Console Help
- Thread starter Tsunimo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you're getting a 360, check the manufacturing date. Any 360 or 360 Elite manufactured after October of 2008 will have the Jasper chipset in them. To date, the Jasper chipset 360's have the same failure rates as the PS3's. It's the older 360's that had the RRoD problems. As for warranty, Microsoft extended the warranty on all RRoD and E74 errors for 3 years... so if either of those things happens to you in 3 years you'll get a free replacement. All replacements come with whatever warranty you had left of your original purchase. If anything outside of these problems happen it's the standard 1 year warranty, just like PS3's.zzz3339 said:
So, ultimately, the two problems plaguing both systems are gone, as 360 is less likely to fail and the PS3 has lowered their price. This pretty much levels the playing field, and your choice should ultimately come down to what your friends have or what games you're interested in.
PS3 does have the free PSN network, but I've seen and heard a lot of bad things about it, while LIVE you have to pay for. PS3 also has the built-in Blu Ray if you don't feel like getting your own Blu-Ray player.
Multi platform games do tend to be better on 360, because the hardware is easier to work with. PS3 exclusives that harness the system's power, like Uncharted 2, will be better than what you can get on 360, but it all comes down to your preference in games.
Put down the high end equipment, that's not a fair comparison to consoles at all. Comparing a current gen top end computer to a current gen console is the same as comparing a super nintendo to a PS3 (that is to say, flat out stupid)TPiddy said:
An xbox 360 is running a 2900XT based GPU and the PS3 is running a 7800 based GPU (both of these are several years old), they are both notably cheaper a 5870. A core2duo processor will give comparable grunt to a console, and they cost sweet fuck all, as do older motherboards that are compatible with them (there's no need for i7 chipsets here). I have posts floating around the site where I've actually built (based on australian prices) systems that are cheaper than PS3s (and have a surprisingly huge amount of power, more than enough to run DX9 crysis on medium-high settings). The myth about PC gaming being more expensive than console is based on pricing trends well before microsoft entered the console arena...
Ok, so I've got a standard MoBo / Processor that's middle of the road for what's available: $158.99Dys said:
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5202400&Sku=B69-3158
Let's throw in 2 GB of DDR 2 - $76.99
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5483262&Sku=K24-7078
Throw in the 120 GB HDD - $56.97
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4226540&CatId=2457
Add the video card - $59.97
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3092427&Sku=B52-7880
DVD drive - $34.97
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4914522&Sku=L49-1036%20OEM
Case and power supply: $46.99
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5397372&Sku=S19-4046
So... that's $434.88 for a piece of shit, PC wise, and it'll *probably* play most "Games for Windows" titles...
PC people need to get over this fantasy that it is less expensive than a console. The only way it's less expensive is if you already have a PC and you just an upgrade or two to modify it to play games. Not to mention the continual upgrading. If the current console generation lasts until 2013-2014 as many think it might, that means that I will have gotten a system that lasts for 8-9 YEARS and still plays everything that ever came out for it. Can't say the same thing for a PC made 8 years ago now can you?
I personally would pick the PS3 for its free online play and blu-ray.
I also think it looks better.
And if you go for the 250gb Slim, you get a lot more storage.
I also think it looks better.
And if you go for the 250gb Slim, you get a lot more storage.
I like the PlayStation 3 myself. I'm not a hardcore online player, so the price of the "superior" XBox Live would be a waste for me. I do play online occasionally, but there is no point for me to subscribe to something I don't commonly use, where I can just use it on and off for free.
Even though the BluRay format was really slow out of the gate, it's starting to pick up pace pretty well (though it will never truly replace DVD in my opinion). I think the PS3 has staying power, and it will stay in the console race long after the next generation of Xbox comes out.
Even though the BluRay format was really slow out of the gate, it's starting to pick up pace pretty well (though it will never truly replace DVD in my opinion). I think the PS3 has staying power, and it will stay in the console race long after the next generation of Xbox comes out.
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).TPiddy said:
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.Dys said:
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'.
That logic doesn't work... because you don't require an HDTV, just a TV... and you could say the same for PC.... they're cheaper IFFFFF you already own a monitor.Contextualizer said:
More households have TV's than they do PC's.... and in many, the PC they have is so old they would have to replace just about everything in it to run your typical Games for Windows offering.
Saying PC gaming is cheaper because you happen to have an up to date PC that you use for other things anyhow is cheating the principal behind the comparison. Don't get me wrong, PC gaming is superior to console gaming, just not so much so that I'm willing to go through the extra complications to do so.
If you did not have a PC, it would be more expensive than a console, period.
And PC games don't require top of the line components to be played at 640x480/720x480 (which is the resolution of non-HDTVs). They don't require much at all actually.TPiddy said:
Besides, why do so many gamers look down on the Wii for not being an HD console?
Quick, name some households that have a television and no computer yet somehow have enough money to spend well over $500 (because extra controllers and games don't just buy themselves!) and thousands of dollars on broadband internet.
Certainly, but they should upgrade those PCs anyway because you can't do anything on them anyway and they are massive security risks. If your computer is still running XP or isn't running at least a dual core processor, you are doing it wrong.
And Torchlight along with many other extremely popular PC games run on $300 netbooks. PC gaming isn't just about Crysis.
Right, I'm circumventing the principle you're holding onto that only exists to make it an uneven comparison.
Extra complications. The vague, swirling nexus of things you have a feeling exist but have no idea if they do or not.
Give me a break. It's not 1992 anymore (not that it matters since most users here probably weren't even born by then) or even 1998.
And if you don't have any kind of PC, then your priorities are seriously messed up if you're going to get a console first.
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, nor an upgrade from XP, and XP isn't a security risk at all. You don't even really need more then 2 gb of ram. You just need a good antivirus and keep updating.Contextualizer said:
Sorry for just quoting that, I don't agree with pc's being cheaper or just as cheap as consoles unless you take to pirating but most of your arguments are solid and just that one I have a serious personal gripe with.
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.Contextualizer said:
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?
Once again proving that it's not cheaper because a $300 netbook costs the same as my $300 XBox.Contextualizer said:
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.Contextualizer said:
Yes, Extra complications. Like upgrading my video card to get HDMI out, buying a switch box and extra cable to connect my PC to my computer and allow me to switch between video outputs, getting a wireless mouse and keyboard with the range to be able to be operated from my couch.Contextualizer said:
Not everyone wants to sit in front of a small monitor using a keyboard and mouse to play games. It's not the same experience and therefore you have to add extra to the equation to make it a fair comparison.
Give me the SAME experience on PC: That is, full HD, 5.1 surround, using a controller from my couch, and your PC cost goes up.