Is it time for the next console generation?

[Conza]

I want you to think about this carefully before jumping to your current answer, I may sway you to either conclusion once I'm done.

I'm basing this on the Sony Playstation 3, since it's marginally ahead of the Xbox 360 by current standards.

Approximately 5 years ago, November 2006, Sony launched the PS3. It had;

550MHz graphics card, with 256MB GDDR3 dedicated graphics memory

3.2GHz processor with 6 cores for gaming, 1 for the OS and 1 spare, with 256MB system memory.

Current graphics cards have 800-900MHz+, 2-3GBs of GDDR5 RAM. Most gaming computers have 6-12GBs of system RAM

The discrepancy between PC and game console graphics is hurting many games being made today, as the consoles are limiting not only the appearance of new games, but also the gameplay and usability, with issues like AI and load times.

Regardless of whether or not you would personally replace your PS3 or 360, they are now both so old, their processing power and limitations to new games being made is so large, that soon more and more games will be made exclusively for the PC, including triple AAAs, literally forcing both Sony and Microsoft to produce a new console to combat the loss of games for their systems.

Is it time for a new console generation? I say yes.

 

[CMvan46]

One flaw with your theory:

PC makes no money compared to consoles.

No AAA title in their right mind would go exclusively to PC, there is too much money to be made on consoles. Best example is BF3 which was supposed to have it's lead platform be the PC.... It turned out no to be but they definitely marketed it that way. Sales numbers on console for BF3 are amazingly higher on console than PC.

No console maker will make a new console unless they feel they have the tech behind their console to convince consumers it's a big enough jump that their money is worth it.

I don't think it's time yet. Look at BF3, Uncharted 3, Skyrim, or GT5 and tell me that graphics are falling way behind. Those games all look fantastic and are very large games. A few years yet which is when I think we will see the PS4.

 

[Conza]

One flaw with your theory:

PC makes no money compared to consoles.

No AAA title in their right mind would go exclusively to PC, there is too much money to be made on consoles. Best example is BF3 which was supposed to have it's lead platform be the PC.... It turned out no to be but they definitely marketed it that way. Sales numbers on console for BF3 are amazingly higher on console than PC.

No console maker will make a new console unless they feel they have the tech behind their console to convince consumers it's a big enough jump that their money is worth it.

I don't think it's time yet. Look at BF3, Uncharted 3, Skyrim, or GT5 and tell me that graphics are falling way behind. Those games all look fantastic and are very large games. A few years yet which is when I think we will see the PS4.

Ah yes, firstly this is a question regarding 'should' it occur, not 'will' it occur, so when you think we'll see it, and when you want to see it are two different things.

Also, the flaw in the flaw, is, with no new consoles, people will buy pcs, so that base will increase, further it will increase from the integrity of the game developers who say 'no, we're not releasing something on that old machine' so people will want the new console, or gaming pc, and they'll forget about their Playstation or Xbox until a new one comes along.

 

[bevo]

Ah yes, firstly this is a question regarding 'should' it occur, not 'will' it occur, so when you think we'll see it, and when you want to see it are two different things.

Also, the flaw in the flaw, is, with no new consoles, people will buy pcs, so that base will increase, further it will increase from the integrity of the game developers who say 'no, we're not releasing something on that old machine' so people will want the new console, or gaming pc, and they'll forget about their Playstation or Xbox until a new one comes along.

Not many people will ever just buy PCs to play games on. If there wasn't a new console released for 10 more years, consoles would still outsell PC games by far. Not many people are willing to go and shell out 1500$ for a PC every couple of years. If people were willing to just go out and spend the kind of money it takes to play AAA PC games, then they would already be doing it. BF3, and witcher 2 both show how much better PC games can look, but they both take a 1500$ PC to max them out. My PC was built in June with sli GTX 570s and it can't max out the witcher 2. It would take something like tri sli 580s to turn everything all the way up on it, which you would end up with a pc at well over 2K. Not many parents will spend that money on kids computers. Consoles will always have the kids who still rely on their parents to buy them games, no matter how old the consoles are.

