The Tale of M and S

[Lightknight]

You continue to use Skyrim

Do you not understand phrase 'other than'? Yea I'm sure you read every word.

Read my post again. Primarily the rest of #2.

You can focus on sentences like, " Other games, the ones you mentioned, have low FPS here and there but so do comparable pcs that are much more poweful on paper but only relatively so in output. "

EDIT: (you edited your post) Ah, I see what you're saying about turn around/upgradeability. In a perfect world where consoles don't exist, it would be a great point. But in a world where consoles do exist and are hugely popular amongst gamers, it doesn't matter all that much. Games will be made to suit the consoles and it isn't their slow turnaround time so much as them being the benchmark against which all games are made. You buy a console and you know games will work on them for as long as games are made for them whereas you can't always be so sure with a given pc. Again, specifically not a $400 machine.

Please bear in mind, read through my previous posts and you'll see my complaint has largely been levied against the $400 machines. At least that $1,500 pc from 2006 I mentioned can still play games. I have no problem with gaming pcs and I believe hardware costs have generally gone down such at today's $1,500 machines should be able to hold up better over the coming years.

So their turn around time being slow doesn't make them inherently better, but them being a standard does. It means that $400 now means you'll be playing games on it for as long as it is part of the current gen. That is an inherent advantage if consoles are going to exist at all. In fact, I believe this to be one of the primary reasons that consoles exist at all. Standardizations are really safe bets for consumers and publishers alike.

 

[Orekoya]

Please bear in mind, read through my previous posts and you'll see my complaint has largely been levied against the $400 machines. At least that $1,500 pc from 2006 I mentioned can still play games. I have no problem with gaming pcs and I believe hardware costs have generally gone down such at today's $1,500 machines should be able to hold up better over the coming years.

This is kinda been bugging me the entire time, and now that I've had time to think on it, I think I will be able to vocalise it now. You rag on $400 machine saying that they'll only last for two years at best then tout the route of building $1500 machine that'll last for five as the superior of the two choices in pc gaming, if pc gaming us what someone's going to do. At least that seems to be the gist I got when you called it practically a lie.

Buying 3 $400 pcs for every two years for those five years would only be $1200 at the worst of time. So you saved $300. This also pretty much eliminates the cost of wear and tear given these are basically disposable pc units. Many parts that only have a two year difference can likely be salvaged for upgrading the new machine. They are usually small mini-tower units and use less power.

So their turn around time being slow doesn't make them inherently better, but them being a standard does. It means that $400 now means you'll be playing games on it for as long as it is part of the current gen. That is an inherent advantage if consoles are going to exist at all. In fact, I believe this to be one of the primary reasons that consoles exist at all. Standardizations are really safe bets for consumers and publishers alike.

Yes, that's probably why I brought up how homogenized the variety of tech for pcs have become.

 

[Fraser Fitzpatrick]

Epilogue:
Mr M and Mr S sat for a few moments more, contemplating what had just occurred. Suddenly there came a loud whooping from over by the playground.
"What the hell is that?" asked Mr M
Mr S sighed, "It think it's Mr N."

 

[[email protected]]

Arguing about the difference between console and PC is as pointless as arguing the difference between a car and a motorbike...