Xbox 720 is another iPhone 4S!!

[LiquidSolstice]

I'll just assume you've realized I'm right, and I'll move on. Thanks for the attempt to give me a challenge. Oh wait, you just ran away when I attempted to prove your claim for you because you didn't want to.

To conclude, the point I'd like to make in regards to the OP is that the iPhone 4 was already destroying the competition in terms of performance and UI smoothness. It really didn't need the extra core or the bump in camera quality, it was already at the top. (Disclaimer: I own and have only ever owned Android phones).

In the same way, the 360 is, as of this moment the best-selling console in the world [http://www.destructoid.com/xbox-360-is-now-the-top-selling-console-worldwide-221052.phtml]. It doesn't need to have space-thrusters and machine-guns attatched to it to upload that title. That's the point; consoles are not comparable to PCs, and too many people are comparing the two. Within the console segment, the "720" based on these rumors is bringing a pretty tough competition.

 

[Hateren47]

I don`t get why you ask for a new $300 pc when the $300 xbox is old. You do realise that once `classic` pc parts go out of production they go out of stock, right. That`s why you would need to get a refurbished pc to get under the $300 mark.

For $400 you can get new parts though. The final $400 machine is of course going to suck compared to a pc made of gaming parts but not more than consoles, and after you buy your 10th game you have saved the $100 even though you got the same games you would have on xbox. After 40 games, bought on release, the pc would have paid for it self compared to the console.

And the Wii is still the best selling console of this generation, what ever sold more in one quarter of one year is kind of irrelevant to the big picture.

Edit: $349 gets you 2 llano cores at 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a 500GB harddrive [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Essentio+Desktop/3558048.p?id=1218413774641&skuId=3558048] (compare that to a console]. Plonk in this [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/XFX+-+NVIDIA+GeForce+GT+520+1024MB+DDR3+PCI+Express+2.0+Graphics+Card/3352559.p?id=1218397405953&skuId=3352559] or this [http://www.amazon.com/MSI-Radeon-5570-PCI-Express-Graphics/dp/B00376LLO8/ref=sr_1_51?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1328344158&sr=1-51] and that`s a pretty decent pc if you have no budget.

 

[Jimbo1212]

I like the part in your answer where you avoid answering my question and give no explanation besides " 'cause!".

No I answered it you just don't like the answer. No it's not Nostalgia it is because they are more fun. Here 2 games a I played this year Uncharted 3 and Infamous 2. Now there is no denying that Uncharted 3 has much better graphics, but I liked Infamous 2 much more it wasn't that graphically demanding. I don't care that you like games that are pretty, why should you care that I don't?

Yet again you give no answer - you just spout intrinsic adjectives.
Why did you prefer Infamous 2?
Also you seem to :
a) Be unaware of the graphical fidelity modern gpus you achieve
b) Not look at the potential of what higher fidelity etc can lead to. Look at Heavy Rain and LA Noire. Those games could not work with poor graphics, thus what could better lead to?

New graphics & power can create new game mechanics

Really? That's hard to believe. As I haven't seen much evidence of that. Care to make an argument on the behalf of this?

Again, I say you need to ask yourself and be honest as to why you and those people play those games.

I know myself quite well, I don't have to ask myself why I play and enjoy something. Does anyone really have to ask themselves why they enjoy something? Not too many people that I'm aware.

I play games like Super Mario Galaxy because:
1. I have a long history of enjoying Mario games. I'm just a fan of Mario.
2. I like platforming, including 3D platforming. Mario games continuously give solid 3D platforming experiences.
3. Mario games are NOT first person shooters.
4. Mario is not dark, gritty, and manly.
5. Mario is not dark, gritty, and manly.
6. Mario is colourful and happy.
7. Mario worlds are not brown and dreary
8. Mario games are Shigeru Miyamoto games, which are consistently good

Mario games have been top sellers, since the NES. They have a good reputation. A well earned good reputation.

Look above.
Again, you give no actually explanation as to why those make the game good or enjoyable for yourself. Why do you want a vivid colour scheme over grit? Why do you not want in an fps etc.

 

[LilithSlave]

Look above.
Again, you give no actually explanation as to why those make the game good or enjoyable for yourself. Why do you want a vivid colour scheme over grit? Why do you not want in an fps etc.

Oh Jesus, you'd ask why someone isn't sexually attracted to vaginas, wouldn't you?

Yes, that's plenty of explanation as to why I like something. Someone doesn't have to give a deep psychological explanation as to why they like bright colours.

I've actually been able to explain why I like the colour blue better than the colour orange on this site. But on principle, I really shouldn't feed you. There's no need to explain or justify a liking of bright colours over brown grit.

I think you need to ask yourself why you ask others to justify their liking of things.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Look above.
Again, you give no actually explanation as to why those make the game good or enjoyable for yourself. Why do you want a vivid colour scheme over grit? Why do you not want in an fps etc.

Oh Jesus, you'd ask why someone isn't sexually attracted to vaginas, wouldn't you?

Yes, that's plenty of explanation as to why I like something. Someone doesn't have to give a deep psychological explanation as to why they like bright colours.

I've actually been able to explain why I like the colour blue better than the colour orange on this site. But on principle, I really shouldn't feed you. There's no need to explain or justify a liking of bright colours over brown grit.

I think you need to ask yourself why you ask others to justify their liking of things.

And again, you don't answer the question but dance around the issue like a politician.
Unless you can give reason behind an opinion, it is sadly worthless and baseless and you should think about why you even bother posting if you can't reason your actions.
I ask others to explain (not justify - why do you think that? Quite an interesting choice of words....) their opinion because that is how debates work. Childish arguments end with " 'Cause I do! Meh!", yet mature debates end with reason and justifications. Naturally, I prefer the latter.
So, either don't bother replying or give an explanation.