I personally am not ready for a wave of new consoles. I just did build a high end PC, so I'm hoping that lasts me a few years to play with before the new consoles come out. Then when they come out and get outdated like the PS3 and Xbox 360 are now, I'll build another high end gaming PC.

In all honesty though, I don't even think the really high price to play PC games is what keeps alot of people from doing it. Most of my friends don't want to mess with the hassle of computer games. Trying to keep up with the latest drivers, multiple voice chats for different games, and just all of the hassle in general. I went to play iracing the other night for the first time in awhile and it took me 3 hours to finally get going again. I installed the newest nvidia drivers for skyrum and BF3. Those made iracing stutter so then I had to try and go back to older drivers for iracing. This didn't go well at all. I ended up having to mess with it for over 2 hours just to be able to play a game. This is a common occurrence in the PC game world. Most console gamers don't want to have to deal with all the problems PC gaming brings, even though the games are way ahead of the current consoles.

PC gaming and console gaming are two entirely different things. Unless sony or microsoft or someone didn't come out with a new system in maybe the next 10 years then PC games would take over. I think though that either of them could wait even 5 years before releasing a new console and PC games wouldn't see much of an increase in gamers coming to them. PC games are for tech guys who like to tinker with the computer, consoles are for people who just want to play games.

 

[theotherspongey]

I think 2013/2014 is a good time for console developers to start releasing new generations of their consoles.

In the meantime, Microsoft should start thinking about making something that can be competitive with the PS Vita; It's surprising Microsoft has done almost nothing to enter the field of mobile gaming.

 

[Monosukoi]

2014/15, yes. Before then, no thanks.

 

[E28]

Well, games still look pretty good on the consoles.

Anyway, if you want to get significantly better graphics on your PC you'll have to spend at least double the cost of a new PS3...

 

[TypeRDC5]

2014/15, yes. Before then, no thanks.

This and i hope your right, i hate when a new console is announced and all developers start focusing theit attention on the new hardware.

 

[Recon]

I think 2013/2014 is a good time for console developers to start releasing new generations of their consoles.

In the meantime, Microsoft should start thinking about making something that can be competitive with the PS Vita; It's surprising Microsoft has done almost nothing to enter the field of mobile gaming.

Yes, but Microsoft is really taking off with their Windows Phones. The PS Phone is never going to be able to compete with that.

 

[alexleighton]

I think what people like me and the OP want is something that's never going to happen again, where most AAA games are designed with PC gamers in mind and are ported to consoles later. It's the other way around nowadays, and Skyrim is the biggest offender here, with it's console centric menu system. The Elder Scrolls being designed for consoles is in my mind the same as a Mazda MX-5 being given paddle shifters as standard.

But, my main concerns are more with pc versions not getting the amount of work that they deserve, which really has nothing to do with how powerful consoles are. So much depends on the art team, again, I'll use Skyrim as an example. As beautiful as most of that game is, there's some places where I just shake my head an ask what they were smoking. Massive texture seams out in plain view, blurry textures with bizarre colors and moss that looks like gold ore, which makes the player who doesn't know how to mine hammer at mossy rocks with a pickaxe and wonder why they aren't getting any gold. These are all things that wouldn't suddenly be fixed by more powerful hardware.

So even with a new generation of consoles, I don't know if PC gaming would get any better. But I don't think it would hurt it, so I say bring em on.

 

[kimi123]

No. I think this gen can easily last for another 2-3yrs. I think we can definitely get better games. We will not see big jumps in graphics but it will also improve. Next gen we should get considerable upgrade.

 

[eight6er]

One thing that annoys me about games now, is screen tearing and jerky blurry movement when you move or look around. I was playing Assassin's creed brotherhood the other day and even though it looks great when standing still, I turned the game off, because it was wrecking my head with the jerky blurry screen tearing when actually playing the game.
A new generation might be able to handle these graphics and be smooth too, but more than likely with a new gen PS they would probably just put loads of effort into making the graphics look next gen and we'll be stuck with screen tearing and jerky movements again.

 

[theotherspongey]

Yes, but Microsoft is really taking off with their Windows Phones. The PS Phone is never going to be able to compete with that.

