So what is the advantage of a console?

[Arina Love]

5 years ago i bought mid-range PC for 740$ and later that year i bought PS3 for 650$. 5 years later my PC can't run new games at playable fps in 720p but my PS3 runs every new game perfectly fine.

I doubt that PC was mid range, sorry. If it can't run new games at a playable FPS as low as 720p, it wasn't mid range 5 years ago.
My mid range rig from 8 years ago ran Everything up to BF3 and TW2 at Maximum settings with 60+ FPS at 720p, and the last two on second highest with 60+ FPS.

Sorry buy i seriously doubt that. Ether you and me have different understanding of "mid range" or PC was overclocked to a brim there is no way 8yo mid-range pc can run new games on maximum.

maybe you bought a pre-assembled machine and he put his system together himself? self-built rigs tend to be many times more powerful and durable then pre-built ones.
i had a machine that i handed down to my sister that cost me 380 bucks in summer 2005 that can still run bf3 pretty much on max, minus retardedly high AA and such. it's neither impossible nor unlikely his 8 year old system can do it even better.

nope i build it myself. here is specs Core 2 duo E6550 + 8800GTS + 3gb RAM as mid range as i can get in 2007, it struggles with low on BF3 and D3 on low.

Here is buying guide for mid-range PC from 2006-2007 http://www.techspot.com/guides/29-midrange-pc-buying-guide-200611/page1.html
i have PC step better than that and no playable fps. So yeah, no way 8 mid range will not run new games.

hmm that's weird. with this specs you should be able to get pretty acceptable results in bf3. (no clue about D3, don't own it). are you using windows vista by any chance? or is it a very old OS install? (usually riddled with tons and tons of clogging applications running in the backround). fan worn out so the cpu is clocking down?
the system i was talking about is a tad weaker then that and it had absolutely no problem with bf3.

nope windows 7, it's bit old install but i keep it clean and can manage what programs services to disable when i play, fan is still good can get good rpm's and i clean it very 5 months. Still no sugar in BF3 but i manage to play SWTOR GW2 on low with at least playable 23-27 fps.

5 years ago i bought mid-range PC for 740$ and later that year i bought PS3 for 650$. 5 years later my PC can't run new games at playable fps in 720p but my PS3 runs every new game perfectly fine.

I doubt that PC was mid range, sorry. If it can't run new games at a playable FPS as low as 720p, it wasn't mid range 5 years ago.
My mid range rig from 8 years ago ran Everything up to BF3 and TW2 at Maximum settings with 60+ FPS at 720p, and the last two on second highest with 60+ FPS.

Sorry buy i seriously doubt that. Ether you and me have different understanding of "mid range" or PC was overclocked to a brim there is no way 8yo mid-range pc can run new games on maximum.

maybe you bought a pre-assembled machine and he put his system together himself? self-built rigs tend to be many times more powerful and durable then pre-built ones.
i had a machine that i handed down to my sister that cost me 380 bucks in summer 2005 that can still run bf3 pretty much on max, minus retardedly high AA and such. it's neither impossible nor unlikely his 8 year old system can do it even better.

nope i build it myself. here is specs Core 2 duo E6550 + 8800GTS + 3gb RAM as mid range as i can get in 2007, it struggles with low on BF3 and D3 on low.

Here is buying guide for mid-range PC from 2006-2007 http://www.techspot.com/guides/29-midrange-pc-buying-guide-200611/page1.html
i have PC step better than that and no playable fps. So yeah, no way 8 mid range will not run new games.

hmm that's weird. with this specs you should be able to get pretty acceptable results in bf3. (no clue about D3, don't own it). are you using windows vista by any chance? or is it a very old OS install? (usually riddled with tons and tons of clogging applications running in the backround). fan worn out so the cpu is clocking down?
the system i was talking about is a tad weaker then that and it had absolutely no problem with bf3.

edit: also, those specs seem fairly pricey for the time and the budged you stated..with that money you could have done better i think. but i'm not sure, could very well be that i'm wrong, 2007 is a while ago after all.

I think Arina is more grounded in reality than the rest, what she says makes sense and not what the other person.

besides it's likely one of those people who thinks "smooth = 60 fps" and doesn't actually check, or checks at a point of the game with no action. Seriously, a mid range machine from 8 years ago won't get close to what the guy said.

hmm well, might be. max on an 8 year old machine seems a bit over the top. but still, not sure what's wrong with arinas case. it should at least be playable, i've seen it run quite well on a similar and even a bit weaker machine. ah who knows. doesn't really matter either way.
i do stand by my original point though: if you bought a pc to the price of a console, the pc will offer better performance. usually, if nothing along the way gets messed up. like, buying an apple or whatever.

well in my case it did screw up, and when i tried to upgrade it with GTX 560 Ti it gave me massive dpc latency (nothing helped so i returned the card) and because my motherboard is form 2007 i can't upgrade CPU ether. so at this point i have to buy whole new PC. As i want it to last 6-7 years i have to buy 1200$ high-end one, i do not live in US so US prices do not apply.
and yet my PS3 still playing game with no problem.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Consoles are becoming obsolete.