 

[LilithSlave]

And again, you don't answer the question but dance around the issue like a politician.

No, I ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION and COMPLETELY EXPLAINED IT.

Most people are not able to explain why they like the colour blue better than the colour red or are more sexually attracted to penises rather than vaginas. Sometimes your opinions or your tastes, "just are". And there's no further explaining them. It's not dancing around the issue to say "I just like cute things" or "I like the colour blue", or "I'm not attracted to women", it's just AN ACCURATE ANSWER. By itself, it is an accurate answer. And you won't accept that accurate answer, so the only thing left to do is to tell you that.

Unless you can give reason behind an opinion, it is sadly worthless and baseless and you should think about why you even bother posting if you can't reason your actions.

Most opinions are just that. And do not require any further reasoning, and can thus just be simply stated as a reason. They're anything but worthless or baseless. They're the most important things to every human who holds them. And calling that worthless or baseless is asking humans to justify their most basic desires. You say you're not asking people to justify anything, but you are. Because you're calling people's tastes and desires and opinions invalid and asking people to explain why they like cute things and not asking people why they would like gritty crud.

There is no explanation, many people just happen to like something different than that gritty stuff. There is no further explanation needed. And people who like it have no reason to question why they do anymore than people who love macho dudes shooting stuff.

But if you really wanted to delve into the depths of why people like what they do, and demand an explanation you don't deserve, I may have to back out on my principle of not explaining psychological motivations for heterosexuality and other ridiculous mess. maybe people like cute things in games because it caters to their nurturing side, while games about shooting stuff because of an inner psychopath that wants to be fed. That's why many people want to ban violent video games. And they won't accept a "childish" excuse of "I just do lol" for why they like SHOOTAN GAEMS. And see the desire to play dem shootan gaems, as a sign of psychological problems. Sunshine is scientifically shown to make humans happier, also, bright colours in human beings tend to more be associated with utopia or things going right . Video games represent the fanciful, and when video games are bright, fanciful, and something they can't do in real life, people often tend to like that.

Gritty games are only able to instill either cathartic, "I'm not alone" horror type games or other negative, yet positive feelings. Sort of how screamo doesn't really contain positive emotions, but can be cathartic in a "scream-a-long" catharsis sense. Or fulfill other very specific fantasies, such as the power fantasy, feeling badass in a bleak or otherwise depressing world. But colourful, fantastic, fanciful, fantasy games are able to be happy and bright for the sake of being happy and bright. It's the brain's function to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Pleasure is, well, pleasurable, and pain, is, well, painful. Exceptions like masochism would still be more defined along the lines of pleasure than pain, or one wouldn't be motivated to do it.

Cuteness, bright colours, and the like remind people of peace and prosperity. Something a lot of people want in their lives, especially if they work a stressful, unfulfilling job like most adults do. Personally, I'd rather relish in escaping to a better place when the world around me is stressful, rather than relishing in negative emotions like taking out frustrations with co-workers negatively.

Of course, none of this needed explaining. This is no better than when I explained why I'm more attracted to penises than vaginas, and why I like the colour blue better than the colour red. An opinion and taste is just an opinion and taste. Asking someone to explain it and justify it merely because they said something along the lines of "I don't like that crap", is ridiculous.

I ask others to explain

Why? Because they don't like gritty crap and you do? Because they prefer cute crap and you don't? People don't have to "ask themselves" why they like the more cutesy, bright, or unrealistic and fanciful side of things anymore than the people who like the gritty, dark, macho, and realistic side of things?

You said "who else really likes that other than little girls?"

When being given a response in terms of sales that show multiple demographics, including a healthy adult demographic, you wrote it off as being misguided, inferior nostalgia, and then said "again, I would question why people like such a thing".

That's asking people to justify their tastes and opinions. That's asking people to justify why they like something other than that gritty crap.

But you won't accept an explanation no matter how ridiculously far someone goes. Because you label every explanation as "insufficient" and push the question further, as if you'll latch onto something that shows the opinion as inferior. Even labeling people liking bright things as "avoiding the question, why do people like bright things". Which isn't any better than asking why some people like the colour blue. Why? Because you won't accept accept the idea that liking cute bright fantasy crap isn't inferior to liking gritty grimdark crap.

It's like asking someone why they're homosexual because you're sure there must be some kind of unhealthy, malignant psychology there in. All I said was I don't care about graphics when it's used for that kind of aesthetic, and you could have just left it at that. But no, you decided this personal taste was in need of "questioning", because you didn't like it. Well guess what? Our opinions are awesome.

 

[Jimbo1212]

And again, you don't answer the question but dance around the issue like a politician.

No, I ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION and COMPLETELY EXPLAINED IT.

Most people are not able to explain why they like the colour blue better than the colour red or are more sexually attracted to penises rather than vaginas. Sometimes your opinions or your tastes, "just are". And there's no further explaining them. It's not dancing around the issue to say "I just like cute things" or "I like the colour blue", or "I'm not attracted to women", it's just AN ACCURATE ANSWER. By itself, it is an accurate answer. And you won't accept that accurate answer, so the only thing left to do is to tell you that.

Unless you can give reason behind an opinion, it is sadly worthless and baseless and you should think about why you even bother posting if you can't reason your actions.

Most opinions are just that. And do not require any further reasoning, and can thus just be simply stated as a reason. They're anything but worthless or baseless. They're the most important things to every human who holds them. And calling that worthless or baseless is asking humans to justify their most basic desires. You say you're not asking people to justify anything, but you are. Because you're calling people's tastes and desires and opinions invalid and asking people to explain why they like cute things and not asking people why they would like gritty crud.

