can pc even come close to being considered part of the console race?
- Thread starter Aiden Rebirth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is just wrong.
People need to wake up. There is no 'console Race' going on, this is just bullshit hype created by the gaming media, and in part the gaming companies themselves.
They make it sound like it's the arms race, only instead of 'lets see who can create the biggest nuke' some seem to think it's 'let's see who can create the prettiest game' and like both, it is pointless and can destroy the involving parties.
If there is a console race, what is it based on might I ask? Because depending on your answer, the winner is the Wii or the PC, and while the PC itself is not a home console platform, it still has a gaming aspect to it, Just like the PS3 has a Blu Ray Player aspect to it, people are not going to say 'is the PS3 a real blu ray player?' because it's primary function is gaming (or so I'm told, I also may change that example because I believe it to be a tad flawed but I am tired).
Or if you feel I am wrong, I am willing to toy with this console race malarkey for the sake of this thread. What would determine the winner of the console race?
People need to wake up. There is no 'console Race' going on, this is just bullshit hype created by the gaming media, and in part the gaming companies themselves.
They make it sound like it's the arms race, only instead of 'lets see who can create the biggest nuke' some seem to think it's 'let's see who can create the prettiest game' and like both, it is pointless and can destroy the involving parties.
If there is a console race, what is it based on might I ask? Because depending on your answer, the winner is the Wii or the PC, and while the PC itself is not a home console platform, it still has a gaming aspect to it, Just like the PS3 has a Blu Ray Player aspect to it, people are not going to say 'is the PS3 a real blu ray player?' because it's primary function is gaming (or so I'm told, I also may change that example because I believe it to be a tad flawed but I am tired).
Or if you feel I am wrong, I am willing to toy with this console race malarkey for the sake of this thread. What would determine the winner of the console race?
Also, I don't understand why there was no 'console race' in a mainstream point of veiw last year, but there is this year. what the hell?
No, consoles are designed for gaming, while the PC or the wretched mac arent. Consoles do gaming much better than the PC will ever, even if you play Crysis with an xbox controller on your PC, its still better on the xbox. You know, if it were on the xbox. Can crysis even go on the PS3, christ, that was a really bad example eh?
Oh dear...GackleBlax said:
PC's run games better than consoles, that's not up for debate, what IS up for debate is whether the extra price is warranted, or whether there is an extra cost at all.
I've always been an advocate for "the PC as a gaming console", both because it has it's very own exclusives and because it can run games just as well as any other console. The PC is very much a gaming console, the only difference is that the PC has a broader range of applications and uses and isn't built for games alone.
That being said, I don't think that PC's should be considered consoles along with it's gaming console brethren when it comes to sales figures, statistics and the like. Other consoles can be defined as being in "generations" which establishes a set market for competition for comparisons. Because the PC "evolves" independently and is far too varied you can't fit them cleanly into a "generation" like the more uniform consoles.
And thus, my sermon is done. Amen.
That being said, I don't think that PC's should be considered consoles along with it's gaming console brethren when it comes to sales figures, statistics and the like. Other consoles can be defined as being in "generations" which establishes a set market for competition for comparisons. Because the PC "evolves" independently and is far too varied you can't fit them cleanly into a "generation" like the more uniform consoles.
And thus, my sermon is done. Amen.
If you are an avid gamer, the PC is a better investment, even if the initial cost is greater than a console. The reason for this is that PC games do two things that console games do not.Arcticflame said:
1. They cost less on average ($10 per new release).
2. They drop in price further and faster on average.
For example, I bought 6 games this christmas, all of them available on other platforms. I saved $60 instantly on my purchases without having to wait for a drop. That's enough for a console game.
By the time that I >need< a new PC... in 8 years... this PC will have payed for itself in game savings. All the while I will be able to play all the games that are released up until the point where an upgrade is required.
You can't say that about consoles.
It's a completely different beast with a completely different set of rules and, as a result, the two can't be compared.
Hell, I've made money using my PC by selling songs that I've recorded on it. Can't say I can do anything like that on my consoles.
So my handheld "20 questions" game that was $1, and does nothing else, is part of the competition? What about linoleum, since I can roll dice on it and play a game? Of course not, somewhere a line needs to be drawn. The question is, where is that line drawn in terms of the competition for console games?TaborMallory said:
Why do so many people do that "/thread" thing anyway? Whatever they say before it is almost never relevant, or it's flat out false. I wonder if people really do think their word is the final say? Delusions.
Yeah that was a really terrible example.GackleBlax said:
But the poster before me is correct. PC's are definitely the best choice if a cost comparison is irrelevant. There's just not any room for debate about that, unfortunately.
However the big debate is whether or not the cost is worth it. And while I say "yes", others may say "no". I don't even think there's much of a cost difference really. Whatever you paid for your console, you could go ahead and invest that into upgrading the PC you already have to gaming specs. But, that's just my opinion on the matter.
And whatever you pay for a PC you could go ahead and invest it in a pretty much future-proof console. There isn't much of a cost difference, I agree to that, but it all depends on where you're getting ripped off in the PC department.runtheplacered said:
Allow me to expand on that, consoles have a set price. Simple enough to remember. PCs have one of two choices, either research all the parts yourself and find out what is good and what's not ect.... or buy a hugely overpriced pre-built PC. Most people are stupid and go for the pre-built, but it's understandable since people don't like to work.