Indeed, but don't forget the Sony Erricson Xperia Play, which is a mobile gaming device and a smartphone, with better capabilities then the Windows Phone.

 

[LaBounti]

Yes, but Microsoft is really taking off with their Windows Phones. The PS Phone is never going to be able to compete with that.

That's Apples to Oranges. MS doesn't make the hardware, they only make the OS. Sony does not make their OS, they (Ericsson at the time) make their hardware. Windows phone can ship on any manufactures, Sony's only makes hardware and in fact may release a Windows 8 phone the same way they Support Windows OS for their Laptops.

They are not competing with each other in the same market. Window's Phone competes with IoS and Android, Sony phone's competes with Apple, HTC, LG, Samsung, Motorola etc.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Indeed, but don't forget the Sony Erricson Xperia Play, which is a mobile gaming device and a smartphone, with better capabilities then the Windows Phone.

Playstation Vita isn't selling that Much plus portable Gaming consoles are getting less and less Popular because of Smartphone Devices (Iphone,Galaxy,Xperia,etc)so not worth the Development Gamble.

As for the New Generation Consoles well PC gaming is getting More and More Popular ,and alot of People are starting to take the Plunge but as Mentioned it is Very Expensive .

But I reckon it is about time Next year we see New Consoles PC's Expensive prices are being less a concern considering the Increasing Gulf in terms of graphical Difference to consoles 👍

 

[Conza]

I think 2013/2014 is a good time for console developers to start releasing new generations of their consoles.

In the meantime, Microsoft should start thinking about making something that can be competitive with the PS Vita; It's surprising Microsoft has done almost nothing to enter the field of mobile gaming.

Yes, but Microsoft is really taking off with their Windows Phones. The PS Phone is never going to be able to compete with that.

I'm sorry, this is off topic, but are you guys crazy?

Firstly Windows Phone was a failure before it began, they have to release something but its a pointless product at this point, check out the wiki on Mobile OS market share, they have a massive 1.5% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share

Secondly, the Apple and even Android products (with a far third being the Nintendo 3DS), are eating up all the mobile market share at this point, so with the PS Vita not likely to make much of a dent, the Microsoft version would be a waste of time.

 

[Conza]

Not many people will ever just buy PCs to play games on. If there wasn't a new console released for 10 more years, consoles would still outsell PC games by far. Not many people are willing to go and shell out 1500$ for a PC every couple of years.

If people were willing to just go out and spend the kind of money it takes to play AAA PC games, then they would already be doing it. BF3, and witcher 2 both show how much better PC games can look, but they both take a 1500$ PC to max them out.

My PC was built in June with sli GTX 570s and it can't max out the witcher 2. It would take something like tri sli 580s to turn everything all the way up on it, which you would end up with a pc at well over 2K. Not many parents will spend that money on kids computers. Consoles will always have the kids who still rely on their parents to buy them games, no matter how old the consoles are.

I personally am not ready for a wave of new consoles. I just did build a high end PC, so I'm hoping that lasts me a few years to play with before the new consoles come out. Then when they come out and get outdated like the PS3 and Xbox 360 are now, I'll build another high end gaming PC.

In all honesty though, I don't even think the really high price to play PC games is what keeps alot of people from doing it. Most of my friends don't want to mess with the hassle of computer games. Trying to keep up with the latest drivers, multiple voice chats for different games, and just all of the hassle in general.

I went to play iracing the other night for the first time in awhile and it took me 3 hours to finally get going again. I installed the newest nvidia drivers for skyrum and BF3. Those made iracing stutter so then I had to try and go back to older drivers for iracing. This didn't go well at all. I ended up having to mess with it for over 2 hours just to be able to play a game. This is a common occurrence in the PC game world. Most console gamers don't want to have to deal with all the problems PC gaming brings, even though the games are way ahead of the current consoles.

PC gaming and console gaming are two entirely different things. Unless sony or microsoft or someone didn't come out with a new system in maybe the next 10 years then PC games would take over. I think though that either of them could wait even 5 years before releasing a new console and PC games wouldn't see much of an increase in gamers coming to them. PC games are for tech guys who like to tinker with the computer, consoles are for people who just want to play games.