There is no explanation, many people just happen to like something different than that gritty stuff. There is no further explanation needed. And people who like it have no reason to question why they do anymore than people who love macho dudes shooting stuff.

But if you really wanted to delve into the depths of why people like what they do, and demand an explanation you don't deserve, I may have to back out on my principle of not explaining psychological motivations for heterosexuality and other ridiculous mess. maybe people like cute things in games because it caters to their nurturing side, while games about shooting stuff because of an inner psychopath that wants to be fed. That's why many people want to ban violent video games. And they won't accept a "childish" excuse of "I just do lol" for why they like SHOOTAN GAEMS. And see the desire to play dem shootan gaems, as a sign of psychological problems. Sunshine is scientifically shown to make humans happier, also, bright colours in human beings tend to more be associated with utopia or things going right . Video games represent the fanciful, and when video games are bright, fanciful, and something they can't do in real life, people often tend to like that.

Gritty games are only able to instill either cathartic, "I'm not alone" horror type games or other negative, yet positive feelings. Sort of how screamo doesn't really contain positive emotions, but can be cathartic in a "scream-a-long" catharsis sense. Or fulfill other very specific fantasies, such as the power fantasy, feeling badass in a bleak or otherwise depressing world. But colourful, fantastic, fanciful, fantasy games are able to be happy and bright for the sake of being happy and bright. It's the brain's function to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Pleasure is, well, pleasurable, and pain, is, well, painful. Exceptions like masochism would still be more defined along the lines of pleasure than pain, or one wouldn't be motivated to do it.

Cuteness, bright colours, and the like remind people of peace and prosperity. Something a lot of people want in their lives, especially if they work a stressful, unfulfilling job like most adults do. Personally, I'd rather relish in escaping to a better place when the world around me is stressful, rather than relishing in negative emotions like taking out frustrations with co-workers negatively.

Of course, none of this needed explaining. This is no better than when I explained why I'm more attracted to penises than vaginas, and why I like the colour blue better than the colour red. An opinion and taste is just an opinion and taste. Asking someone to explain it and justify it merely because they said something along the lines of "I don't like that crap", is ridiculous.

I ask others to explain

Why? Because they don't like gritty crap and you do? Because they prefer cute crap and you don't? People don't have to "ask themselves" why they like the more cutesy, bright, or unrealistic and fanciful side of things anymore than the people who like the gritty, dark, macho, and realistic side of things?

You said "who else really likes that other than little girls?"

When being given a response in terms of sales that show multiple demographics, including a healthy adult demographic, you wrote it off as being misguided, inferior nostalgia, and then said "again, I would question why people like such a thing".

That's asking people to justify their tastes and opinions. That's asking people to justify why they like something other than that gritty crap.

But you won't accept an explanation no matter how ridiculously far someone goes. Because you label every explanation as "insufficient" and push the question further, as if you'll latch onto something that shows the opinion as inferior. Even labeling people liking bright things as "avoiding the question, why do people like bright things". Which isn't any better than asking why some people like the colour blue. Why? Because you won't accept accept the idea that liking cute bright fantasy crap isn't inferior to liking gritty grimdark crap.

It's like asking someone why they're homosexual because you're sure there must be some kind of unhealthy, malignant psychology there in. All I said was I don't care about graphics when it's used for that kind of aesthetic, and you could have just left it at that. But no, you decided this personal taste was in need of "questioning", because you didn't like it. Well guess what? Our opinions are awesome.

4 lines and I get all that....riiiiiiight.

If you think intrinsic superlatives are an explanation than you need to grab a dictionary and check what constitutes an explanation.
Nothing "just is", everything has a reason. People might like blue because it is more gentle than red, less aggressive, colder etc.

No - most opinions have reason. Those who don't have worthless opinions and it says nothing positive about the persons character or mental capability. Without reason they are completely worthless, utterly useless, and only show that the person has poor analytical or logical skills.
An explanation and justification are very different. Again, go get a dictionary to see why.

There is always a reason, however you merely have not sat down and thought of it yet.

Cuteness and prosperity have absolutely no correlation. You may as well claim that cell shading is done to help people achieve enlightenment.


I ask others to explain....so I know if their opinion is worth taking notice over and makes good points, or is utter drivel and has the logic and reasoning of a 14 year old kid.
People should always ask themselves "why to everything they do in life, from how they react, to what they like. If you do not, then you will never know or understand yourself, and that is not healthy.

 

[LilithSlave]

Those who don't have worthless opinions and it says nothing positive about the persons character or mental capability.

Opinions are not varying and are all equally worthless or valuable. They're subjective feelings on life that hold no value outside of the humans, individual or in groups, that hold them. Understanding them is not necessary because there's nothing more really to them.

Without reason they are completely worthless

Finding reason for them is worthless.

An explanation and justification are very different.

That's true. But people usually have a reason for explaining things away.

And it just so happens you have been directly challenging the desire of people to enjoy certain aesthetics.

There is always a reason, however you merely have not sat down and thought of it yet.

Oh no, I'm one of the few people out there who looks for a reason for everything, an explanation of my own sexuality, not opting for the simple option of "I just do", why I like my favourite colour best, and generally perplexing people as to why I care about wasting my time thinking about this crap. Only looking like an idiot to others for questioning pointless things, and rightly so. It's an absolutely silly waste of time.

But it's one thing to question the self and seek answers. It's another thing to feed someone questioning basic desires on the grounds of trying to debunk and invalidate basic desires like you.

