Console Help

[Contextualizer]

Just on that, computers by mainstream - i.e non gamers are mostly used to access the internet, msn/skype, make homework/do administrative work and access e-mails. This does not require a dual core, You don't even really need more then 2 gb of ram. You just need a good antivirus and keep updating.

You know what non-gamers like doing a lot? Watch TV online. Hulu (or even YouTube), especially in HD, requires at least a dual core processor if you want to do/run anything else as well.

nor an upgrade from XP, and XP isn't a security risk at all.

That is the funniest thing I have heard all week. Thanks for that.

 

[Antagonist86]

Just on that, computers by mainstream - i.e non gamers are mostly used to access the internet, msn/skype, make homework/do administrative work and access e-mails. This does not require a dual core, You don't even really need more then 2 gb of ram. You just need a good antivirus and keep updating.

You know what non-gamers like doing a lot? Watch TV online. Hulu (or even YouTube), especially in HD, requires at least a dual core processor if you want to do/run anything else as well.

nor an upgrade from XP, and XP isn't a security risk at all.

That is the funniest thing I have heard all week. Thanks for that.

I do know what non-gamers like doing, as I work in an electronic retail store and sell pc's to non-gamers every day. YouTube and online TV does not require a dual core at all and is not the primary thing people look for in a computer in my experience. Most people don't even watch full HD on their computers as they use a monitor and not a tv, and people like their old monitors, which do not have HDMI plugs.

And XP is again, not a security risk at all. If your downloading music from peer to peer clients and click on all the links about getting a bigger pen-fifteen then the OS isn't the risk, the organic interface is the problem.

Also this is not self defense - I am typing this on a MacBook Pro with a dual core, and my pc is a windows 7 machine, sporting a quad deneb clocked to 3,5 Ghz (stable), 8 gb's of ram, and 2 saphire cards crossfired.

 

[Contextualizer]

There are several... there are several that don't have internet either... these people have something called kids... who like video game systems... these parents are most likely of the older generation, computer illiterate, and are willing to buy their kids a game system without having a PC in the house.

Right on, go get that data to support your assertion about the prevalence of these magically paradoxical homes.

Also, how many kids would know how to hook up a PC to a TV or a controller to a PC in order to start playing a PC game?

What happened to the PC monitor which has a far higher resolution and overall image quality compared to the crappy SDTV in your scenario? And if you can pair an Xbox 360 controller to a 360, you aren't mentally challenged enough to be unable to pair it to a PC. Controllers from Logitech and other companies are even easier to use.

Once again proving that it's not cheaper because a $300 netbook costs the same as my $300 XBox.

And your $300 Xbox 360 can't run Photoshop, Ableton Live, or even Firefox. Nice value proposition you've got there.

Right, because every household has a PC they can and should upgrade to play games on, so your 'rules' apply to everyone. And if not those people are assholes or losers because they go against your argument.

When did I say anyone was an asshole or a loser?

Yes, Extra complications. Like upgrading my video card to get HDMI out

Oh hey, that only costs $1. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000E8SY5Q/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0009ST7I4&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0HAGCSHFGN46T6PFF4VY]

buying a switch box and extra cable to connect my PC to my computer and allow me to switch between video outputs

Your PC...and your computer?

getting a wireless mouse and keyboard with the range to be able to be operated from my couch.

That's cheaper that an Xbox 360 controller. Just saying.

Not everyone wants to sit in front of a small monitor using a keyboard and mouse to play games.

What small monitor? My monitor's bigger and cheaper than any SD or HDTV out there in its price/size range. And it has 2-4 times the resolution of any HDTV out there.

It's not the same experience and therefore you have to add extra to the equation to make it a fair comparison.

Only because you're adding extra to the PC before even comparing them. Look below:

Give me the SAME experience on PC: That is, full HD

Except the Xbox 360 and PS3 can't do full HD on their biggest games. Not that it matters, I thought we were talking about SDTV?

Anyway, nearly all computer monitors are higher in resolution than 720p, the HD resolution of both consoles (even both consoles typically don't render at 720p).

5.1 surround

That costs as only much as 5.1 surround for either consoles. Actually, it's cheaper because 5.1 surround speakers have been a longtime market category for PC gamers.

using a controller from my couch

That costs only as much as an Xbox 360 controller.

and your PC cost goes up.

