buy a new console? The answer is...you don't! You don't turn down ANYTHING in a console game except the volume! The game comes with its graphics set and optimized for that console no other action is required from you! The PC on the other hand is different. You MUST turn down graphics and other effects just so the game will run...straight outta the box! You could actually buy a brand new mid range system with the latest card and STILL have to turn down graphics from the word go! So why even think about buying a gaming PC! So this is one time that I think you might be onto something.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:37pm 20th March 2008

Supreme comander has not yet been released for Xbox, PS2, PS1 and what ever else, therefore it cannot be played on them at the moment. I think that's pretty much proof. But what I actually said was "there is no way they could run (if at all) without turning things down", so if it eventually comes out for them it will be toned down. If older consoles could play new console games with out turning stuff off or down what's the point in new consoles? Yes I did generalize about consoles in an attempt to show that your generalizations about the PC also apply to consoles.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 4:21pm 18th March 2008

Warrior, are you actually suggesting that Supreme Commander for the Xbox360 will run on an Xbox or PS2? I'd love to see you prove that. While we're at it, why don't you provide some proof of the things that you've been claiming. Prove that most PC's can't run modern games. Prove that most Pc's are as low spec as you've been claiming. And why don't you address some of the points I've made in my last post. Simple, you can't do any of these things.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 3:48pm 18th March 2008

I didn't miss anything! "You" said the game wouldn't run on those consoles and I'm telling you to prove it! Again you've argued yourself into a corner and you can't back up what you say! "Prove" that it won't run on the Xbox and PS2. We know that the game is made for all PCs and will or will not run on them all. We know that the game is designed for the 360 and will definitely run on them all. In another weak attempt to pick out something and change the argument, you accused me of generalizing but in doing so made yourself out to be the hypocrite...again! As far as turned down graphics...READ THE PREVIEW ARTICLE AGAIN! It says the graphics on the console version are turned down!! "I" said the game doesn't look as good as a PC with "everything on". The point being that the console can run the game at all even when most PCs can't and it looks better then some PCs who have to turn the effects off just to play it! You do waaay too much nit picking and not enough "reading". I'm waiting on that proof!

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 2:37pm 18th March 2008

If a games Pc has to turn graphics down to run a game, for example, Supreme commander, then there is no way ALL consoles are going to able to play it like you said they can. The fact that it's only been released on one console (at the moment)emphasize's it further, because you cant play a game that's not been released and not ALL consoles are Xbox360's, so not ALL consoles can play it. Games such as Motorstorm, Supreme commander & Grand turismo 5 will run fine on Xbox360's & PS3's but there is no way they could run (if at all) without turning things down on PS1's, PS2's & Xboxes to suggest otherwise is insanity, The difference in hardware is a major indicator. You said "has nothing to do with having a PS3, 360, or Atari 7800. It has to do with the game on that system!" but it does because as you have pointed out not everybody has high end gaming rigs, but not everybody has PS3's & Xbox360's either, So saying All consoles will run, for example, Supreme commander is wrong. But if you ment that it dosent matter which console it's played on because one of them can play it with everything up, then the same applys to a PC, because there are some that will have no problem at all, so the issue of turning things down shouldnt have been brought up. Generalizing that All consoles can play a game but most Pc's will have to turn it down is wrong, Some consoles wont be able to play it turned up either.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 12:26pm 18th March 2008

I think you're missing the point entirley warrior. Supreme Commander can be played on a 5 year old PC, because you have the option to turn the graphics down and play it. It can't be played on a 5 year old console. It just won't run full stop. I was using this as an example to highlight a major advantage of the PC. Flexibility. Surely its better to have the option of playing the game, albeit with reduced graphics, than not having the option at all. Anyway, you've conviniently ignored several important points again. One is that modern PCs built for gaming will have mid-high end hardware. Those with integrated graphics or low end graphics cards simply arn't built for gaming, so it's hardly fair to compare these machines to consoles. Another point was price, a decent gaming machine can be built for £400-£500 which is only £100-£200 more than a console. Fair enough, it's more expensive, but you get a more powerful machine, and more importantly, games will cost £15-£20 less (go look on play.com or amazon if you want proof). So the extra cost would be made back pretty soon. But thats a point you conviniently ignored because it dosn't fit in with your view. As for the COD4 Re-release.... wow, you can get extra maps for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been possible to download extra maps for various games on the PC since the mid-90's? And correct me if I'm wrong again, but isn't it free to do this on the PC? From that article, it looks like 360 owners have to pay for the priviledge. Another advantage to the PC there. As I've said countless times, modern games consoles can't rival modern gaming PC's in terms of power. They can't rival any PC's in terms of flexibility. PC's can't rival consoles in terms of ease of use. In terms of price, Consoles are cheaper initially, but once you start building up a decent size games collection, the cost evens out due to lower cost on the PC. And not forgetting that there are countless user generated mods & maps that add value to the pc versions. Again, which machine is "superior" is down to each individual, depending on what that person wants from a gaming machine. And lastly, warrior, you are right, I did indeed mis-quote you. It was an honest mistake, what you actually said was "exposes the cellulite, stretch-marks and acne", which isn't any less melodramatic. And you still havn't answeared to the fact that you've lied about yourself.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 7:57am 18th March 2008

You say the point is that now. Good. Prove it! I have my proof about PCs, where's yours about all consoles? Show us how Supreme Commander runs on the Xbox and PS2! Are you generalizing or being a hypocrite or both? It has nothing to do with having a PS3, 360, or Atari 7800. It has to do with the game on that system! So I'm waiting for your proof!