Cuteness and prosperity have absolutely no correlation.

Why not? Have you given it any thought? Dark, dreary colours are associated with death and rot. Bright colours are associated with vibrancy. Cuteness is a sign that something is healthy to exist. If there is an abundance of cute or harmless creatures like bunnies, it's a sign that such is a healthy place for them to exist. If there are cute kittens all over the place, it shows, again, the world is not uninhabitable for fairly harmless creatures and the weak taken care of. If that is not "prosperity", it is at least welcoming.

If you want to look at the "deep" sections of psychology, perhaps getting lost in happier, less violent worlds, is the desire for adults with stressful jobs, to get along with co-workers or be in a more relaxing environment. While those who focusing on playing grittier, more violent games, are more focused on negative feelings of vengeance towards co-workers. Question that, what desire is the violence in video games catering to? Do we have such violent tendencies in many video games, often not shrouded by the idea of being a "hero", because we have underlying desires of revenge on other human beings?

 

[Jimbo1212]

Those who don't have worthless opinions and it says nothing positive about the persons character or mental capability.

Opinions are not varying and are all equally worthless or valuable. They're subjective feelings on life that hold no value outside of the humans, individual or in groups, that hold them. Understanding them is not necessary because there's nothing more really to them.

Without reason they are completely worthless

Finding reason for them is worthless.

An explanation and justification are very different.

That's true. But people usually have a reason for explaining things away.

And it just so happens you have been directly challenging the desire of people to enjoy certain aesthetics.

There is always a reason, however you merely have not sat down and thought of it yet.

Oh no, I'm one of the few people out there who looks for a reason for everything, an explanation of my own sexuality, not opting for the simple option of "I just do", why I like my favourite colour best, and generally perplexing people as to why I care about wasting my time thinking about this crap. Only looking like an idiot to others for questioning pointless things, and rightly so. It's an absolutely silly waste of time.

But it's one thing to question the self and seek answers. It's another thing to feed someone questioning basic desires on the grounds of trying to debunk and invalidate basic desires like you.

Cuteness and prosperity have absolutely no correlation.

Why not? Have you given it any thought? Dark, dreary colours are associated with death and rot. Bright colours are associated with vibrancy. Cuteness is a sign that something is healthy to exist. If there is an abundance of cute or harmless creatures like bunnies, it's a sign that such is a healthy place for them to exist. If there are cute kittens all over the place, it shows, again, the world is not uninhabitable for fairly harmless creatures and the weak taken care of. If that is not "prosperity", it is at least welcoming.

If you want to look at the "deep" sections of psychology, perhaps getting lost in happier, less violent worlds, is the desire for adults with stressful jobs, to get along with co-workers or be in a more relaxing environment. While those who focusing on playing grittier, more violent games, are more focused on negative feelings of vengeance towards co-workers. Question that, what desire is the violence in video games catering to? Do we have such violent tendencies in many video games, often not shrouded by the idea of being a "hero", because we have underlying desires of revenge on other human beings?

Ha, how can you possibly believe such tripe? Even the most basic school yard logic debunks that silly myth. Opinions have worth all based on logic and evidence. To have none makes the opinion worthless.

Finding reason is worthless? *facepalm* Now stop with the "No, you are!" circular child like logic and realise that without reason, it means nothing eg: "it is my opinion that watching grass grow is more fun than any games 'cause olololol", compared to " Deus Ex is the best series due to a number of reasons, from an in-depth and unravelling storyline, rememberable, appropriate and atmospheric locations and music, to solid gameplay that caters for all."
One of those opinions is fuelled by ignorance, and the other by reason and each point can be addressed and debated.

You clearly don't look for reason as you have failed every time to give one. You still have not said why graphics are acceptable to be poor, or why the new generation of consoles should not have cutting edge graphics besides "'cause I like bright colours". You have not mentioned numerous points such as potential in games with higher processing power etc and what the new 720 would be missing out on. This shows that you have not realised the scope of this issue besides personal preferences.

Prosperity is so varied across cultures, from the size of your car, or family, or health. Cuteness is how something looks............they have fuck all correlation. But then reading further on I can see that you will grasp at any straws;
"If there is an abundance of cute or harmless creatures like bunnies, it's a sign that such is a healthy place for them to exist. If there are cute kittens all over the place, it shows, again, the world is not uninhabitable for fairly harmless creatures and the weak taken care of. If that is not "prosperity", it is at least welcoming."
....the f*@k?!
An abundance of rabbits shows that there is plentiful food for rabbits and not enough predators. That is not cute, nor prosperous. All it shows is that there is plenty of grass and not enough foxes. An abundance of snakes or hyenas is not cute, yet would show the exact same thing - too much food, not enough predators.

Again, you mistake opinion for reason. I would like a world where the weak are made strong or removed, where as you want them to be looked after. I see that as a problem.
This also goes for your opinion on happy games. Why do you think that bright happy worlds would make all people happy? Many people would be happy by knowing they are successful at a game (not that vengeance crap you go on about), or find joy in a challenge, or the simple intrigue of a storyline.

 

[LilithSlave]

Ha, how can you possibly believe such tripe? Even the most basic school yard logic debunks that silly myth. Opinions have worth all based on logic and evidence. To have none makes the opinion worthless.

You know what? I don't even need to read more than this, and continuing this argument finally feels pointless. It's pretty clear you're trolling or just incredibly silly. I can't believe someone would argue something so absolutely ridiculous, but your continued immature responses and the insistence on the ridiculous is enough for me to tire of arguing with the likes of you.