Well, you're incorrect unfortunately, people aren't going to just accept a last decade old legacy system, to play games on, sure its still 'okish' now, but the market is entirely saturated, and given another 1-2 years, they'll be a lot more people with gaming pcs, even cheap gaming pcs at this point can destroy the graphic power of either console, easily, 800 pounds / 1000 dollars, and you can get a machine that 'will' last 5 years, and can out do either console 2:1.

 

[Seismica]

As for the New Generation Consoles well PC gaming is getting More and More Popular ,and alot of People are starting to take the Plunge but as Mentioned it is Very Expensive .

Whilst the PC itself will cost 2-3 times that of a PS3, the games are cheaper. The amount of games i've bought on Steam that I simply couldn't afford on console is ridiculous. In the long run a PC will still cost more, but you get so much more satisfaction out of it.

The problem with Console games today is that developers are trying to push the boundaries a little too much. Sequels are coming out with 'new and improved' graphics which means everything is slightly shinier, but you've lost 5fps, it's ridiculous (Quite a hit when you consider 30fps, not 60fps is the benchmark for console games). The consoles today aren't slow, they've just ran out of room for improvement because the developers are already hitting the peak. As somebody mentioned before, because Consoles represent the majority of the video game market, developers are turning their attention to them as their primary development platform, which is often at the expense of top end performance on a PC. The consoles are holding video games back in a way, but at the same time maybe it is a good thing that the next gen-consoles won't be released for a number of years, because they have to innovate in ways other than graphics.

 

[CMvan46]

No. I think this gen can easily last for another 2-3yrs. I think we can definitely get better games. We will not see big jumps in graphics but it will also improve. Next gen we should get considerable upgrade.

Agreed. Some studios are already prepping for the next console generation. DICE's frostbite engine is entirely designed with the next generation in mind and GT6 is already in extremely early stages but it too is being built for the next ps4. No huge graphics jumps but better quality and coding breakthroughs are a certainty.

Well, you're incorrect unfortunately, people aren't going to just accept a last decade old legacy system, to play games on, sure its still 'okish' now, but the market is entirely saturated, and given another 1-2 years, they'll be a lot more people with gaming pcs, even cheap gaming pcs at this point can destroy the graphic power of either console, easily, 800 pounds / 1000 dollars, and you can get a machine that 'will' last 5 years, and can out do either console 2:1.

Wrong again. A $1000 machine will not last you 5 years running games efficiently. Find me a $1000 pc from 2006-07 that can play BF3 at high (let alone ultra).... Don't bother looking you won't find one. You need to put money into the PC to keep it going and most people don't want that.

Also how can I sit on a couch and play Little Big Planet co-op with my girlfriend on a pc? You can't hook up 2 keyboards and 2 mice and play co-op on a computer.

Your entirely wrong and he is very much right. Majority of parents will not ever be go out and pay for a system like that for kids to play on. Students don't have the money most of the time and a console is much more convenient. Your very much blinded by the fact you think people would get so fed up in 5 years they'd all rush out and buy PCs. It's not going to happen and for as long as I can see console games will always outsell pc no matter how long the console generation.


Be a little more open minded instead of telling everybody they are wrong. Incase you haven't noticed you don't exactly have a lot of people agreeing with your points.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Whilst the PC itself will cost 2-3 times that of a PS3, the games are cheaper. The amount of games i've bought on Steam that I simply couldn't afford on console is ridiculous. In the long run a PC will still cost more, but you get so much more satisfaction out of it.

The problem with Console games today is that developers are trying to push the boundaries a little too much. Sequels are coming out with 'new and improved' graphics which means everything is slightly shinier, but you've lost 5fps, it's ridiculous (Quite a hit when you consider 30fps, not 60fps is the benchmark for console games). The consoles today aren't slow, they've just ran out of room for improvement because the developers are already hitting the peak. As somebody mentioned before, because Consoles represent the majority of the video game market, developers are turning their attention to them as their primary development platform, which is often at the expense of top end performance on a PC. The consoles are holding video games back in a way, but at the same time maybe it is a good thing that the next gen-consoles won't be released for a number of years, because they have to innovate in ways other than graphics.