Give me an Xbox 360 that runs Microsoft Office, Firefox, Ableton Live, and Photoshop. Have fun with that!

I have a PS3. My roommate has an Xbox 360. I also have an unbelievable gaming PC I built myself. And I've owned nearly every console since the NES came out (and I still gamed on the PC since then as well). I've got all sides of this platform war covered and represented so I feel like I'm doing pretty well on the credibility front.

What about you?

 

[Contextualizer]

I do know what non-gamers like doing, as I work in an electronic retail store and sell pc's to non-gamers every day.

That doesn't really help your credibility.

YouTube and online TV does not require a dual core at all and is not the primary thing people look for in a computer in my experience.

That explains why Hulu just isn't popular at all, right? [http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/hulu-more-watched-time-warner-cable]

Most people don't even watch full HD on their computers as they use a monitor and not a tv, and people like their old monitors, which do not have HDMI plugs.

I can tell you work at a electronics retailer because you don't understand the concept of HD

HD exists without HDMI. HD exists without TVs. HD just stands for two certain standard resolutions (1280x720 and 1920x1080) and (these days) progressive-scan. A 1280x1024 monitor, the bare minimum for an LCD these days (hell, even 4 years ago), is capable of displaying HD content.

And XP is again, not a security risk at all. If your downloading music from peer to peer clients and click on all the links about getting a bigger pen-fifteen then the OS isn't the risk, the organic interface is the problem.

XP is a risk because the people still running it:

A) Don't/don't know/don't care to update the OS with the latest security patches
B) Don't/don't know/don't care to run a good antivirus program
C) Don't/don't know/don't care to update their good antivirus program
D) Finally, the big finale: everything runs with admin permissions; that's just unacceptable for an OS in 2010

 

[Antagonist86]

I do know what non-gamers like doing, as I work in an electronic retail store and sell pc's to non-gamers every day.

That doesn't really help your credibility.

Hahaa, mkay ouch. It actually does as most people don't make their own computers.

That explains why Hulu just isn't popular at all, right? [http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/hulu-more-watched-time-warner-cable]

Pff, US. Yeah, nobody in the Netherlands that came into my store actually mentioned Hulu, because it's not that popular here. Then I bet you've never heard of Hyves.

I can tell you work at a electronics retailer because you don't understand the concept of HD

HD exists without HDMI. HD exists without TVs. HD just stands for two certain standard resolutions (1280x720 and 1920x1080) and (these days) progressive-scan. A 1280x1024 monitor, the bare minimum for an LCD these days (hell, even 4 years ago), is capable of displaying HD content.

Yeah I kind of blockheaded through that. But I'll explain. What I mean is VGA plugs, CRT monitors, it still happens. Hell I was once installing a PC at a ladies house and her monitor was a stereotone crt. She was trying to hook a early vista machine to it. But yeah it's very possible to view HD movies and clips on a 4 year old monitor, but at 18,9" screen when digital television is readily available at HD quality is still not as feasable and mainstream as you make it out to be.

XP is a risk because the people still running it:

A) Don't/don't know/don't care to update the OS with the latest security patches
B) Don't/don't know/don't care to run a good antivirus program
C) Don't/don't know/don't care to update their good antivirus program
D) Finally, the big finale: everything runs with admin permissions; that's just unacceptable for an OS in 2010

A) XP bugs people with that kind of stuff.
B) There are 3 major banks in the Netherlands that have a very sound internet banking program running, the goverment actually requires us to go online for thinks like welfare and such (Seriously DigID and it's horribly made by first year interns in Dreamweaver). People are more aware about their vulnerability on the internet here, most don't want to phuck around with their own money, and if they still rely on free internet antivirus programs and they visit my store I will bludgeon them with the biggest branch of the tree of wisdom until they purchase a solid one or until rigor mortis sets in.
C) See above, same except I beat them until the carpet starts to smell.
D) People don't actually.. well I been to workshops for Vista and 7 given from Microsoft themselves aswell as 'How should you sell these' courses, and none of any points was 'it doesn't run with admin permissions'.