]

Only when the startup price becomes equal to them WITHOUT having to compete on auctions, hunt through bargain bins online, AND have the technical training to put the things together without botching the whole works.

Well, that's the thing; a good gaming PC isn't too expensive to get anymore. Go over to Newegg and check it out. I was planning on building my next PC but you can get something pretty good these days without spending too much.
You're right, it's not equal but I think that it's getting close.
And why just take startup price into account? I've gotten PC games for a lot cheaper than their console counterparts and I think that should account for something.

I think Jim Stearling has the right idea: really what PSN and XBL offer is a service and they should be working a lot harder to make their services more friendly to the consumer or the consumer will find other means of consumption.

 

[yuval152]

A console will never cost you $1200 and need a $200 update every six months before promptly becoming entirely obsolete and requiring another $1000.

*sigh* That stupid bullshit again?

A PC won't cost you 1200$ either and you won't need to spend 200$ every 6 months for upgrades.

Why does americans never understand that some people use a different currency?

Over here it costs way more money to buy a PC rather than an xbox 360/PS3.

 

[Kathinka]

snip

neither do i, all prices i throw around are usually european.

buying a 1500-buck-system is overkill though. if you want high-end buy a system for 600-800 now and invest a few hundred bucks into upgrades over the years. that way you'll be able to play everything maxed out for the entire lifespan of a console generation. getting a system for more than 1500 is usually wasted potential. those 500 extra bucks will not be any good right now (unless you are planning some godless multi-monitor setup with mind boggling resolutions) because no gme could utilize the full potential of that extra power. and by the time games are so advanced that they can, you will wish that you would have saved those 500 and could invest them into something now, since by that time they will buy significantly more power.

for your convenience: the falcon guide [http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/GuideSimple.png]

(note that this one is outdated though, may 2011..the current one should be out there somewhere)

 

[Ghonzor]

I also heard it's physically impossible to sit back and relax on a sofa whilst gaming on a PC.

Laptop.
That is all

 

[zehydra]

If everyone has the same hardware, then it's a lot easier for devs to make the most of what they have without worrying about different permutations.

But that's not an advantage for the individual gamer, which is what OP is asking for.

 

[Jobbie]

A reply to those who feel intimidated about building a PC for the first time.

With the current versions of windows 7 and latest hardware, putting a PC together is pretty darn simple. Newegg practically walks you threw the process and explains most of the stuff you need to know. Plus there is youtube that is just a wealth of knowledge.

During the windows 95/98/Me days, yeah somebody had to really know what they where doing. Now everything is color coded, no jumpers to worry about. Everything is laid out for you. Heck my i7 3770k CPU auto overclocks to 4.4ghz with it's Asus MoBo counterpart. I didn't even have to set the memory manually...XMP profiles are preset....heck my BIOS makes use of my mouse.

Bottom line, PC's have never been this easy to put together. And, you might learn a thing or two.

And to answer the initial question. A console is nothing more than a simple way to access media. It does what it is suppose to do well, but it can only do a few things. So in short, it's more simplistic.

 

[Steephill]

A definite disadvantage is having to listen to the incessant gloating of PC elitists (read: OP).
A definite advantage is the smaller number of buttons, it's a lot easier to get into a game like, Call of Duty, because most buttons are all easy to reach-well at least the 360 controller.

idk personally on my mouse I have 7 inputs I can use. Right click, left click, 2 side buttons, clicking the scroll wheel, scrolling up and scrolling down. On the 360 controller for the right hand side you have A, B, X and Y buttons. Also the 2 bumpers and analog stick button. Same number of controls, just as easy to reach. For my left hand I have plenty of things to hit without moving my wrist from my normal WASD position. E, R, Q, F, shift, alt, ctrl and space. Mor then the DPad, left analog stick and bumpers on the 360 controller allow. So I end up getting more precise movements while having the same number of inputs at my disposal.

Also I just want to say I've never had any problems with drivers or anything of that sort. Mostly because I use Steam(which is downright amazing), but even with the games I havent I've had no problems.

 

[yuval152]

Why does americans never understand that some people use a different currency?

Over here it costs way more money to buy a PC rather than an xbox 360/PS3.

Why won't people like you actually look up where the person is from before they spew bullshit, eh?

No counter argument so you bash on me? real mature.

Also I saw that you aren't american but you still used $, use euros if you don't want people mistaken in your region.

