Jimquisition: Xbox 360 and PS3 Are Just Very Crap PCs

[him over there]

Spoiler

Well this thread is the gift that keeps on going. C'mon folks, lets keep the fail-pinion train moving! I bet we can make it to over 1000 ill-informed replies.

On topic i think many are losing sight of what Jim is talking about; the experience of playing (or at least trying to play) a game. The "Plug in and play" ability of the consoles is all but dead. Gone. Kaput. When it comes to user experience consoles are getting all the disadvantages of the PC with none of the open platform benefits. He's not saying PCs are cheaper, all he's saying is the experience is so similar in terms of technical bullshit that the advantages a PC provides no longer has the same gap in terms of user friendliness.

The PC hasn't really got any easier to deal with (and is still a bit of a headache) BUT the publishers and console makers have shit all over the console gamer so much as to make it almost intolerable to deal with.

Thanks for the rerail. However I'm going to bring up the wii. Yes less powerful, full of gimmicks, has no games etc. but it's the only console that has maintained the plug in and play mentality. I put in a disc click on the start button and then I'm playing. Considering there's news of the 720 being upgrade-able like the pc its only bringing more problems. Nintendo may not make the most powerful consoles but they're the only people making consoles.

Well the Wii is an odd case, it managed to retain the advantages of a last generation console by basically just standing still. I hate to be the "The Wii was essentially a last gen console" guy but... oh to hell with it; The Wii was basically a Gamecube with a fancy waving stick, right down to the almost non-existant online integration. When they did try something it was painful and functioned not just like a PC but like a PC from 1996. (Friend-codes, Wii Speak etc etc) it was just embarrassing.

Thing is; there is no reason for 1/2 the bullshit on the HD consoles to exist. Online passes; Needless bullshit. All DLC scandals; Needless bullshit. 40 minute patches; Lazy, overreaching needless bullshit. The HD consoles need to learn to streamline and live within their graphical means. All the overly long installs and patches are down to using online content delivery as a crutch.

Many PC games need to patch because of unforeseen hardware combination conflicts. Consoles don't have this problem. Lock it down. make it run. Ship it. You don't need to spend 18 months making the bloom a bit more shiny if the game is going to need a 10GB install and run at 25FPS. Consoles are good because they are standardized but have the disadvantage of constraints. Learn to work within those restraints.

In conclusion; If console makers tried to make their online integration user friendly... it would be user friendly. They are trying to have their cake and eat it. The Wii just doesn't try to have a cake so it can't fail.

Everything save for the terrible online isn't really a problem for the wii, or any consoles really. All these problems are mostly because of publishers and developers not the consoles themselves. Consoles are a standardized platform making it easier to reach and manipulate. If outside forces stopped trying to fuck them over it wouldn't be a problem.

AS for the wii I see your point. It can't really fall prey to that because it wasn't very serious in the first place. However I hope that the plug in and play mentality sticks for the upcoming Wii U. In my 4 years of owning the wii I have hadv1 patch, 3 updates that went very quickly and intuitively and zero online passes or dlc. The wii failed because it was a last gen console but that brought the hidden benefit of the last gen consoles.

 

[Valdus]

Thanks Jim, it's not like the pretentious PC crowd need something else to make them think that they are somehow better people due to their choice in gaming medium.

Also I think you're overlooking one big thing - value for money. I bought the Xbox 360 when it came out and when I buy an Xbox360 game I can guarantee it will still work on it despite it's age. I cannot say the same for PC. In fact my PC is only 2 years old an already there are games that just will not work on it at all.

What's more, the PC was still 4 times more expensive. This isn't that much of an issue for me since I the PC was handy for work as well, but there's no way I could justify buying a full-on gaming rig. It's just far too much money. If gaming was related to my job in some way I could consider it, but for fun in my spare time? No chance in hell. Sorry, but some of us have a life outside gaming and can't justify the price-tag associated with playing primarily on the PC.

 

[clippen05]

But go ahead and keep your shoving your entitled elitist opinion down anyone, it just makes you look ignorant.

IT makes you look ignorant when you say that "Wahhh its tooooo hard to assemble a PC" without giving it more than 5 seconds of effort, looking at the manual, or scouring the internet for help"

 

[xorinite]

Thanks Jim, it's not like the pretentious PC crowd

I hardly think you are helping matters when you call everyone who chooses a PC pretentious, I mean what have I ever done to you? I just like playing dwarf fortress, is that a crime?

Also I think you're overlooking one big thing - value for money. I bought the Xbox 360 when it came out

I can't agree with your point about value. I had an Xbox 360 on release, it died. Many of them did, after warranty so I was out of pocket for that.

My PC by comparison, cost a fraction more than my PS3 yet every single game comes out significantly cheaper on PC. (dwarf fortress is free too!)
It's about six years old now, and has only struggled with the Witcher 2. Also like you, I had to have one for work anyway.

Also, I have to say if you paid four times the launch price of the Xbox 360 for a PC 2 years ago and that PC is already unable to run modern games, you have every right to feel aggrieved. Id be mad if that happened to me.