My list of why people are still running it alternatively is as such.
People;
A) Don't feel like shelling out 200 euro's.
B) Don't feel comfortable leaving their familiar OS for a new one.
C) Have only heared bad things about the new OS.

 

[Contextualizer]

Ah, you're not from America. Then I'm not sure why we're having this conversation; it's kind of silly to compare things in the biggest Western nation out there to one of the smaller ones. Everything's just way too different.

Also, free AV programs such as Avira Antivir and Microsoft Security Essentials are infinitely better than any AV you have to pay for.

 

[TelHybrid]

Red ring is warranted for 3 years. Any other problem just for one. Well assuming you buy a new console.

The fail rate is less than it used to be. Frankly my 360 has red ringed twice, and been repaired twice. I still love the thing though. (mine is an old 2006 model btw, before they sorted the problems)

Just choose whichever console has the most appealing games library and features.

Also if you plan on playing online a lot, choose the one most your friends have if you have similar tastes in games. Trust me playing online with friends is so much more fun.

I only got it once, and that was after I got Live.

LIVE wouldn't have anything to do with it...

Red ring is a hardware problem, connecting to LIVE is merely software based.

Did I say Live had anything to do with it?

Oh my god!

I didn't!

I was saying that it sucks that I got the red ring right after I got Live.

Jeez chill. Sorry I made an assumption that you made an assumption.

 

[TPiddy]

Once again proving that it's not cheaper because a $300 netbook costs the same as my $300 XBox.

And your $300 Xbox 360 can't run Photoshop, Ableton Live, or even Firefox. Nice value proposition you've got there.

Missing the point completely I see... way to go... Of course a PC will provide better value for the money, but we're talking about cost... not value... value is subjective. A 10 year old wouldn't get much out of Photoshop, Ableton live or Firefox.

Right, because every household has a PC they can and should upgrade to play games on, so your 'rules' apply to everyone. And if not those people are assholes or losers because they go against your argument.

You didn't, but you're certainly dismissing a large chunk of the population because you think they're 'behind the times' for having a gaming system but not a good PC.

buying a switch box and extra cable to connect my PC to my computer and allow me to switch between video outputs

Your PC...and your computer?

Yep, let's pick apart a typo rather than counter the argument... there goes your credibility.

I have a two-monitor setup at home with dual DVI outs... in order to maintain that setup and use my PC to game on my TV I have to buy a switch box to transfer the second output from a second monitor to the TV, or buy a video card with 3 output slots. Complications .

getting a wireless mouse and keyboard with the range to be able to be operated from my couch.

That's cheaper that an Xbox 360 controller. Just saying.

Of course it is... but for one the 360 COMES with one WIRELESS controller whereas a PC you would have to pay extra for that. Also, using a mouse and keyboard from your couch isn't the most comfortable thing in the world to do.

Not everyone wants to sit in front of a small monitor using a keyboard and mouse to play games.

What small monitor? My monitor's bigger and cheaper than any SD or HDTV out there in its price/size range. And it has 2-4 times the resolution of any HDTV out there.

And of course this 'super monitor' of yours doesn't factor into your costs at all? I would rather play games on my 52" HDTV than on my monitors, and I've already explained the complications of setting my PC up to do so. My point is that the majority of console gamers would rather play on TV, that's why they got a console in the first place... it's not that they're not 'educated' about PC gaming... it's a personal choice.

If you're saying PC gaming is cheaper if you already have a PC, what if you already have a nice big TV? Then console gaming becomes cheaper because the 360 and PS3 come with the cables I need to hook it up to my TV. If I wanted a similar experience with PC I'd either have to get one of these gigantic monitors or I'd have to hook my PC up to my TV. Both add to the cost of PC gaming.

Except the Xbox 360 and PS3 can't do full HD on their biggest games. Not that it matters, I thought we were talking about SDTV?

My 360 has been piping in 1080p with just about every game I've played. If the game is not natively 1080p on the back of the box the 360 upscales it for me. I've never seen my TV read an input from my 360 at less than 720p. Obviously my setup is not 'most' people's setup, I'm not trying to say that. What I am trying to say is that 360 COMES 1080p HD capable, included in the cost. Just like how it COMES with a controller. The PS3 COMES with Blu-Ray and Wi-Fi right out of the box... things you'd have to pay extra for if building a PC.

