All of my friends play XBOX, one of my friends plays PC, it's easy to see why I would prefer to play console.
Honestly I count that as a con for consoles.the_green_dragon said:Oh, the other Pro for consoles is that if it breaks, you just send it in for repairs.
If your PC breaks, have fun figuring which part is broken, especially if the damn thing won't let you boot.
No they haven`t abandoned it, but it only matters for used-market buyers. You can be a day one buyer or still wait for a price drop, aslong as you don`t buy it used the online pass-code is inside the game. You can`t compare it to DRM since you can still play the singleplayer offline and just enter your online code once for the mp. Besides i really doubt that any other console game aside from COD or BF could make profit from such services like CODelite or BFpremium. You don`t even need them for the mp.Zipa said:The no DRM thing that people keep bringing up for consoles is confusing me, have publishers abandoned online passes then? Also things like call of duty elite and Battlefield 3 Premium are starting to become more common. Granted they don't effect single player games that much but to say there is no DRM is shortsighted.
Also there is at least one game I know with actual always online DRM for the ps3.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100238-Capcom-Apologizes-for-Final-Fight-Double-Impact-DRM
That. . . Is an extremely good point! I never even considered that.Aerosteam 1908 said:I also heard it's physically impossible to sit back and relax on a sofa whilst gaming on a PC.
I recently bought orcs must die (not the second), the thing is the game set it's self to run on 1 core although it needed 2. The second core is used for all the animations.peruvianskys said:The only one I've ever seen brought out is "simplicity" and while that argument maybe had some ground to stand on in 2001 or so, it doesn't stand up at all nowadays.
I'm in full agreement with you, so don't take this reply as some sort of disproval, but I do know of two funny things:omega 616 said:I recently bought orcs must die (not the second), the thing is the game set it's self to run on 1 core although it needed 2. The second core is used for all the animations.peruvianskys said:The only one I've ever seen brought out is "simplicity" and while that argument maybe had some ground to stand on in 2001 or so, it doesn't stand up at all nowadays.
So I had to search the internet to find out the solution, which was to open the game, alt tab out, open task manager, find "orcs must die", right click it, click find process, right click on the process and then set affinity to use all the cores.
The problem was, for what ever reason, I didn't have set affinity at all ... there was literally no option for it, so I had to spend another 30 mins looking round the net to find another solution. That solution involved opening msconfig.
I would never have that problem with console, I just pop the disk in and after a DRM free install, I play the game.
I have also had problems with other games, so it's not a 1 off occurrence.
Plus with a console you never have to wonder if your console can run game X, sure if you have just spent 5 grand on a computer then you don't have to worry either but a console is cheap compared to that.
If a game says PS3 on it, I know I can play it. Steam has black light: retribution and I have a PC but I can't play it 'cos my PC isn't good enough.
You also have to deal with microsoft at least when dealing with pc's. (you know, the largest part of the market has windows on it and all that)Zeckt said:I would say that sony and microsoft are much, much, MUCH harder to deal with then steam. Just saying.
Well, a GOOD console might have better graphics than that, but one as outdated as the PC that you described, will probably have 640x480 graphics, because it will be a 6th generation console or a Wii.Winthrop said:I'm going to mess with everyone and say that consoles have better graphics. Sure a GOOD computer may have better graphics, but mine is at the point where I run everything in 800x600 with everything turned down to run modern AAA games at 20 fps (I'm fine with 20 by the way).
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. Major bullshit.sammysoso said:Easy to use: Just plug in and play
Games are guaranteed to play everytime, don't have to worry whether or not it could handle a game. No fiddling with new video cards, drivers etc...
Controllers: Not all PC games have gamepad support
Split-screen is tons of fun with friends.
But mostly financially: I've spent MAYBE $500 total on hardware the past ten years. That includes two consoles, controllers, headsets etc...
And for that amount of money, compared to the performance of the machine is a pretty good deal. Contrary to what the "PC Gaming Master Race" would tell you, console games don't look that much worse than PC games.
Consoles are also a nice baseline for developers building their games
The graphics part is just not true. Saying that your very old pc can't run games as well as your console is like saying that the xbox can't run games as well as the xbox360. If you have a pc that's not older than say, 4 years it'll run games better than the current consoles.Winthrop said:-sniiiip-
TLDR: Graphics (for some)
Cost
Ease of access
Controllers
No "haxors" online
Split screen