I will add, I custom built mine, it seems like that is the only way to get good value in a PC, some people just don't want the hassle and I can't blame them for that.

 

[Jaeke]

Well I'm a console-man (primarily 360 but I enjoy PS3 exclusives) and all I have to say is:

Really? Took ya that long to figure it out?

 

[xorinite]

But go ahead and keep your shoving your entitled elitist opinion down anyone, it just makes you look ignorant.

IT makes you look ignorant when you say that "Wahhh its tooooo hard to assemble a PC" without giving it more than 5 seconds of effort, looking at the manual, or scouring the internet for help"

To be fair I think you are taking for granted several factors.

You have to know what components you want. If you want good value you will need a comparison chart. If you want to be assured you have the best value, you will have to do this for each component. Then you have to shop around buying each part at the best price from different resellers. Then you get them all, assemble them, install software, firewall, antivirus, configure network stuff and so on.

I enjoy doing such things, but for some people they just don't want to do it. When I was growing up there were always small stores who would do this for you, now though, its big retailers who just want to sell you junk that goes obsolete in a couple of years.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

150 pounds for 5 years of gameplay.
£150.
5 years.

That is the only reason I have my PS3. I could not afford a PC, I cannot afford a PC (soon I get a £3000 reimbursement, so I'll be dropping 500 on a rig) so it was that or bust.

I mean I get that PC's are generally better, primarily due to their flexibility but it was so much cheaper to buy my PS3 than erect a rig which, at the time, was looking to be what? £800 to be comparable to a PS3? I know what I was going to buy.

Some people just don't have the cash, I could have possibly saved up that money over time but I'd have missed out on SO many games in the meantime for bugger all difference since most of these problems are recent.

 

[Bad Jim]

I think consoles will be succeeded by Onlive. Consoles have become worse due to DRM. Onlive has the DRM publishers dream of while doing much better than modern consoles.

Onlive is cheap. The 'console' is much cheaper than a PS3 or 360. Or you can just use your PC. No I don't mean a gaming rig, I'm talking about the crappy lappy that most console owners will have to use the internet. You might want an HDMI cable and a controller.

Onlive is hassle free. You'll never wait for a game to install or download patches. As long as your connection is good, you can play.

Onlive will probably never require additional hardware. Consoles can go seven years without a new generation but Onlive can just upgrade their servers to handle the latest games.

Onlive can be responsive. This should be a ridiculous thing to say, but it can theoretically beat a console that runs at 30 fps. How? By having big computers that run a number of games. A computer that runs ten games at 30 fps can render a frame in about 3 milliseconds, while the 30fps console takes 33 milliseconds to render a frame. If you can get a ping below 30, you can get that rendered frame while the equivalent console is still rendering.

Onlive can offer better price/performance than PC hardware. Consoles have the same architecture as PCs, and PCs have a competitive market. Consoles can only win on price/performance by cheating, subsidising the console with more expensive games. Onlive can have a real edge. They can satisfy 1,000 gamers with enough hardware to run 500 games, as long as 500 gamers don't all log in at once. And if they use a big computer to run many games, they save on hard drive/RAM costs. They don't have to worry about distribution media either, they could make a game that required 1TB hard drive space.

 

[CodeRed128]

*Flame Shield Up*

That's why you go with Nintendo.

 

[him over there]

I think consoles will be succeeded by Onlive. Consoles have become worse due to DRM. Onlive has the DRM publishers dream of while doing much better than modern consoles.

Onlive is cheap. The 'console' is much cheaper than a PS3 or 360. Or you can just use your PC. No I don't mean a gaming rig, I'm talking about the crappy lappy that most console owners will have to use the internet. You might want an HDMI cable and a controller.

Onlive is hassle free. You'll never wait for a game to install or download patches. As long as your connection is good, you can play.

Onlive will probably never require additional hardware. Consoles can go seven years without a new generation but Onlive can just upgrade their servers to handle the latest games.

Onlive can be responsive. This should be a ridiculous thing to say, but it can theoretically beat a console that runs at 30 fps. How? By having big computers that run a number of games. A computer that runs ten games at 30 fps can render a frame in about 3 milliseconds, while the 30fps console takes 33 milliseconds to render a frame. If you can get a ping below 30, you can get that rendered frame while the equivalent console is still rendering.

Onlive can offer better price/performance than PC hardware. Consoles have the same architecture as PCs, and PCs have a competitive market. Consoles can only win on price/performance by cheating, subsidising the console with more expensive games. Onlive can have a real edge. They can satisfy 1,000 gamers with enough hardware to run 500 games, as long as 500 gamers don't all log in at once. And if they use a big computer to run many games, they save on hard drive/RAM costs. They don't have to worry about distribution media either, they could make a game that required 1TB hard drive space.

Plenty of people hate Onlive on principle because they treat games like a service and not a good.

 

[jpoon]

Perfectly stated Jim, consoles are the shittiest consoles you can possibly own, and they are routinely dwarfed by even the most inexpensive PC's.