I just hope you realize someday that opinions don't really have worth outside the people who hold them, and certainly have no value in relation to logic and evidence. Opinions are subjective, and the result of subjective emotions. They are not based upon logic or fact.

Finding reason is worthless? *facepalm* Now stop with the "No, you are!"

This is one of the most childish and crass responses in an argument I have ever heard in my life. And why it is not worth arguing with you anymore.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Ha, how can you possibly believe such tripe? Even the most basic school yard logic debunks that silly myth. Opinions have worth all based on logic and evidence. To have none makes the opinion worthless.

You know what? I don't even need to read more than this, and continuing this argument finally feels pointless. It's pretty clear you're trolling or just incredibly silly. I can't believe someone would argue something so absolutely ridiculous, but your continued immature responses and the insistence on the ridiculous is enough for me to tire of arguing with the likes of you.

I just hope you realize someday that opinions don't really have worth outside the people who hold them, and certainly have no value in relation to logic and evidence. Opinions are subjective, and the result of subjective emotions. They are not based upon logic or fact.

Finding reason is worthless? *facepalm* Now stop with the "No, you are!"

This is one of the most childish and crass responses in an argument I have ever heard in my life. And why it is not worth arguing with you anymore.

...this forum so needs smilies because your reply is asking for some facepalm smiles to be plastered about.

You genuinely think that all opinions hold the same worth, even when some are based solely on ignorance, and others on hard facts and wisdom. Anyone sane would tell you that I am not the one who is in the wrong on this topic. Just remember that sometimes opinions end up turning into facts.
Also, you are aware that yet again you don't explain why my response is poor, just just claim it is.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

I don`t get why you ask for a new $300 pc when the $300 xbox is old. You do realise that once `classic` pc parts go out of production they go out of stock, right. That`s why you would need to get a refurbished pc to get under the $300 mark.

For $400 you can get new parts though. The final $400 machine is of course going to suck compared to a pc made of gaming parts but not more than consoles, and after you buy your 10th game you have saved the $100 even though you got the same games you would have on xbox. After 40 games, bought on release, the pc would have paid for it self compared to the console.

And the Wii is still the best selling console of this generation, what ever sold more in one quarter of one year is kind of irrelevant to the big picture.

Edit: $349 gets you 2 llano cores at 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a 500GB harddrive [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Essentio+Desktop/3558048.p?id=1218413774641&skuId=3558048] (compare that to a console]. Plonk in this [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/XFX+-+NVIDIA+GeForce+GT+520+1024MB+DDR3+PCI+Express+2.0+Graphics+Card/3352559.p?id=1218397405953&skuId=3352559] or this [http://www.amazon.com/MSI-Radeon-5570-PCI-Express-Graphics/dp/B00376LLO8/ref=sr_1_51?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1328344158&sr=1-51] and that`s a pretty decent pc if you have no budget.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but $349 (not including the cost of the card we "plonk" in) is actually greater than $299. Granted, such oversight is common with PC gamers who prefer to ignore certain truths and outweigh them with arrogance or elitism, I just didn't think people who do it so blatantly.

I'm not including the cost of a monitor because a console does not come with one. In fact, I should be including the cost of a decent mouse and keyboard because the 360 comes with a premium periperal, not some no-name $5 glued together piece of plastic, but I'm even making that concession for you, yet you still cannot build a PC that will perform or outperform a 360 for the same cost.

I don't get what you're understanding. If it's so easy to build a PC that can do the same as a 360 for $300, why has this thread been filled with PCs that are more than that? All I see is excuses as to why it can't be done, but proclamations that it still can be. In fact, one of the people above you was such a coward that he made the outlandish claim that one could buy a new dual-core machine for $200 using "minimal effort", and when I did the research that he chose not to do, after significant effort on my behalf I could not find such a machine. (Unless you count the low-power Atom processors)

There's a simple fact that evades most overly proud PC gamers is that the claim that a $300 PC can do better than a $300 console simply cannot be substantiated. I don't give a shit if you think that Steam makes PC gaming worth the expense or that the "modularity makes it flexible". That's not the point I'm arguing.

Want to make this even tougher? If I chose to skip the 250 GB hard drive and deal with a 4GB drive, I can purchase the same 360 for $200. That's it. $200 for a machine that does the same as it's $300 variant. You buy it, you go home, you connect HDMI and Power, and you play. There is no extra hardware needed. It doesn't play the games at any lesser quality than the more expensive variant of it.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that PC gaming has its benefits. I'm just really sick and tired of people thinking that price is one of those benefits.

 

[Hateren47]

I don`t get why you ask for a new $300 pc when the $300 xbox is old. You do realise that once `classic` pc parts go out of production they go out of stock, right. That`s why you would need to get a refurbished pc to get under the $300 mark.

For $400 you can get new parts though. The final $400 machine is of course going to suck compared to a pc made of gaming parts but not more than consoles, and after you buy your 10th game you have saved the $100 even though you got the same games you would have on xbox. After 40 games, bought on release, the pc would have paid for it self compared to the console.

And the Wii is still the best selling console of this generation, what ever sold more in one quarter of one year is kind of irrelevant to the big picture.

Edit: $349 gets you 2 llano cores at 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a 500GB harddrive [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Essentio+Desktop/3558048.p?id=1218413774641&skuId=3558048] (compare that to a console]. Plonk in this [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/XFX+-+NVIDIA+GeForce+GT+520+1024MB+DDR3+PCI+Express+2.0+Graphics+Card/3352559.p?id=1218397405953&skuId=3352559] or this [http://www.amazon.com/MSI-Radeon-5570-PCI-Express-Graphics/dp/B00376LLO8/ref=sr_1_51?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1328344158&sr=1-51] and that`s a pretty decent pc if you have no budget.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but $349 (not including the cost of the card we "plonk" in) is actually greater than $299. Granted, such oversight is common with PC gamers who prefer to ignore certain truths and outweigh them with arrogance or elitism, I just didn't think people who do it so blatantly.