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 1:29am 18th March 2008

If it isn't available on all consoles how can it be played on ALL consoles even they were capable? IT CANT, you did say ALL consoles can play it, and the Xbox360 isnt all consoles it's just one of many. The point is that now and in the past you've generalised Pc's saying something like they have to turn the graphics down to run it but it will run fine on consoles, which is wrong, it will be fine on some consoles. because for example PS2's will struggle to run a PS3 title the same way that some PC's have to turn down graphics while others are fine. You've been saying since the last thread "not all PC's are created equal" and their not, neither are consoles. Not everyone has a PS3 Xbox360 just like not everyone has a gaming rig. It's a small point but an important one.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 11:57pm 17th March 2008

Is the game even available on the PS2 or Xbox? EXACTLY!!! Is it available on "ALL" PCs? EXACTLY!! Is the 360 a "console"? EXACTLY!!! You've GOT to be kidding me!! Is this what I've reduced you guys too? If it is I apologize...on second thought, no I don't!!

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 10:32pm 17th March 2008

I want to congratulate you on proving me right once again, but you didn't have to because I already knew I was. Having the "option" of turning anything off or down is a useless feature on a console since any game made for it is optimized to run on that harware. This is not the case for the PC. The bottom line is that the 360 will run the game better than most PCs out there. Of course cross platforming is good for the developer but bad if you're trying to justify buying a particluar (more expensive) system when the same game is available on it's (cheaper) competitor! This is another area where the PC is getting absolutely owned. Take COD4 for example, a "PC" game, released on the console, and the console version totally out sold the PC version by tens of thousands of copies!!! The game actually beat Halo 3 and is being re-released on the 360 with Infinity Ward pledging long term support for the game!!! Where is the re-release for the PC version...EXACTLY!!! This is a AAA title and there is absolutely NO reason to buy this game on the PC! I already said that Mass Effect 2 was a "timed exclusive". You're starting to take a page out of woodenspoon's book by making things up and basically becoming a hypocrite. I never said "scarred underbelly of PC gaming". It seems that you've become melodramatic just to prove I'm being melodramatic which is the height of hypocrisy! As far as I'm concerned you've lost this debate! You can't prove me wrong and you can't prove yourself right. You've argued yourself into a corner and have nothing left to argue except opinions and speculation which are meaningless! The case you made about the PC market, mainstream PCs ect where already thought to be an issue (among others) and were discussed and noted. This debate is bordering on the entertaining and as far as I'm concerned it was over along time ago and the console has won. The myth of the PC as the "Ultimate gaming machine" has been exploded! The console beats it everywhere that it matters and the market is proving it! Here is a little COD4 re-release for ya! http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=184908 A sign of things to come? http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=184886

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 6:05pm 17th March 2008

I hate to do this after my earlyer statement about not constantly correcting each other but I feel something needs to be said. Warrior you said that not all Pc's can run Supreme commander but all consoles can. that's just not right, as not all consoles are Xbox360's and an awful lot of people just own PS2's & Xboxes. So the arguement that it wont work on this or that machine works both ways and not all consoles are created equal either.

Comment by WoodSpoon at 7:24pm 17th March 2008

another thing I forgot to add, most PC's that are built with gaming in mind will have reasonably high end hardware inside. in fact, anything with a radeon X1900 / GeForce7900 or higher and a Dual Core processor will probably outdo any console in terms of graphics. thats 18 - 24 month old hardware. I think it's fair to say that most gaming PC's will have at least that kind of hardware inside. It's true to say that not all PC's are created equal, but than, not all pc's are built with gaming in mind, and most are not marketed as such. This is actually one point I did agree with from some of the links warrior posted. Most of the mainstream PC manufacturers don't market PC's correctly and ship them with integrated graphics cards. These won't play most games, so people who buy these come away with the impression that pc's are bad for gaming. Those that are marketed as gaming machines are sold for upwards of £1000. This creates the illusion that PC gaming is more expensive than it really is. There's a huge gap in the PC market for midrange gaming machines costing £300 - £500. If someone was willing to tap into that market, I think PC's would come out looking much more favorable as a gaming machine. Anyway, thats all just speculation on my part.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 4:04pm 17th March 2008

Actually, Supreme Commander played fine on my old PC. That was an Athlon 2600 with a Radeon9700 graphics card... sure I had to turn everything down, but at least I had the option. that's a 5/6 year old computer, so I think "most" PC's would play supreme commander just fine. I mean, it's kind of a stupid point to make anyway, as far as I'm concerned, having a game go cross platform is a good thing. It allows developers to sell more, make more money, that they can spend on making better games for both the console and the PC. And by the way, Mass Effect 2 isn't console exclusive. It's coming out for the PC aswell. You've also failed to address my points about you contradicting yourself, and that theres an equal amount of advantages that pc's have over consoles. You've also again failed to explain your outright lies about whether you're 12 or married with kids. And for christ sakes, some of the language you use "right hook