Yes I agree it seems that Talent wise Console developers are Insanely good which they should considering the Stupid amount of resources they have .But Sadly Console Games make Mind blowing Profit for this to change soon .

And although Even PC games are cheaper the Rigs themselves are still way way too expensive for Players such as Myself ,My PC can only run Rfactor 1 .A power shift to PC is Possible and more likely but it needs alot more fans for developers to start considering it .I for one think PS4 is probably the last Sony Console we will have .

 

[Joey D]

Whilst the PC itself will cost 2-3 times that of a PS3, the games are cheaper. The amount of games i've bought on Steam that I simply couldn't afford on console is ridiculous. In the long run a PC will still cost more, but you get so much more satisfaction out of it.

You can also do a lot more on a PC then you can with a console. Sure I built mine to play games but I can also edit movies and pictures, use the entire MS Office suite, program and modify it till my heart is content.

Wrong again. A $1000 machine will not last you 5 years running games efficiently. Find me a $1000 pc from 2006-07 that can play BF3 at high (let alone ultra).... Don't bother looking you won't find one. You need to put money into the PC to keep it going and most people don't want that.

A $1,000 computer 5 years ago still isn't a huge slouch today. Sure it can't play games like Skyrim on ultra high settings but it by no means sucks. You can also bring it back up to specs by investing a couple hundred bucks to increase the graphics card and RAM.

My last computer was about 5 years old and I had only ever upgraded the graphics card and RAM, I had no problem playing the latest games. I caved and bought a new computer during the fall of last year, but I still have my old PC kicking around at a buddy of mine's house so that I don't have to take my computer when we do LAN games. We've been playing Dead Island recently and my old rig handles it all just fine.

===

To me, PC gaming will always be better. I have numerous consoles but I always find myself back on my PC playing all the latest and greatest. The only things I really play on consoles are exclusives, sports games and racing games. Past that everything else is PC only.

There are some games I just don't even know how they work on a console, Skyrim is one that comes to mind. You have so many hotkeys on your keyboard I have no idea how that would translate well to a controller. Plus you can't mod the game either, which is always a huge benefit with PC gaming. By adding quests and missions through user mods, you can extend the game play life.

 

[ussr]

I think it's not the right time. 2015 would be ideal time.

 

[CMvan46]

Joey I know you can upgrade your computer like that but it's not simply a one time charge of $1000 for 6 years of gaming (the average console life span so far).

Over those years you'll need to upgrade atleast once with a new graphics card and ram which let's say is $200. Well there is half the cost of your console and that's just the upgrading. You can't honestly tell me that in another 6 years you'll need another graphics card and ram and your good to go again? 12 year computer life span? I think not.

So let's say you bought a ps3 near launch at $500 and a computer at the same time at $1000. I know a lot of launch ps3s still going no problem but let's say you replaced something for $100. Your ps3 cost you $600 for 6 years while that pc is at $1200... Double the cost and now you still have a dated CPU and motherboard.

Parents simply won't spend that kind of money on their kids and most students again just don't have that money. I know I don't and if a console doesn't come out in the next couple years I won't be buying a pc just for gaming until after university when I'm getting a pc for other things as well. It's not practical and because a console generation takes longer that expected does not mean people will rush out and buy a pc because they think he quality of a pc is better.

 

[bevo]

Wrong again. A $1000 machine will not last you 5 years running games efficiently. Find me a $1000 pc from 2006-07 that can play BF3 at high (let alone ultra).... Don't bother looking you won't find one. You need to put money into the PC to keep it going and most people don't want that.

.

I kind of disagree here. The thing you have to think about with consoles is that the games never get much better, they are locked by the hardware. With PC games they get better and better. Look at BF3. BF3 on consoles doesn't look much better then BF2, but BF3 on the PC blows away the console versions of BF3 or any other console shooter made even with it's lowest settings. If you bought a 1000$ PC now and made sure that you got the best mother board you could to leave yourself room for upgrades later, and was willing to spend 200$ every 2 or 3 years, then a 5 year old PC would be able to play games that look alot better then new console games and do it with decent settings. In the last 5 years PC games have came a long way but console games are pretty much the same.