I'm not including the cost of a monitor because a console does not come with one. In fact, I should be including the cost of a decent mouse and keyboard because the 360 comes with a premium periperal, not some no-name $5 glued together piece of plastic, but I'm even making that concession for you, yet you still cannot build a PC that will perform or outperform a 360 for the same cost.

I don't get what you're understanding. If it's so easy to build a PC that can do the same as a 360 for $300, why has this thread been filled with PCs that are more than that? All I see is excuses as to why it can't be done, but proclamations that it still can be. In fact, one of the people above you was such a coward that he made the outlandish claim that one could buy a new dual-core machine for $200 using "minimal effort", and when I did the research that he chose not to do, after significant effort on my behalf I could not find such a machine. (Unless you count the low-power Atom processors)

There's a simple fact that evades most overly proud PC gamers is that the claim that a $300 PC can do better than a $300 console simply cannot be substantiated. I don't give a shit if you think that Steam makes PC gaming worth the expense or that the "modularity makes it flexible". That's not the point I'm arguing.

Want to make this even tougher? If I chose to skip the 250 GB hard drive and deal with a 4GB drive, I can purchase the same 360 for $200. That's it. $200 for a machine that does the same as it's $300 variant. You buy it, you go home, you connect HDMI and Power, and you play. There is no extra hardware needed. It doesn't play the games at any lesser quality than the more expensive variant of it.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that PC gaming has its benefits. I'm just really sick and tired of people thinking that price is one of those benefits.

You wanted a pc with new parts and I gave you one at the same price of a 360 when it had new parts. Which was in 2005 when it sold for $400. Hardware-wise that pc is far ahead of the 360 as well.

And I don't know if you're aware of this or not but the 360 would play the same games in lower quality than the pc i found. At the very least the pc would run at 1080p or higher. And you could use a tv for a monitor just as easily on a pc so that not even an argument.

As for price you're not looking at the bigger picture. If you buy 50 games on their release days for a console you spend about $500 more than you would if you bought 50 games at release on pc. That's enough to justify pc gaming financially to me. I don't know if 50 games are a lot for you but over 6 years I, personally, don't think it is. My brother has bought at least twice that (and four 360's). I use him as an example only because he's the console gamer I spend most the time with.

But I don't really care about your money so spend them how ever you like on whatever kind of experience you want. If you can enjoy paying through the nose for linear AAA shooters and uninspired actionRPGs just keep feeding the industry. They love you just the way you are.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

You wanted a pc with new parts and I gave you one at the same price of a 360 when it had new parts. Which was in 2005 when it sold for $400. Hardware-wise that pc is far ahead of the 360 as well.

You know damn well when I said "new" I meant "not refurbished", not "new at launch".

And I don't know if you're aware of this or not but the 360 would play the same games in lower quality than the pc i found. At the very least the pc would run at 1080p or higher. And you could use a tv for a monitor just as easily on a pc so that not even an argument.

See above. It doesn't matter how well it would run it, you picked an arbitrary time point for the cost of the 360 that was most convenient for you. How can you possibly compare new PC parts from today with "new" parts from 2005? That's disingenuous at best, and utterly pathetic at worst.

The point of component modularity is that you should be able to find "an extremely shitty GPU and shitty parts" that would "still be better than the 360". That's the whole bloody point of flexible PC parts, isn't it? If you can't do this right, than just eat your words and be done with it.

For that, I'll make it even harder. Find me $200 worth of complete PC parts that can compete with the 360 Slim 4GB Model.

As for price you're not looking at the bigger picture. If you buy 50 games on their release days for a console you spend about $500 more than you would if you bought 50 games at release on pc. That's enough to justify pc gaming financially to me. I don't know if 50 games are a lot for you but over 6 years I, personally, don't think it is. My brother has bought at least twice that (and four 360's). I use him as an example only because he's the console gamer I spend most the time with.

That's a shitty example because that applies only in the scenario that you only buy 50 games at their release day price. Also, there is no used game market for the PC (due to DRM and serial numbers). Release day games for the PC are at most $10 cheaper, and even then...I did a bit of research and I'm finding a lot of release-day games for PC costing $60 as well (BF3 and MW3 are still that price).

At any rate, I really don't give a shit how you justify PC gaming. We're not talking about whether or not it's worth it, we're talking dollar for dollar and you still cannot give me a competitive PC unless you use the price of 2005 PC parts and compare it to 2012 360 parts.

But I don't really care about your money so spend them how ever you like on whatever kind of experience you want. If you can enjoy paying through the nose for linear AAA shooters and uninspired actionRPGs just keep feeding the industry. They love you just the way you are.

Awww. There's the classic PC gamer insecurity I was expecting. How adorable. You've got jack shit to prove on the price argument (the only argument I was having), so just insult the opposition and decide that we're bringing the industry down. That works!

And people wonder why I don't like the PC gamer stigma...

Tell you what, sweetums, when you're ready to have a mature argument that is logical concerning the price of a console vs the price of a PC, let me know.

 

[Hateren47]

- Blah blah computers are more expensive than consoles you couldn't sell for more than $200 blah blah buy used games from pirateshops blah blah shitty shitty shitty snip snap-

Tell you what, sweetums, when you're ready to have a mature argument that is logical concerning the price of a console vs the price of a PC, let me know.

