The tired old PC vs 360 comparison

[Requiem]

I'm not trying to convince Fignuts to buy a PC by any means. I'm just responding to LoDownM and Drakul's tripe.

Drakul, you're talking nonsense. Your very first line made me chuckle. Consoles and phones don't even come close to the capabilities of PCs and it is asinine to even say that. Phones are irrelevant in this conversation, so get out of here with that nonsense. Nobody buys a phone as an alternative to a PC. There's just no comparison. Half the shit you just listed isn't possible to do on 360's, or you have to jump through hoops in order to do it. Saying those are all the things people do on a PC is just dumb. PCs are workhorses. Granted, some people don't use them for work, and can be satisfied with a cheaper PC that does the basics. For anyone doing slightly more of anything, a good PC can be the center of an entire house's entertainment with the proper setup.



Think about this. A 360 is going to give you roughly the same graphics for 5 years. Actually, let's change that. The 360 has been out for 6 years, and there is no end in sight right now. There has been no news on a next-gen, and the 360 seems to have a shelf life for a couple more years. Microsoft themselves have said they believe the 360 to only be about halfway through its life, saying it could be around until 2015.

PRICE

How many people here bought a 360 when they came out? I personally paid $300 for my 360 quite some time after it came out, and I've been lucky enough to only buy the one. I know they are cheaper now, at roughly $200. But, how many of you have had to buy more than 1 360? I know a friend, who has bought -seven- 360's due to red rings. He had the money to blow, but not everyone does. Another friend (all of these within the same circle to show just how common this is) has had 2 red rings. A third, has had 2 red rings. Stepping outside that group of friends, I can rattle off a list - Chad; 2 red rings, Dave; 2 red rings, Josh; 1 red ring. Our own TPWW poster DS, had a red ring. Yeah yeah, don't take my word for it of a bunch of people you don't know. Look on TPWW, and see just how many users have had a red ring.

This is something you just can't argue as a positive for the 360, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about cost. Many people have paid the cost of a 360 several times over.

If a PC breaks down, you figure it out and buy a single replacement part. It may be a pain in the ass, but it is a hands on piece of technology. It can save you hundreds as opposed to having to buy a completely new computer as you'd have to do with a console.

Almost forgot about one of the biggest costs to a 360 - the TV you play it on. TVs are getting cheaper NOW, but back when this was new and for the next several years, TVs were crazy expensive. If you wanted to enjoy the full capabilities of the consoles, you had to have an HDTV. I still don't have an HDTV because that kind of money for a single item that has only 1 use (being used as a medium to view games/movies/shows) is just not something I can afford to do. Even today, you still have to pay 3-400 for a 'decent' TV, and almost a thousand for anything WORTH the large purchase. Compare that to a roughly $100 widescreen HD monitor.. (and that's hardly a requirement, but we're talking about enhancement here) and well. The numbers and facts speak for themselves.

Already, the 360 is showing its limitations. BF3's maps were smaller, and its multiplayer half the size. Skyrim is having texture issues and even in HD doesn't compare the the PC's graphics. This is 6 years after its release. Now, I paid $450 and essentially bought an entirely new tower. My PC runs BF3 on ultra, and skyrim on -nearly- its highest settings. It looks vastly more impressive than either of the console equivalents. What do you think is going to happen in the next few years when the 360 is the reason games aren't looking any better? It is something that simply can't be improved. Once the hardware limitations are met, they're met. There is no -option- for upgrade. (I stress option, see next paragraph) I may have to start toning my graphics settings down on PC, but it will STILL look better than the 360, which is reaching its limitations and has no way of upping them.

If you buy a decent PC from the start, it will also give you the same graphics for the next 5 years. Nobody -has- to upgrade. The 360, 5 years from now, is still going to give you the same visuals as a PC will 5 years from now. However, the PC you bought is probably a couple years ahead of the console already in terms of graphics. Upgrades are a luxury, that if you can afford them, you do in order to keep games looking impressive. They are not, by any means, mandatory. Nor will not upgrading, make you have an inferior experience than consoles.

