The tired old PC vs 360 comparison

**Requiem** · 12-10-2011, 04:49 PM

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?

12-10-2011, 04:49 PM	#1
Requiem Posts: 19,301	The tired old PC vs 360 comparison 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?