Yes it's obvious that a 6 year old console is cheaper than any new pc with a halfway decent graphic card. Since you can't make a business by selling computers at a loss like you can with consoles, hardware is sold at market price, any one can see that. Two reasons an Xbox 360 is cheaper than a new PC in 2012 going by hardware alone. Just like anyone can tell that software is cheaper for pcs than it is for consoles, right? So if you were to buy the same amount of software (and by software I mean games) for your console and your pc you will at a point in time (see graph 2) have spend more money on your console than on your pc.

And would any one change their opinion if either one of us started acting mature? Pumpkin.

graph 2
It makes my 700th post a little festive, I think.

Edit: I backtraced the thread to find out where the $400 pc came from, because honestly I forgot, a lo and behold what I find.

Spoiler: Spoiler: Click for irony.

another fun aspect no one has brought up yet:

already now you can easily assemble a PC that outperforms the specs of the xbox720 by far for arround 300-400 bucks. how is that going to be in almost 2 years when it actually comes out? the thing is probably not going to cost only 400 on release.

and console fanboys cry PCs would be expensive.

Utter fucking bullshit.

A case. A hard drive. A motherboard. RAM. Video Card. Cooling. Power supply. And since a 360 will come with at least 1 controller, that means for the purpose of this comparison, you'll need to buy at least a keyboard and a mouse. Oh, let's not forget the operating system either! Most PC gamers who toss this argument in usually don't count the OS cost because they just pirate that anyway.

For less than $400? Yeah, keep fucking dreaming. I find it funny that so many people who want to say "you can build your own for DIS MUCH" seem to forget that a computer isn't just a video card taped to a hard drive with wires coming out of it.

I seems it was because you asked for one. Then the rest of the thread is just goalposts all the way down.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

yes, LiquidSolstice, you're right. The console is cheaper that a current similarly equipped PC. *lots of useless defensive justification snipped*

Great! Glad we got it out of the way that the 360 is cheaper than current PC gaming. Unfortunate that you keep trying to supplement it with defensive reasons why it shouldn't matter (even though I told you I don't care for those arguments)

I seems it was because you asked for one. Then the rest of the thread is just goalposts all the way down.

Look at the quote I was replying to, Sherlock. Irony in 3, 2, 1....

another fun aspect no one has brought up yet:

already now you can easily assemble a PC that outperforms the specs of the xbox720 by far for arround 300-400 bucks.

See that? That's him making the claim that the Xbox 720 parts can be had on a PC for $300 to $400. I just told him that it was insane to think so, with the least of the problems with his statement being that we don't actually know what the FULL specs of the 720 is.

That's not me asking for jack shit. Although I do not believe a $400 PC will be able to top a $400 360 V2/720/Whatever, I decided that, since, you know, we don't actually know what the specs of proposed future console are, that if the current PC stigma was that such a PC can match the future console for $400, than a current PC should have NO issues matching the current console for $300.

Which you have been unable to find for me. I'm really not sure where you think you have any sort of pedestal to stand on; first you make false claims, then you refuse to read, then you insult me, and finally you don't even read your own quoted attempt to discredit me, and you think you're the logical one?

You're fucking hilarious. Right about now is where I'd insert ironicallyconfidentseriousclappingman.gif, but I'd like to think I have more class than that.

 

[Hateren47]

yes, LiquidSolstice, you're right. The console is cheaper that a current similarly equipped PC. *lots of useless defensive justification snipped*

Great! Glad we got it out of the way that the 360 is cheaper than current PC gaming (Fixed that for you). Unfortunate that you keep trying to supplement it with defensive reasons why it shouldn't matter (even though I told you I don't care for those arguments)

I seems it was because you asked for one. Then the rest of the thread is just goalposts all the way down.

Look at the quote I was replying to, Sherlock. Irony in 3, 2, 1....

another fun aspect no one has brought up yet:

already now you can easily assemble a PC that outperforms the specs of the xbox720 by far for arround 300-400 bucks.

See that? That's him her (fixed that as well) making the claim that the Xbox 720 parts can be had on a PC for $300 to $400. I just told him her that it was insane to think so, with the least of the problems with his her statement being that we don't actually know what the FULL specs of the 720 is.

That's not me asking for jack shit. Although I do not believe a $400 PC will be able to top a $400 360 V2/720/Whatever, I decided that, since, you know, we don't actually know what the specs of proposed future console are, that if the current PC stigma was that such a PC can match the future console for $400, than a current PC should have NO issues matching the current console for $300 .

Which you have been unable to find for me. I'm really not sure where you think you have any sort of pedestal to stand on; first you make false claims, then you refuse to read, then you insult me, and finally you don't even read your own quoted attempt to discredit me, and you think you're the logical one?

You're fucking hilarious. Right about now is where I'd insert ironicallyconfidentseriousclappingman.gif, but I'd like to think I have more class than that.

ITT: Goalposts moving, reality distorted.

You're hilarious. You, yes you, asked for a $400 PC that was better than a 360. Presumably because you didn't think such a wondrous piece technology exists, and now you're denying it. Even though you're entertaining me I would never agree that console gaming is cheaper than PC gaming only that the hardware is. Not even to please you.

Spoiler

Utter fucking bullshit.

A case. A hard drive. A motherboard. RAM. Video Card. Cooling. Power supply. And since a 360 will come with at least 1 controller, that means for the purpose of this comparison, you'll need to buy at least a keyboard and a mouse. Oh, let's not forget the operating system either! Most PC gamers who toss this argument in usually don't count the OS cost because they just pirate that anyway.

For less than $400? Yeah, keep fucking dreaming. I find it funny that so many people who want to say "you can build your own for DIS MUCH" seem to forget that a computer isn't just a video card taped to a hard drive with wires coming out of it.