I know my PC is personally way better than anything my 360 or PS3 is capable of, and I won't be doing major upgrades on it for several years. And when I do, it will likely only take 1 to 2 upgrades (a processor and graphics card) to make it current and vastly more impressive than my consoles. A couple upgrades is fine every 3-5 years, compared to buying an entirely new console when the next gen comes out and having to adapt to entirely new technology again, and probably have to buy a bunch of peripherals again when I do.

I'll touch on the PS3 for a brief moment. It is far more capable than the 360, but it is still no workhorse. It's more of a full experience media/entertainment center than the 360, but when it comes down to it, the PC is still a workhorse capable of FAR more things. The sheer level of customization to get a PC to do exactly what you want it to, is just unrivaled by anything consoles can do.

If gaming is ALL you want to do, sure buy a console. But when you really look at what you can do with a PC, and see that it's -only- $200 more or thereabouts for a decent PC.. well, that original claim of $500+ makes it seem like that's just absurd. That claim makes it seem like that's a fortune, and implies that the two are even remotely comparable.. when really, an extra $200 for something that just DOES MORE, and does what the console can do, but BETTER.. Can it even really be a comparison?

[#BROKEN Hasney]

I say do what the hell you want and have a good time. Why argue about which thing makes you happier because you the other persons happiness may be incorrect? Go back to your Dreamcast's and we'll crack some beers, guys. Powerstone 2 anyone?

[Extreme Angle]

I say do what the hell you want and have a good time. Why argue about which thing makes you happier because you the other persons happiness may be incorrect? Go back to your Dreamcast's and we'll crack some beers, guys. Powerstone 2 anyone?

[Kalyx triaD]

This is kinda silly. All my gaming is on 360, but I can care less what you game on. Your good times don't factor into my good times. Objective values and all that.

[Requiem]

The Super Nintendo is an incredible system for the game library it has. But that's not what we're even talking about. We're pretty clearly talking about cost here.

Fignuts said "Gaming isn't important enough to me, to spend the money on a PC." Someone responded that he's obviously using a PC so why not just get a decent one if he uses it, because they're not that expensive.

LoDown said something about not everyone having $500 to spend on a PC. Then Drakul made a stupid comparison and here we are.

PCs, when you look at actual costs associated with both PCs and consoles, are a more 'valuable' purchase and better use of your money.

[Requiem]

Like.. I get what you guys are saying, but in the context of this discussion, those are completely useless comments. That is not the topic at all. Nobody is trying to say someone can't have fun with one or the other. To clarify, I am not saying someone can not have fun, or will have less fun on a console. I don't see the point of posts 2, 3, and 4 at all.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Whatever keeps you off the balcony, big guy.

Thinking of buying a CRT but not sure I have the space. Got 2 Dreamcast lightguns gathering dust here when they could be used on Confidential Mission right this second.

[Requiem]

Whatever keeps you off the balcony, big guy.


God forbid we talk about something video game related in the video game forum. I forgot some of you seem to think a forum should be all holding hands and rainbows while we circle jerk to whatever new game is coming out that everyone feels the same about and has no differing opinions on.

[Kalyx triaD]

Few people buy a TV for a console, the consoles tends to come home to a TV. So I don't think bundling them is right.

The laptop I'm on now is the cheapest at a Wal-Mart (300$), and I'll be damned if it could run any of the hot stuff out now. I could get a 360 for roughly the same price and run something that's looks as good as Far Cry 2. Red Rings aren't much of an issue these days, and a 360 will not get viruses because I wanted to see Black Cheerleader Search 36.

I'm not joining their argument, just highlighting some missing factors in yours. In the end people will spend their money on what makes them happy, and their cost of happiness is variable. Perhaps they just don't wanna game on a PC? Who knows, but a thread on this seems silly and I made Street Fighter chick beauty pageant threads.

[Xero]

The 360 is a better investment for someone who doesn't have the time or knowledge to tinker and fuck around with a PC to get it "with the right setup". You can get your PC to be a whole entertainment center and launch your games and you could play them all from your couch, like a console. But truth be told, that is a pretty big task to get right and is a huge time sink, not to mention the money it would take for the setup for controllers, remotes, wireless keyboards, etc.