A PC from 2006-7 could probably run BF3 as long as they did a decent job building it back then, and it would look better at the lowest settings then the console versions. I've done comparisons of BF3 with everything set to low and switched to the xbox version on the same TV and the PC version still looks much, much better, even at the lowest possible settings running 1080p.

You can't say 5 year old PC trying to run the games graphics maxed out and compare it to consoles. New PC games look alot better at the lowest settings then console games. You could turn everything off on witcher 2 and it would look alot better then skyrum. I put in skyrum and played it for about an hour and turned it off. It looks horrible compared to the witcher 2. But a fairly old PC could run witcher 2 at it's lowest settings. I'll save witcher 2 for when they do some texture mods and make it look like a game that's not 5 years old.

 

[Joey D]

Joey I know you can upgrade your computer like that but it's not simply a one time charge of $1000 for 6 years of gaming (the average console life span so far).

Over those years you'll need to upgrade atleast once with a new graphics card and ram which let's say is $200. Well there is half the cost of your console and that's just the upgrading. You can't honestly tell me that in another 6 years you'll need another graphics card and ram and your good to go again? 12 year computer life span? I think not.

So let's say you bought a ps3 near launch at $500 and a computer at the same time at $1000. I know a lot of launch ps3s still going no problem but let's say you replaced something for $100. Your ps3 cost you $600 for 6 years while that pc is at $1200... Double the cost and now you still have a dated CPU and motherboard.

Parents simply won't spend that kind of money on their kids and most students again just don't have that money. I know I don't and if a console doesn't come out in the next couple years I won't be buying a pc just for gaming until after university when I'm getting a pc for other things as well. It's not practical and because a console generation takes longer that expected does not mean people will rush out and buy a pc because they think he quality of a pc is better.

A computer is more then just a gaming machine though, even if it is built for that purpose in mind. My rig is built as a gaming PC, and while I do quite a bit of gaming on it, I also compile data, write documents, edit pictures using Photoshop, construct 3D models using 3DS Max, edit home movies that I transfered from old VHS and more. The reason a computer costs more is because it simply does more. If you took the $600 PS3 and compared it to a $1,000 computer, you will see that a computer has hundreds, if not thousands, of more uses.

It is a fact that the pro-console movement some how overlooks. No matter how good gaming consoles get they only have one main purpose, to entertain. The PS3 and 360 do a decent job at providing other entertainment options other then games but that's where it ends. If I want to type a document, I cannot boot into MS Office on my PS3 and write up my homework. This is why parents will be more likely to buy their kid a computer. Sure they know it will be used for gaming and general Internet slacking, but they also know it can provide a wealth of information for their child's education.

Putting another $200 into a computer over a 6 year lifespan is still going to make it a better buy then a gaming console because of the reasons I just mentioned, you get more out of it.

Honestly if I could just dump $600 into a computer every 6 years I'd still have a better rig then any console. Once you get the big purchases out of the way like a monitor, input devices and HDD, upgrading to a new PC is a breeze. My computer was in the neighborhood of $800, but I also bought a new case and a SSD. If I would have nixed those items, I could have easily built the computer for under $600 and with more performance then the current consoles.

Computers are cheap, the only time they aren't is if you buy a pre-assembled one from a manufacture, like HP or Dell. Apple's are notoriously overpriced too (as I type this on my MacBook Pro) along with any other made-for-gaming rig like anything by Alienware.

The quality of PC games can also be higher for the simple fact that they aren't bound by specifications. The only limit any developer has is technology itself.

I know I will always prefer PC games over console games because to me they are just better. I don't have to ever set foot into a Gamestop or Best Buy to get the games, I am going to pay less for the games on average and when I am not gaming my rig will be just as useful to me to do whatever else I want. When a next gen console comes out it is really going to have to blow me a way to make it worthwhile to me.

 

[slims]

A smartphone is more than just a gaming computer though, even if it can play games. My smartphone is built as a phone and while I can play games on it, I also compile data, write documents, edit pictures, browse the internet, make phone calls, send texts etc. If you took a $600 computer and compared it to my smartphone you will see that a smartphone has hundreds, if not thousands of more uses.