5.1 surround

That costs as only much as 5.1 surround for either consoles. Actually, it's cheaper because 5.1 surround speakers have been a longtime market category for PC gamers.

Umm, no, you need a card capable of outputting 5.1 surround sound from the PC..... I'm not talking about the speakers because that cost is dependent on choice. Once again, 360 and PS3 COME with 5.1 surround capability out of the box.

Give me an Xbox 360 that runs Microsoft Office, Firefox, Ableton Live, and Photoshop. Have fun with that!

And again missing the point. You're trying to say that the added value makes up for the fact that it's more expensive to game on, which could be true, but doesn't change the fact that IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE TO GAME ON.

As for your ownership of gaming consoles, that does not matter in an argument. I've got plenty of console and PC gaming experience myself, and I prefer my 360 over anything else I've tried. You're adding personal preference into an argument that is supposed to be about facts... fact is....

If you are looking at buying something to play GAMES on, if you don't already have a good PC, it's more expensive than a console to try and get the same experience. Everything else requires some kind of shift in the rules... for example...

1. If you're willing to accept a different gaming experience, like using a mouse and keyboard or playing on a smaller monitor, then PC could be cheaper.

2. If you're willing to justify the cost by the added benefits a PC will give you, then it will provide more value for the money, but will not be cheaper.

Quit being such a prick about it and stick to making valid points.

 

[happysock]

I like the Xbox's better library of games, however they can be incredibly unreliable and I'm starting to get trouble with my xbox live again. The 360 is worth the hassle and I have had loads of fun with it, but I am considering to switch to the slim PS3.

 

[Contextualizer]

Haha, yeah. You're the one calling people names yet I'm the prick. Enjoy your "1080P" Xbox 360 experience.

Get back to me when you understand the difference between rendering and upscaling.

Missing the point completely I see... way to go... Of course a PC will provide better value for the money, but we're talking about cost... not value... value is subjective. A 10 year old wouldn't get much out of Photoshop, Ableton live or Firefox.

I'm sorry, but I guess I'm not a 10 year old so I can't really relate as well as you? Otherwise, why are we talking about 10 year olds? Haven't you seen the average age of a gamer, even a console gamer, these days?

 

[Dys]

That PC quote you've given is cheaper than both of the suggested consoles down under (even with our insane prices and that you've clearly not spent any time shopping around for the cheapest deals...I haven't either, and it shows). Hell, you could probably push the graphics card to an nvidia 9800 chipset (+$50), and you can definately knock the cpu up to an e6300 if you buy it seperately from the motherboard (if you go with a gigabyte G31M-ES2L and intel e6300 based on my prices you'll save $4 and get better tech). You're also paying way too much for RAM (even by Australian standards I wouldn't be paying more than $60 for 2gb), I could probably do better on the case as well if I could be bothered trying. This PC is now significantly more capable than either of the consoles (the nvidia 9800 series chipset is two generations newer than that of the PS3, and one generation better than the xbox 360 so it should have more grunt, I know from personal experience that the cpu will overclock from here to pluto and perform amazingly well for its price, that's a pretty solid PC setup).

Spoiler: A few tweaks to the rig you suggested

That's a peice of shit GPU and processor, you can do better even in Australia. If you pick up something a generation or two old you'll get some serious kick cheap as far as GPUs go (unfortunately my default source has none in stock, so here's an American source).

All in all though, that looks about the price range I'm talking. This begs the question, are we seriously paying more than 100% more than consoles than you guys are? PS3s start at well over $400 and the xbox 360 elite isn't really cheaper. I know we pay ungodly prices for videogame consoles, but I've been led to beleive we get fucked on computer parts just as hard...

You think that consoles outlast computers? 6 years ago my Father bought a midrange computer (lower end than the one we've suggested above). It wasn't long after I got my original xbox, that computer is still goin strong and the xbox is not (granted it won't run crysis, but other than that it's played every game I've wanted to lan). A friend has one that's about 7 years old an going strong (though it was top end at the time). Unfortunately I can't contest your 8 year claim based on my immediate experience though, so I suppose if the current generations of consoles can go the distance without any expensive, significant upgrades and additions to the current hardware I'll concede.

