DoomyMcDoom said:
You can build small relatively powerful PCs cheap, you just have to look.
Yes and no.
Mid tower? Sure, but its objectively still larger than a console, hence less convenient for some people.
ITX Chasis cost [Realise I put ATX in previous post, meant ITX, the ones that are actually small]; $100
From there, the remaining $400 you have to spend to reach even the more expensive Xbone will get you an 'Entry' level rig according to Falcon Guide. That is the 4th lowest level. That is not relatively powerful.
Even then, that's ignoring heat management, which with the small sized ITX cases could become an issue like the X360 had. It'd be recommendable to include some form of decent cooling, but that costs more money too.
To be relative to a next gen console it would need to reach the 'superb' level of Falcon guide. That's 5 levels higher, and closer to $1000.
Granted this is just taking off the Falcon guide, but its a fairly good guide. You could build better cheaper, but that's a lot of extra work, which counts as another pro for the consoles.
Actually in a purely objective sense, the more something brings to the table, more efficiently, it is better, I can say objectively more powerful, I can say objectively more versatile, and I can say objectively more affordable, and I would think that that would get my point across, you seem to be floundering in technicalities trying to make yourself look smart, and that makes me sad.
It gets your point across, but you're arguing technicalities here [Remember, you quoted my original post where I went into the technicalities of "Objective" and stated the reasons why you cannot say something is objectively "Better". Were we simply arguing over whether PC or console was, in our opinions, better then this discussion would never have even occurred as I'm pretty sure we'd both have said PC easily, console for some specific people's circumstances.].
You can
correctly say objectively more versatile, objectively cheaper, objectively more powerful. You can
not correctly say objectively better. Better is an inherently subjective judgement.
Hence, in a purely objective sense, the more something brings to the table, more efficiently, the more efficiently it brings that to the table. It is up to a person to make a subjective judgement as to whether that is "Better" or not. Many things that said thing brings to the table may be irrelevant to that person, and many it doesn't may be relevant. Hence, in comparison to another object that brings what the other fails to, and fails to bring what the other does, the second object could be considered 'Better'. Point being, the criteria for "Better" are constantly shifting based off subjective viewpoint. "Better" is subjective.
And, for the sake of this point, why is having more options better?
Why is less overall cost better?
What if someone's goal was to be restricted, or to spend an unnecessarily large amount of money for relatively little gain?
And here you start throwing it into the territory of purely subjective argument again. *sigh*
That is because it is a purely subjective argument. "Better" Is a subjective judgement. There are no objective criteria for "Better". That changes based off circumstances, and each person will have different circumstances and hence a different subjective 'better'.
What I see here is "Whine whine whine, subjectivity, whine whine whine." numbers are numbers they are hard and cold and uncaring, and aren't there to take into account for personal issues.
When you look at things from a purely technical perspective, which is the only perspective YOU CAN look at things in a truly objective way, you see numbers, those numbers represent overall efficiency, power, storage, and other such variables, variables that define a computer, and a console it's self is a computer.
This is precisely my point. When you look at things objectively, you get numbers. Cold, uncaring numbers with no subjective viewpoint. They are unable to judge which is "Better" and which is "Worse". They just judge the measurement of a specific quality or quantity. You can see these numbers that represent overall efficiency, power, storage and other such things, but its up to you to make the judgement of whether higher is better.
Higher numbers, and better overall efficiency, means better device.
Going to put this simply now; This is your subjective judgement. Higher /= better. # of glitches in a game. Does higher = better? So more glitches are better?
I'm sorry that to you, I seem to be rather brick wall like, but I would consider most of your argument to be over inflated ramblings about how you feel insulted that I hold a different opinion, I mean no offense.
I'll give you a better response later, as I am getting extremely tired, and haven't slept well in months.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure we hold the same opinion in what you're trying to argue; PCs are better. Where we differ is in acknowledging the definition of objective. Objective will give you numbers and facts. Subjective will give a judgement of those numbers and facts. 'Better' is a judgement. 'Better' is subjective. That is all that I have been arguing this whole time.
And its not just you this points been reiterated to, so don't worry. Its simply the number of times I've had to reiterate it, whilst people decide to argue a point that they perceive me to be opposing, rather than on the definition and usage of the word 'objective' that gets to me.