It is a fact that the pro-PC gamer movement somehow overlooks.




Why oh why do PC gamers bring up this tired argument all the time? Some people just want to play games.

 

[Joey D]

A smartphone is more than just a gaming computer though, even if it can play games. My smartphone is built as a phone and while I can play games on it, I also compile data, write documents, edit pictures, browse the internet, make phone calls, send texts etc. If you took a $600 computer and compared it to my smartphone you will see that a smartphone has hundreds, if not thousands of more uses.

It is a fact that the pro-PC gamer movement somehow overlooks.

Why oh why do PC gamers bring up this tired argument all the time? Some people just want to play games.

You can't do half the things on a smart phone that you can do on a computer. I'd like to see you edit pictures on a smart phone to the same degree as Photoshop. Or I'd like to see you write entire document on a phone too without the addition of a bulky Bluetooth keyboard. I fail to see your argument.

A $600 computer would still out perform a smart phone in every way except portability. A $600 computer can also be cheaper then many of the phones out there too, I know I paid $400 for my iPhone and I got it with a contract, without a contract I would have paid even more.

I'm not saying that gaming on a console is wrong, in fact you are using it in the way in which it was intended. But when it comes down to it you will always get more use out of a computer then a console or smart phone...it doesn't make those devices pointless though. I just think the console crowd is way to quick to dismiss a PC as a viable option.

And while I do understand people just want to game, there is no way you are going to get through life in the modern world without a computer that can at least do a handful of things to some degree.

 

[slims]

But when it comes down to it you will always get more use out of a computer then a console or smart phone...it doesn't make those devices pointless though. I just think the console crowd is way to quick to dismiss a PC as a viable option.

And while I do understand people just want to game, there is no way you are going to get through life in the modern world without a computer that can at least do a handful of things to some degree.

I fail to see your argument.

I still fail to see yours. Like I said before, I don't understand why PC gamers are quick to bring up the argument about the advantage of PC gaming is all the extra things you can do with a PC. The reason that the "pro-console movement" overlooks this is because they all have computers already. Do you know a person with a video game console that doesn't have a computer? I personally don't.
It's not like if a console gamer doesn't build a gaming PC they aren't going to have access to a computer. Everybody has one so why do PC gamers still come with this argument? Is having one extra device a big deal or something?

 

[Joey D]

I still fail to see yours. Like I said before, I don't understand why PC gamers are quick to bring up the argument about the advantage of PC gaming is all the extra things you can do with a PC. The reason that the "pro-console movement" overlooks this is because they all have computers already. Do you know a person with a video game console that doesn't have a computer? I personally don't.
It's not like if a console gamer doesn't build a gaming PC they aren't going to have access to a computer. Everybody has one so why do PC gamers still come with this argument?

Pointing out all the extras a computer is capable is to show why the higher price is justified. Yes you are paying more for a computer then a console, but you are getting quite a bit more for you money too. As I've said a gaming consoles purpose is to entertain (I know the PS3 has been reworked for other tasks), a computer can entertain and do so much more, including develop the console games.

My whole point that I am making is that PC gaming is just as much as a viable option as console gaming, and can be a superior device once you factor in the other factors a computer offers. Say you didn't have anything, no computer, no consoles. What makes more sense to have if you can only choose one? The PC, a tablet might be a close second as it would give you many of the options of a PC with better portability.

It may sound like I write off consoles entirely, which is not true. Truth be told I own all three next gen consoles and I've actually bought the PS3 four times and the 360 twice. It's not like I don't enjoy a console. However, now that my income has been decreased a PC seems like a better investment of my money, even with upgrading. If I put in more RAM it is not only going to help with gaming, but also with doing everything else.

This is why I favor PC gaming now, I am focusing my resources on one device instead of two. If I did not have a console the only one I would consider would be the PS3, not because of the games or specs, but for the simple reason it's a Blu-Ray player...once again getting multiple uses out of one device.

I am guessing that my point may have gotten a little lost along the way. Hopefully this clears it up.

 

[bevo]

Do you know a person with a video game console that doesn't have a computer? I personally don't.

I know several. Not as many as has computers, but I thought of 4 as soon as I read that sentence.