A decent PSU and Case will cost you more than a PS3 and a 360 combined.
However, cause a pc has more function and the majority of them arent gaming, you will upgrade it ....e.x. i use photoshop/illustrator/indesign etc etc in some point i will have to upgrade it, but cause i will make my work faster and easier, not for a game fgs.....
If sony or ms tells me that i have to buy an upgrade just for a game i wont, cause it is ridiculous.
I could buy my PSU and case four times over for that price, and that would be considered lavish by some.
I perform computationally expensive tasks like FEM analysis
et al. along with other floating-point heavy computation (audio) and I game on the same machine, so I make the best use of its now comparatively meagre hardware. As I said, four years is the update interval I use, staying about two (sub-) generations behind the curve anyway. You oughtn't buy the best on offer, because it's deliberately overpriced.
and i repeat that consoles are using 2005's technology with less ram than my toaster. You were expecting different results?
No, just pointing out that the fact that Crysis (released in Nov. 2007) is such a system hog is because the engine isn't multi-thread optimised, and the game requires a lot of CPU power, also the whole idea of "maxed out" is pretty infantile. Crysis 2 looks better
and runs better on the same hardware.
The consoles were using graphics tech that followed about a year later in the PC market; the "CPU"s are still pretty bespoke and unlike anything in a PC - that is, they were cutting edge, unlike my PC at that time (an Athlon XP 3000 and Radeon 9600 XT with DDR 400 memory
).
Also: negative quantities of memory?
My point was that if lets say sony wanted to release a beast that after 7-8 would be still in top form, would have to release a machine with 1000w PSU (back in 2006) who would want a console that burns at 1000watts?
If you remember ps3 when was first introduced had 6xusb. 2xHDMI (in theory it would be able to output 1080p in 2 TVs simultaneously) 2xoptical outputs, 2xLan etc etc....Eventually sony released a console with final price at 660euros; and sales werent that good.... just imagine if they have released it with the above specs..... PS3 would be dead for good.
I don't understand how Sony could travel through time and acquire the manufacturing processes, materials knowledge etc. to even be able to produce something that could be considered "best" for that length of time. You can't just add more power; CPUs are already running with heat densities in excess of that found in a nuclear reactor! Obsolescence is a fact of the computing hardware industry, and yet it continues on and, if anything, the hardware requirements for playing games on a PC is actually becoming
more stable, largely thanks to cross-platform and console-focused games production and the rise of so-called "casual gaming".
My first PC was an amstrad 6128 run"/cat etc, so?
Consoles (cause i had almost all consoles from gen 1) always were as simple as possible.
e.x. with 2 clicks you are in GT5, 1st click PS button, 2nd click (X) boots GT5. If they weren't that simple they wouldn't be consoles.
Also, You dont need to have any knowledge at all to set up a console or to do anything with a console.
Forget about the kids, some people arent familiar with technology or they dont know anything about it, they even find hard how to set up a mobile phone, but from a companies perspective you design your console so anyone can use it.
PC gaming is exactly as you describe; in reality, on a shared PS3, you have to select a user first, wait for the XMB to load, then scroll to the game and select it (assuming you've put it in the drive if necessary and there are no updates "required"). On a PC this process is identical nowadays, assuming the publishers and devs don't shovel all manner of multi-layered DRM into the game.
You'd also recall, then, that some early consoles had extraneous hardware released and even different basic configurations during their lifetimes, meaning that some games couldn't be played on all hardware of a specific generation from the same manufacturer (now all we have is Move, Kinect and Wii Motion Plus, thankfully, although the X360 slim's flash memory is causing minor issues). The fact that you can remember back that far may be obscuring your view of the present somewhat, I feel, especially if you don't play games on a PC.
Generally, gaming is becoming more "streamlined" overall. If you already have a high powered PC (i.e. above budget-level) it's fine for gaming on. If you absolutely, positively must have the best graphics, or what have you, then yes you're going to get stuck in a perpetual chase for the newest and best (and ridiculously overpriced) hardware. For most of us PC gamers, though, it doesn't work out like that at all in reality, and a given build can last well enough to be considered good value given the overall flexibility of the setup (I bet those people still running otherOS on their PS3's are loving it) and the savings made on cheaper games
About bugs (at least in games), IMO The problem starts from the publishers and the dev's to get the game on selves asap...........
They release the damn thing and if there is an issue >> users will find out >> they will get feedback from forums/e-mails >> release an update ... problem solved.
why spend money and time testing? when you can do it for free?
That more games are releasing with bugs is testament to their ever increasing base complexity, and the ever increasing focus on making an ever increasing profit, which may cause the publishers to force skimping on QA and testing.
It isn't, however, acceptable by any means, on any platform, to release a
bug-ridden mess to paying customers. Understandable in some cases, sure, but it shouldn't be the norm, and it's deplorable that you think it acceptable to use paying customers as beta testers without the express admission by the devs / pubs of such.