It's not important what Kathinka (who has a girls name) wrote, it's what you wrote. I'm replying to your argument not hers.

Also my pedestal is not for me to stand on, it's for you to see me stand on. By now. Because it's funny. And no you don't have any class. It's obvious with the language you use in an argument. So post some funny images.

As a challenge for you now. Find me a desktop PC with 4GB HDD, 512MB DDR2 total and a 9800GT. I fully understand why a 360 (no games) is cheaper than a new PC but I don't think you do. No don't bother, they don't exist.

And you were the one asking for a mature logical argument and then you dismiss it because you don't care for them. Which you wouldn't have to tell me because it's obvious.

Fact of the matter is, if you have money to spend on gaming it's better spend on a PC. If your (the collective "your")parents buys your games it's probably easier to trick them into buying a console because it looks cheaper. But that's dishonest marketing for ya.

Alright your turn. Those goalposts aren't going to move them selves.

 

[Kathinka]

i can't believe you still bother with this shmuck^^ it's hilarious to read though.

in recent news: spar, a supermarket chain here, actually being more of a grocery store, are offering a line of pre-built pc's since monday for a limited time. they reach from lowly allrounder machine to pretty decent gaming pc with a few quirks for about 1000 euro.

the weakest of the four offered machines costs 7400 crowns (that's 296 in real money) and sports a 300 gb hard drive, 4gb ram and a Radeon HD 6850 from a brand i don't know (that's about twice as powerfull as the 720 and about 9-10 times as powerfull as a 360). OEM license of windows is preinstalled, and it even comes with a cheap but usable mouse-keyboard combo.

in your face.

ok, carry on.

 

[DasDestroyer]

According to the article, it'll be 20% cooler than the Wii U. That being said, I will still stick with my PC that is still a few times more powerful than the 720(what's next? 1440? 2880? 5760? 11520?) and can play anything at 1080p with 60 fps.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

ITT: Goalposts moving, reality distorted.

You're hilarious. You, yes you, asked for a $400 PC that was better than a 360.

I was referring to the NEXT generation console, which I figured would be a very, very obvious hint based on the fact the person I was replying to said Xbox 720. But it's ok, don't let the facts bother you. You can probably just insult those away too.

It's not important what Kathinka (who has a girls name) wrote, it's what you wrote. I'm replying to your argument not hers.

Yeah, seeing as you make arbitrary and convenient decisions to further your point (like comparing 2012 PC hardware prices with 2005 360 Hardware prices), I suppose deciding to take one of my posts out of context (i.e. completely ignoring who it was in response to) in order to attack it is exactly the sort of weak and pathetic thing you'd do.

Also my pedestal is not for me to stand on, it's for you to see me stand on. By now. Because it's funny. And no you don't have any class. It's obvious with the language you use in an argument. So post some funny images.

Yes, my language. Because I was the one who said this out of frustration:

But I don't really care about your money so spend them how ever you like on whatever kind of experience you want. If you can enjoy paying through the nose for linear AAA shooters and uninspired actionRPGs just keep feeding the industry. They love you just the way you are.

You're no longer hilarious. You're just sad. I feel bad for you I've been using facts, whereas all you have on your side is convenient strawmans and out-of-context quotes.

As a challenge for you now. Find me a desktop PC with 4GB HDD, 512MB DDR2 total and a 9800GT. I fully understand why a 360 (no games) is cheaper than a new PC but I don't think you do. No don't bother, they don't exist.

More defensive bullshit. I don't give a shit about "saving the face of PC gaming". I'm not opening up that can of worms, but you keep wanting to. I like how you've finally admitted that a 360 is cheaper than a PC, but it's a sort of back-handed compliment. I guess I'll have to take what I can get from you.

You may be mortally insecure about your gaming platform, but I'm not.

And you were the one asking for a mature logical argument and then you dismiss it because you don't care for them. Which you wouldn't have to tell me because it's obvious.

AHAHAHAHAHA. This is unbelievably fucking funny. Yes, I wanted a mature argument. Not a dick-waving contest where you try and defend PC gaming and all its glory, not a series of convenient out of context quotes and attempts to compare the prices of 2012 PC parts to 2005 360 parts. I'm not dismissing anything that makes sense, you are. You're dismissing the fact that the $400 claim was in reference to the next generation XBox because you know your $300 task is already ridiculously hard, and you wanted more leeway. I guess it was just easier for you to do that and attack it instead.

Fact my opinion of the matter (which happens to be completely unrelated to this argument) of the matter is, if you have money to spend on gaming it's better spend on a PC.

Fixed that for you. But seeing as you think your opinion is fact anyway, I doubt it means jack shit.

If your (the collective "your")parents buys your games it's probably easier to trick them into buying a console because it looks cheaper. But that's dishonest marketing for ya.

My parents don't and have not ever bought anything for me outside of the basic needs of life and education. I have my own job, and I could damn well afford a gaming PC, but I don't because on a dollar-per-dollar comparison, it doesn't make sense to (a conclusion which I arrived to by using facts, not elitist and arrogant claims).

But it's alright, I suppose if you can't win against your opposition using facts, generalize about them and toss the phrase "dishonest marketing" in instead. And yes, I know you were referring to the general population of console gamers, not specifically me. That doesn't change my response to it.

Alright your turn. Those goalposts aren't going to move them selves.

That's unfortunate. I can't move them because you've already picked them up and carried them all the way to the top of the pedestal that you like to sit on, undoubtedly jammed so far up your ass that you are able to easily ignore facts are shrug them off with opinions.