PC is where IT's at, and where IT has always been, and even the "next gen" (I.E. current "gen" PC) will not change this. Sure they might get a new Uncharted, Mario, or twenty new Halo's but they are all pretty weak compared to the lineup that PC gamers will get their hands on at much cheaper prices. I know where I'll be spending most of my time!

Edit: Honestly anybody who has the desire to assemble a computer damn well can if they can take a couple simple hours to read how the construction is done. It is almost childs play these days, the most difficult part they'll likely have is applying the thermal paste (which is rather simple), I'm absolutely certain my father could construct one after reading a diagram and maybe watching a short video like the one linked above. If there's a will, there's a way! Guys don't need to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Or I could just, y'know, buy a system and play it rather than watch a diagram and a youtube vid. This seems that this always seems to fly over the head over most of you guys, I simply don't understand it.

If your gonna talk about the solid benefits of PC's sure. If your gonna mention what consoles are becoming now, no prob. It does have its flaws, as was mentioned in the vid.

However, to sound so arrogant as to assume that there is no reason why somebody would go console over PC is ridiculous. Do you people get pissy when somebody uses pancake mix over pancakes from scratch?

Is it not possible that the console has exactly what people are looking for, in an easy to install, cheap package? It does exactly what people are looking for it to do. Play games.

I'm pretty sure the point of the vid was to point out how consoles are becoming so similar to PC's while still failing miserably at competing with them. Sure they work for many people but they are becoming as complex to use as PC's while still looking and performing so much worse, the benefits are becoming smaller and smaller. I agree with Jim that the payoff of consoles is dwindling very quickly. This will be renewed with the next batch of consoles but you can guarantee they are going to be even more complex and even more rigid and inflexible. I would take the time to learn about PC's because there's no denying that they are more than worth the effort.

I don't get pissy at people using consoles, I have a PS3 myself and still play it occasionally. Whatever floats your boat as they say.

 

[Bad Jim]

Plenty of people hate Onlive on principle because they treat games like a service and not a good.

Plenty of people hate Steam, Origin, PSN and XBLA for doing that as well. That issue could so easily be an advantage for consoles but it's not likely to be the case next gen.

 

[him over there]

Plenty of people hate Onlive on principle because they treat games like a service and not a good.

Plenty of people hate Steam, Origin, PSN and XBLA for doing that as well. That issue could so easily be an advantage for consoles but it's not likely to be the case next gen.

No the platforms you mentioned are a digital distribution service, you buy a license to play the game. Onlive streams the games, you have nothing and they have total control.

 

[=y]

Oddly enough I feel more justified in spending $900+ on making a new gaming rig now. Thank god for Jim!

Also what is the game the footage from about 4:29 to 5:20?

 

[Katya Topolkaraeva]

PCs are def. the way to go if you are at all inclined into geeky techyness. If you are not and can't figure out how to use a computer past email and internet surfing then perhaps counsels are more convenient. I play everything on the pc and have a ps3 for those ps3 exclusive titles i am into (ie Uncharted, Resistance, God of War, Ratchet and Clank exc). Occasionally i swap my ps3 with a friend's XBox 360 so he can catch up on the ps3 exclusive titles and i can catch up on the xbox exclusive titles (ie Gears of War)

 

[katsabas]

I get a MOAB in MW3 on PS3 and people ask me how I do it cause they cannot cope with the PS3 controller.

People get a MOAB in MW3 on PC and I ask them how they do it cause I cannot cope with any keyboard.

Like women, it all comes down to taste. There's no right or wrong in this equation. I cannot imagine playing Torchlight on consoles or Crash Bandicoot on PC. It feels iffy.

 

[Dr.Helios]

As someone who has in the past rabidly defended consoles against any and all comers I would most likely have taken issue with this until earlier this week. I have been house sitting for my fiance's elder brother and have been able to take advantage of his relatively high spec gaming PC. The experience blew me out the water,I have to say the advantages are near innumerable before you even get to mods. Seeing Skyrim re-textured to the hilt and fixed of all the little annoying bugs was something of a revelation.

I whole heatedly agree with Mr Sterling and am now off to try convince the future missus we really need a gaming PC instead of another bloody dog XD

 

[itsthesheppy]

150 pounds for 5 years of gameplay.
£150.
5 years.

That is the only reason I have my PS3. I could not afford a PC, I cannot afford a PC (soon I get a £3000 reimbursement, so I'll be dropping 500 on a rig) so it was that or bust.

I mean I get that PC's are generally better, primarily due to their flexibility but it was so much cheaper to buy my PS3 than erect a rig which, at the time, was looking to be what? £800 to be comparable to a PS3? I know what I was going to buy.

Some people just don't have the cash, I could have possibly saved up that money over time but I'd have missed out on SO many games in the meantime for bugger all difference since most of these problems are recent.

Just because PCs are superior doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong with buying console, especially if your resources are tight. Don't sweat it.

 

[n19h7m4r3]

Ah the joys of PC Gaming!

All hail GABEN!

Time for some Day Z later with the friends

http://www.gaben.you.are.mighty.aninote.com/