Of course, there's the unimaginably large hole in your logic. If the consoles (which I sincerly hope we've already established are far less powerful than current PCs) can continue running new games, why the hell wouldn't current computers (which are more capable) be able to play the ports? That logic doesn't make any sense, prolonging the lifespan of a console generation doesn't mean they evolve on their own accord, it just means that games in 5-10 years aren't going to be any more power hungry than games today. I haven't even started on the cheaper games, lack of blanket subscription fees, ease of upgrade when the next gen does roll around, larger game library (including indie games and mods) and so on. Tell me again who's fantasizing....

Note: This post may not make complete sense, it's 4am here and the only reason I'm up is I'm was a little wired. About halfway through the post I started falling asleep, assuming I remember I'll edit in some coherence tomorrow. Hopefully it makes enough sense for you to be able to get the gist.

Well, I feel sorry for you guys that they charge so much for the consoles. Here a console is $299, after tax about $344. Those examples I gave were just a quick slap together of parts from a local retailer, and I could probably do a little better if I wanted to, but that's the problem.... Also, if you want to discuss the price of PS3 then you'll have to buy a Blu-Ray drive for your PC as well, and how about cables to hook into your TV.. you may have to upgrade the video card to get HDMI out just to replicate the experience.

If you're going to do a straight up comparison, then you have to compare EVERYTHING you get.... so your PC not only has to play the games, it has to play Blu-Rays, output HDMI and 5.1 surround, hook up to your TV and you have to add a mouse / keyboard or controller to the costs, because all of the consoles COME WITH ALL THAT for the price.

And, also, I'm not saying any 8 year old machine, I'm saying an 8 year old PC that cost less than $300 8 years ago.... that's a significant difference and something you're not taking into account.

Let me just say that I don't hate PC gamers, if someone wants to invest the time into finding the best deals for a PC to game on, and enjoys gaming on a PC, all the power to them. But please stop blowing smoke up my ass about how you can replicate the experience and value of a console for less money.

EDIT: Unless games come out that REQUIRE NATAL or the PS3 Wand, they are 'accessories' and not 'upgrades'.

Why would your PC need to play blurays? How does that add to the game experience? PCs have been outputting in DVI, which is the same as HDMI, for years (I have like 4 of those little adapter things floating around, don't they come with all GPUs now?). They also output however many speakers you want (in fairness I didn't look at the motherboard, but it's been longer than 10 years since I've seen one that couldn't put out 7.1 surround). Those comparisons are irrelivent to gameplay, should I then say that consoles should have to play games in HD (720p is not HD) before they can be compared? (the computer above running the 9800 would be able to run games based on the source engine, dunia etc on full HD at easily playable frames) Or that they can't play compressed (some) video and are therefore incomparable? They struggle with some audio formats and are therefore terrible for gaming? No, of course I wouldn't because it makes no difference to their ability to play games.

8 years ago PCs were more expensive (or so I was lead to beleive). I don't know if I could've built something with as much kick for as little, however I know that my dads cost somewhere around the $1700 mark and that the screen cost $1000 so they weren't unreasonable.

I can easily exceed the value and lifespan of a console based on the prices presented before me. It does piss me off that the cost of consoles is so significantly cheaper overseas (which is a factor I can only struggle to account for) however even if it does cost >$200 more, over it's life you'll save that back (what does xbox live alone cost for 8 years where you are? I think Aussies pay somewhere in the region of $100 a year, so the PC has paid itself off in 2 years, I'm not sure I actually want to hear how much cheaper Xbox live is for you, but you might as well hit me with it), new PS3 games cost $110 down under where the most expensive PC game on steam (a really expensive platform) is call of duty 6 at $90USD (I think that's about $94au), that's more than $20 more expensive than the next most expensive game, and $40 more than most new release titles). There's no way in hell that over the quote 8 year liefspan of the consoles that they work out cheaper than my PC alternative, it might be different overseas but from where I'm sitting PC is the far cheaper, far more capable, far more sensible choice. I am fairly sure that project natal and playstation wand are going to be used excessively to prolong the life of the current console generation with a great many games relying entirely on them, I could be wrong but that's what I'm expecting.