It's also a better investment to get a console if you have gamer friends who are into multiplayer, because, more likely than not, they're going to have a 360 or PS3 over a decent computer.

And if you want to play some even newer games (3-4 years old) with a controller, there are loopholes you have to jump through with third party apps and whatnot. Again, unfriendly.

PC gaming is also an unfriendly environment for local multiplayer. Granted, this is dying in general, but that aside, it's going to be much harder to scrunch around a $100 montior than a $400 HDTV that's 32 inches and you can play with on the couch. That I feel is a factor whether you want local friends to play/watch or not, really.

Technically speaking, yes, PC gaming is superior (when the games aren't stripped down shitty console ports). But when it comes down to it, consoles are a simple plug and play environment. If you have the knowledge, time, friends who actually game on the computer and are willing to take the effort to get a similar experience to a console, a PC would be a better choice in the long run. But for most people, a console is just a better choice.

The shitty console port, by the way, is another big problem. Only some of the big games on consoles get releases on the PC that are on par with or better than the console counterpart. And that's only if they DO get a PC release.

[LoDownM]

I'm not against either form of gaming for the record. I played Dragon Age Origins on PC and 360 and thoroughly enjoyed it on both.

My problem is typical douchebag PC troll fags like St. Jimmy.

[Kane Knight]

Oh good. Reqtum's on this kick again.

[Requiem]

Few people buy a TV for a console, the consoles tends to come home to a TV. So I don't think bundling them is right.

The laptop I'm on now is the cheapest at a Wal-Mart (300$), and I'll be damned if it could run any of the hot stuff out now. I could get a 360 for roughly the same price and run something that's looks as good as Far Cry 2. Red Rings aren't much of an issue these days, and a 360 will not get viruses because I wanted to see Black Cheerleader Search 36.

I'm not joining their argument, just highlighting some missing factors in yours. In the end people will spend their money on what makes them happy, and their cost of happiness is variable. Perhaps they just don't wanna game on a PC? Who knows, but a thread on this seems silly and I made Street Fighter chick beauty pageant threads.

If you can't play without a TV, it's bundled. You can't use a PC without a screen either. I take my own personal example for instance. I have a 32" SDTV in my room here. Sure it 'works' for 360, but the experience is tarnished without an HDTV. I'm missing out on half the experience, and many games have the 'typical' shitty text problem because game devs make the games for HDTVs. If I want to enjoy the -full experience- I need an HDTV.

[Requiem]

Oh look, Kane Knight with pet names and nothing useful to add. How <s>cute</s> cliche.

[Kane Knight]

I have a 30 year old computer and I can play Skyrim on high settings!

[Emperor Smeat]

They both have their strengths and weaknesses and even though Microsoft wants to make consoles more PC-like, they can never be as powerful as a PC without drastically changing the current idea of a console.

The extra stuff such as Twitter or Netflix being added is due to Microsoft and other companies taking advantage of the growing internet which can bring in more potential customers for their console.

A PCs graphics card ends up being both a strength and weakness for the device because while it can create better graphics than a console, there is no guarantee that same card will be able to play games in the future without drastically changing the settings. A console at least guarantees a game will be playable without having to do extra effort regardless when it arrives in the system's lifetime.

[Kalyx triaD]

If you can't play without a TV, it's bundled.

Just out of curiousity; have you ever consider this with DVD players? Would you say a computer is a better DVD player than an exclusive DVD player because the TV is bundled? How about CD's to go with a car's CD player? See what I'm saying?

I take my own personal example for instance. I have a 32" SDTV in my room here. Sure it 'works' for 360, but the experience is tarnished without an HDTV. I'm missing out on half the experience, and many games have the 'typical' shitty text problem because game devs make the games for HDTVs. If I want to enjoy the -full experience- I need an HDTV.

Just as if I wanna enjoy 2/3rds the experience of any decent PC game, my bargin bin lappy will not do. Hell, you need cable/internet for a computer to be worth a damn - more so than a console needs internet at least. So you have small text and muddy visuals, it does suck. But the game runs. The multiplayer runs. Out of the box. And Xero's points on the social aspect are not to be ignored, shit - it's pretty much MAKE or BREAK for a lot of us. I only know two guys in my social circle who game on PC's primarily. Everybody else is on XBLive. So which version of Battlefield am I getting?