 

[blipblop]

you can play games on computers?? i thougt they were made just for facebook and porn..
well now I know and knowing is half the battle

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Look at the back of your PS3, notice the port called "optical"? That's the optical cable port. It's a pretty standard cable, all you did was take my example and change optical to HDMI.

I'm right but I'll give you points from trying.

Okay, good luck playing video games with only an optical cable. (I was playing dumb, but an optical cable is audio only and maxes out at dolby 5.1. You can't do 7.1 nor any of those fancy audio codecs like TrueHD or DTS Master Audio.)

No fancy sound card doodad

Actually, your console will have a sound card. You just won't call it as such. To you its just part of a console, just like externally the Sound card appears as part of the PC as a whole. Its just the name of the part that you actually plug the optical cable into.

Um, no? Sound card implies something removable, which I'm 90% certain the PS3 does not have. Maybe I'm wrong, but from my five minutes of googling, it does not appears as though there is anything separate or upgradeable about the sound output on a PS3. The console disassemblies I've seen seem to show a solid board. In any case, I've never had to even consider a "sound card" existing on my PS3 before.

no crazy "optical cable" that you keep going on about.

Again, a technical name. You did say you plugged the sound into your console yes? Then you plugged in an optical cable.

No, I didn't. I was joking earlier, but HDMI does not equal optical cable. They are two entirely different things. Optical cables cannot bitstream, nor do they carry video.

Hmm. Did I mention that PC gamers seem really sensitive about their hobbies and really have a hard time coming to terms that other people can play the same games at the same level of quality at a much lower price and effort and completely enjoy it just as much, if not more? It's the impression these threads always give me anyways. "How dare you enter into the garden of the gods with only 256 MB of RAM"!

 

[IamLEAM1983]

The only real advantage I can think of for consoles is their plug-and-play nature. Got a modern TV, got some HDMI cabling on the cheap? Got a power socket? You're set for the next five years. No fiddling around with hardware, no wondering if your rig is going to even survive its first stress test, no checking around for performance stats on enthusiast sites. You're guaranteed that any and all developers that will work with your console of choice will make it compatible. No bullshit like "Uh, we only support ATI cards!"

Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Dreamfall.

Price-wise, consoles of the current generation tended to run anywhere between 300$ to 600$ when they first came out. PC's are more or less all over the place. You can go for a prebuilt bare-bones decent rig at about 300$, but PC gamers tend to be hardware enthusiasts. That three hundred quid quickly blows up to a thousand bucks or more - especially if you're an Alienware drone.

Quick question: I'm told by gaming-illiterate sources who keep an eye on tech blogs that gaming laptops are actually popular, nowadays. Laptops being a tad less modular than your average tower setup, I find that hard to believe. Is it true?

 

[LifeMakesMeLOL]

Really, if you know what you're doing, the console has no advantage over the PC.

HOWEVER, the "PC 133T" seem to forget that not everyone has their knowledge. Yeah, it's real easy to build a computer...if you know how to build a computer.

I for one know nothing about graphic cards, cooling systems, power source, "insert computer part #32115 here". I don't know how to tell if the game will run on my system. For someone like me, plugging a 360 in, plugging it into the internet to download a patch, and then playing my game is far simpler than dealing with the issues a PC brings to the table.

Could I learn the PC stuff? Probably but I like my console and I don't feel like doing the work to figure out a PC. I have the odd STEAM game but consoles are just my primary source of gaming.

This pretty much sums it up. Outside of the occasional game of Team Fortress 2, most of my games are on consoles, and I still thoroughly enjoy my 360 regardless of what the PC elitists say.

(Plus, I really like the 360's achievement system. I find them much more satisfying to earn then Steam's achievements or PS3's trophies)

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Look at the back of your PS3, notice the port called "optical"? That's the optical cable port. It's a pretty standard cable, all you did was take my example and change optical to HDMI.

I'm right but I'll give you points from trying.

Okay, good luck playing video games with only an optical cable. (I was playing dumb, but an optical cable is audio only and maxes out at dolby 5.1. You can't do 7.1 nor any of those fancy audio codecs like TrueHD or DTS Master Audio.)

Then use HDMI with a PC or a cable per audio channel like I said!

Seriously, there is no more hassle with doing it on PC. In fact you get way more choice. Your point is hilariously bad.

What if I don't have an HDMI port on my PC? Then I have to buy one. Believe me, I know the advantages / disadvantages. It's just shit I don't want to have to deal with. Back when I bought my surround sound system, I tried to do a separate receiver, whereas my previous setup was an all-in-one DVD player. I mean, it functions basically the same way, but it ended up being about $200 and more work than I initially planned upon, due to missing cables, buying better speakers, finding out my old subwoofer wasn't compatible, new speaker stands, and doing all the wiring myself. Meanwhile, an all in one system with wireless sounds more and more appealing. It's less flexible and would more quickly go out of date, but I would have saved a lot of time and money.