At this point, before someone jumps on the bandwagon of hating people who are informed, I'd like to point out I'm not an elitist PC fanboy. I own all 3 consoles and in my first post in this thread I objectively compared the two consoles the OP suggested. I own all the consoles because I think they are all worth owning. If there are particular exclusives you want to play, then the platform that plays them is bar far the best choice for you. If you simply want a platform that will play games, PC is the most capable, the cheapest and has the biggest library and as such is what I'd advise.

 

[TPiddy]

Why would your PC need to play blurays? How does that add to the game experience? PCs have been outputting in DVI, which is the same as HDMI, for years (I have like 4 of those little adapter things floating around, don't they come with all GPUs now?). They also output however many speakers you want (in fairness I didn't look at the motherboard, but it's been longer than 10 years since I've seen one that couldn't put out 7.1 surround). Those comparisons are irrelivent to gameplay, should I then say that consoles should have to play games in HD (720p is not HD) before they can be compared? (the computer above running the 9800 would be able to run games based on the source engine, dunia etc on full HD at easily playable frames) Or that they can't play compressed (some) video and are therefore incomparable? They struggle with some audio formats and are therefore terrible for gaming? No, of course I wouldn't because it makes no difference to their ability to play games.

8 years ago PCs were more expensive (or so I was lead to beleive). I don't know if I could've built something with as much kick for as little, however I know that my dads cost somewhere around the $1700 mark and that the screen cost $1000 so they weren't unreasonable.

I can easily exceed the value and lifespan of a console based on the prices presented before me. It does piss me off that the cost of consoles is so significantly cheaper overseas (which is a factor I can only struggle to account for) however even if it does cost >$200 more, over it's life you'll save that back (what does xbox live alone cost for 8 years where you are? I think Aussies pay somewhere in the region of $100 a year, so the PC has paid itself off in 2 years, I'm not sure I actually want to hear how much cheaper Xbox live is for you, but you might as well hit me with it), new PS3 games cost $110 down under where the most expensive PC game on steam (a really expensive platform) is call of duty 6 at $90USD (I think that's about $94au), that's more than $20 more expensive than the next most expensive game, and $40 more than most new release titles). There's no way in hell that over the quote 8 year liefspan of the consoles that they work out cheaper than my PC alternative, it might be different overseas but from where I'm sitting PC is the far cheaper, far more capable, far more sensible choice. I am fairly sure that project natal and playstation wand are going to be used excessively to prolong the life of the current console generation with a great many games relying entirely on them, I could be wrong but that's what I'm expecting.

At this point, before someone jumps on the bandwagon of hating people who are informed, I'd like to point out I'm not an elitist PC fanboy. I own all 3 consoles and in my first post in this thread I objectively compared the two consoles the OP suggested. I own all the consoles because I think they are all worth owning. If there are particular exclusives you want to play, then the platform that plays them is bar far the best choice for you. If you simply want a platform that will play games, PC is the most capable, the cheapest and has the biggest library and as such is what I'd advise.

Well, LIVE is $60 CAD per year here, and most games are $59.99 or $69.99 here, with some special editions coming in at $79.99, so it does seem like Australia is getting the short end of the stick here. Are you salaries higher or is it just import fees that cost you?

I can see your point that perhaps over an 8 year span PC gaming would be cheaper.... but initial purchase prices I would say Consoles are lower... that's just their business model.

 

[feebstalicious93]

360. I want to say PS3, but the games that are on both tend to run better on 360, for some reason.

I disagree, I have both and I find that most tend to run better on the PS3, just my opinion though.

I say try the PS3, I like it more then my 360 and the exclusives are more fun... except for Mass Effect... Oh Mass Effect *drool*. Stupid 360 had better be fixed by the time ME II comes out, if it isn't someone is going to die.

I've heard the exact opposite. I mean, review sites state constant issues with PS3 versions scoring lower. And they can't all be corrupt.

Gamespot is just a dick about it though.

Bayonetta and Dragon Age both scored a FULL point lower on PS3.

there is no difference of the ps3 and 360 version of bayonetta
for dragon age, ps3 and 360 scored the same, a full point lower than the PC VERSION