[Requiem]

No, I don't see what you are saying. Explain it to me more.

The price difference between a DVD player and a PC are monumental though. That's the whole point of this discussion. Price.

A DVD player is an accessory for a TV. Just like a CD player is an accessory for a car. Similarly, speakers would be an accessory to a CD player.

I wouldn't put those on the same level as a PC or Console. Their only purpose is to read a format and either put it up on a screen, or through some speakers.

A PC or Console, I would consider their own entertainment platforms that allow you far more direct control over the tasks they're performing.

Dunno.. explain to me what you mean and maybe I will get it.



As for the second part. Internet serves virtually the same purpose in both cases. High speed is needed for any sort of multiplayer on a console the same as it is on PC. Except in the case of PC gaming, 56k was actually -somewhat- viable back in the day. And a PC is capable of performing nearly all of its intended tasks, with the slowest of slow internets, or even without internet.

Note, this is a key difference between the systems though. Someone arguing that consoles are 'just as capable' as PCs forgets that there's no such thing as dial-up for a console. It's all or nothing.
PCs are capable of operating on slower connections. If all you're doing is using it for email, then it's perfectly adequate.

I digress.. Back to the topic at hand. I agree that consoles are a more accessible platform. Everyone and their dad has a 360 if they game. There's nothing wrong with that. Again, that's just coming down to preference. I'm not going to presume to tell anyone that gaming on one platform is more 'fun' than another. (I will argue however that the visual experience you get from a PC is inarguably better. It's simple fact.)

But if you've got a PC capable of playing the games, and you bother to get into that 'crowd' then the people to play with argument goes out the window. (and I'd say making/keeping friends over PC gaming is far easier than on XBL; note, not talking about friends you already have/know in real life obviously)

[Xero]

"But if you've got a PC capable of playing the games, and you bother to get into that 'crowd' then the people to play with argument goes out the window. (and I'd say making/keeping friends over PC gaming is far easier than on XBL; note, not talking about friends you already have/know in real life obviously)"

If you don't have gamer friends, this point is moot because either way you're getting "in" with a crowd. The whole point is friends you already have. That's not as much of a preference as it is a necessity if these are people you want to play with.

And how is making/keeping friends on PC gaming easier than on XBL? This makes absolutely no sense. In fact, I can easily make the argument that XBL is better for this, because the friend system works across ALL online games (and offline games), not just one or a handful like PC games.

[alvarado52]

I say do what the hell you want and have a good time. Why argue about which thing makes you happier because you the other persons happiness may be incorrect? Go back to your Dreamcast's and we'll crack some beers, guys. Powerstone 2 anyone?

[Requiem]

Because of PC communication. MSN, AIM, Skype, Gmail protocols and others.

As well as now Steam is one of my bigger communication tools as well, and that not only acts as a chat platform, but a way to play directly with those people as well.

I coordinate rather easily with 3-4 other people when we want to play BF3. We get on skype, call the group, and start the game up. When it comes to TF2, I ask people either on Skype or MSN, or Steam itself, and we start up a game and go.

Reason being - You don't have to load your Xbox up just to chat with someone (I personally don't know of ANYONE who uses Xbox to communicate with people) If you're online and you want to tell someone else to play, they have to have their xbox on as well.

Typically, people spend a lot of time on their PCs doing nothing. I mean, look at all of us. We're not doing anything, but I have skype and MSN open in my task bar and any minute, I could get a message from a friend wanting to play. (including requests to play 360 games) The potential for communication... and -persistent- communication, exists in a completely different format for PC gamers. It is just easier to maintain a relationship with someone you can talk to whenever you want, as opposed to ONLY when you both happen to have your 360's loaded up and sitting on the home screen or happen to both be playing it simultaneously.

[Xero]

But that's extra work and involves third party programs for the most part. Granted, you can't get XBox messages when you're on the computer, but it's just as easy to give those people your contact info to do exactly what you suggest. It's really no different than PC gaming except for the fact that, when it comes down to it, there's one standard across the board for XBL, there's no one standard for PC gaming.

At best your argument is that the person has to get up from their computer and move over to the console when someone IMs them instead of launching a program.

[Kane Knight]

Not sure if Reqtum is trolling or just the darkpower of PC.

[alvarado52]

Pea Sea

[Requiem]

But that's extra work and involves third party programs for the most part. Granted, you can't get XBox messages when you're on the computer, but it's just as easy to give those people your contact info to do exactly what you suggest. It's really no different than PC gaming except for the fact that, when it comes down to it, there's one standard across the board for XBL, there's no one standard for PC gaming.

At best your argument is that the person has to get up from their computer and move over to the console when someone IMs them instead of launching a program.

You're making it out like running a third party program is such a daunting task that makes it useless compared to a standard messaging system.

*Click* Oh hey, I installed Skype. Boom.. now I can talk to my friends in any game. Mountain out of a molehill.

[Requiem]

Not sure if Reqtum is trolling or just the darkpower of PC.

Darkpower of the PC. I've just recently for the first time gotten to really upgrade to a nice PC. It's not perfect but it wasn't that expensive, and when you really see what a powerful computer can do, and think about what they will do eventually, it's hard to expect any less out of something.

[Kane Knight]

I can't believe you have to buy a TV to use an Xbox.

I mean, all PCs come with a built-in, high quality monitor. Has to be high quality, because you're "missing half the experience" if you don't have a decent display.

[Kane Knight]

Did you know you have to buy games for your XBox 360?

[Requiem]

Guess it's convenient for you to forget where I acknowledge that you have to buy a monitor for a PC.

Oh woops, there goes your whole shtick.

[Captain of Fun]

I think the main thing you skipped over, was the part where I said "gaming isn't important enough to me." I play video games more than the average person, no doubt, but I am not into them as much as other people on the site. I think my incompetence at everything besides Street Fighter and Super Meat Boy has proven that to you all.

Bundling HDTVs with consoles when talking about cost, doesn't really work, imo, because we are talking about here and now, not six years ago. These days, most people have an HDTV.

Also, in the same regard, I could say that playing on a PC that can't run a game on it's highest settings is a watered down experience, just like playing consoles on an SD. And only top of the line rigs can do that with the newest titles.

Gaming PC's are better than consoles. They have far better visuals and the mod community is great. BUT, they require a lot more maintenance and they are still a far more expensive investment for me personally. Maybe your friends, who had to buy an hdtv to play their 360, and had it rrod 7 times might be better off with a PC. I haven't had those problems. I'm fine with not having any of the advantages PC's offer. I have fun with the consoles, and there are plenty of other things I would rather spend my money on.

I wasn't making a general statement in the other thread. I was making a statement about me personally.

Also, St. Jimmy, I wasn't serious with the "Faggot" remark. You've been spending too much time in the wrestling forum.

[El Fangel]

PC's > Consoles.

The thing is with consoles you don't have to update your hardware every 3-4 years to be able to play the new games.

[NoJabbaNoBogRoll]

Let's not forget that PC games are a lot cheaper than console games.

If you go nuts with trading your console games in, you may end up spending less, but you will have a tiny games library to cancel out that saving.

PC games are more likely to have free DLC, and they are typically patched more regularly.

[alvarado52]

How about this: whatever platform you choose, you gain a community to play with eventually. So long as you enjoy what you're playing and have pals to play with, who gives a shit about price or graphics. The value of these things are in the fun, money comes and goes.

[Kane Knight]

PC's > Consoles.

The thing is with consoles you don't have to update your hardware every 3-4 years to be able to play the new games.

According to Reqtum, you need to update your PC less often than generational cycles for consoles.

How about this: whatever platform you choose, you gain a community to play with eventually. So long as you enjoy what you're playing and have pals to play with, who gives a shit about price or graphics. The value of these things are in the fun, money comes and goes.

Isn't this pretty much what everyone already said before Reqtum replied with "You guys are missing the point!"

[Requiem]

Kane Knight blatantly lying in this thread, but alright guy.

[Juan]

Mortal Kombat on Sega Genesis is the best video game ever

[Kane Knight]

I knew Requiem's TV argument sounded familiar....

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215471989_GKZWD-L-2.jpg