Xbox vs PC

[Yst]

All these arguments which compare a PC used solely for gaming to a console used solely for gaming really astonish me, in their obtuseness. The comparison makes no sense, as a PC is not solely a gaming machine. My argument for why the PC will persist as a gaming platform dwells on the other uses for which PCs continue to be absolutely necessary in our society because that necessity which is external to gaming is precisely the advantage PCs have over consoles as a set of technologies which cannot be effectively outmoded. You cannot kill gaming on PCs, simply because PCs do not depend upon gaming, either for their existence or the advancement of their technologies. And because an absolutely necessary market exists for their other more significant uses, one will inevitably spring up for games.

 

Comparing the price of a PC as a gaming platform to the price of an Xbox as a gaming platform is like comparing the price of a car as a device for listening to music to the price of a walkman as a device for listening to music and declaring the death of cars and car audio on the basis of the lower price of a walkman.

 

Findings in this comparison:

 

Advantages of car audio:

- Optional quadraphonic (or greater) sound and other configurations.

- Stronger bass.

- More interesting interface possibilities.

- Single systems accomodate a larger and more diverse set of technologies.

Disadvantages of car audio:

- More expensive than a walkman.

- Not portable.

- Parts of the system semi-permanently built into the car.

 

Small, Irrelevant Addendum: Cars also drive you places

[Badsight]

That really didn't anwser anything. yes or no can a PC four years back play the KOTOR 2 game today without upgrades? And how much was that PC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the answer is yes

 

computer parts released during the same year as the Xbox exceeded what the Xbox was capable of

 

so yes a PC of the same age should be more than capable of matching the Xbox's performance

 

not untill the Xbox2 & PS3 will consoles truely have become gaming machines of adequate power

[Badsight]

It's common sense. IF developers cater to the high end market at the expense of everyone else. Remember those games without textures so they could run on a 386? Then the market becomes even smaller. With no associated increase in price its only possible in certain sectors.

 

On the other hand , you buy a console and for 4 or 5 years you get the best it can offer without upgrade costs, drivers defragging,virus checks and all that other crap that goes along with being a PC owner.

 

So enjoy the hand me downs, because that with a few exceptions here and there is the future of the PC market.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

respectfully , you dont understand scalability at all , leading you to post rubbish

[BattleCookiee]

To the 4 year old can run KOTOR2 question:

YES, I have an older PC and can run KOTOR2 far better than any X-Box can...

 

To the X-Box doesn't have virusscanner and such:

Mobile Phones get virusses now they enter internet, expect something like that for an X-Box soon, it's not going to be nice...

 

To X-Box has more money:

Yes, but if you make it only for the Box you still have a risk. Remember DX: Invisible War, optimized for the X-Box, and that's why many PC gamers complained of the "Consoliness", now they are gone, because they MADE for the Box...

[Yst]

To the 4 year old can run KOTOR2 question:

YES, I have an older PC and can run KOTOR2 far better than any X-Box can...

 

The original notion, comparing buying a (complete, new) PC every several years to buying a console every several years, completely misunderstands how an ideal PC upgrade path works, anyways, and so should be ignored. Buying brand new PC parts in a single bundle, all at once, then keeping it for four years exactly as you bought them is an idiotic way to keep a PC running games. Far, far more viable (i.e., cheaper) is buying it a piece at a time, as upgrades are required. Some components can stick around practically forever (there are ATX cases that have been in use for nine years now and are still perfectly good), while with others, if you're on a budget, you get your best money by upgrading to a model from a couple years back, every few years (e.g., Video Cards and CPUs), and with others, constrastingly, you might get the best deal by upgrading to the latest high end model, but only ever five or six years (e.g., PSUs - and yes, 350W ATX PSUs capable of running today's cpus/boards are an around eight year old spec).

 

People upgrade their PCs all the time not because expensive, new PC hardware outdates itself in a couple years. It doesn't. Many people upgrade some given part of their computer every year or so because buying old, cheap PC hardware which outdates itself in a couple years bit by bit is the cheapest way to buy it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

All these arguments which compare a PC used solely for gaming to a console used solely for gaming really astonish me, in their obtuseness.  The comparison makes no sense, as a PC is not solely a gaming machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really, you have consoles for games and a much lower spec PC takes care of everything else. Unless you use it in some sort of professional capacity like CAD.

 

For most purposes the PC is soley a games machine and nothing more. It's a use I'd be more than happy to see the back off given the crap infested releases of recent years, perhaps they were always crap infested come to that, and it's only recent console evolutions that have given an alternative.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

respectfully , you dont understand scalability at all , leading you to post rubbish

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Funny that, because guess what the PC is getting hand me downs of games designed to run on consoles.

[Yst]

All these arguments which compare a PC used solely for gaming to a console used solely for gaming really astonish me, in their obtuseness.  The comparison makes no sense, as a PC is not solely a gaming machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really, you have consoles for games and a much lower spec PC takes care of everything else. Unless you use it in some sort of professional capacity like CAD.

 

For most purposes the PC is soley a games machine and nothing more. It's a use I'd be more than happy to see the back off given the crap infested releases of recent years, perhaps they were always crap infested come to that, and it's only recent console evolutions that have given an alternative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In which case, the argument goes, a low-end home PC (which will generally come these days with a Geforce 4 level or ATI 9200 range card as minimum spec), and intended for use in web-surfing and word processing under Windows XP can still run 98% of the full library of PC games, if not the most demanding 2% of PC games (limited to a handful of titles released in the last year and a half). Essentially, any homes capable of furnishing a game library or a gaming platform of any sort will tend to have a PC of this variety at least. And the fact is, virtually the entire western world owns such PCs. So the price of entry for playing the vast majority of games, for the vast majority of users, is $0. People seem to be applying this console principle, which presumes that a device either can or cannot run ALL games ever made for the platform, if it has a certain set of hardware. Which just isn't the case, with PC technologies.

 

Therefore, the price comparison in a console versus PC debate is a wild mess of economic acrobatics involving one's needing to determine an average minimum spec among PCs not specifically intended for gaming (which we presume most homes to already be furnished with, regardless) but which are still capable of running the vast majority of games anyways, determining what range of titles are excluded by such non-gaming specs, determining what the price to upgrade that minimum spec to a spec capable of running the handful of games which fall beneath it is, and doing a comparison of a fully capable gaming PC (i.e., able to run virtually all past and present release titles - doesn't need to be the latest Alienware Area 51) versus a capable PC not intended for gaming (only able to run 98% of the PC game library, excluding some recent titles), versus current consoles.

[Badsight]

Funny that, because guess what the PC is getting hand me downs of games designed to run on consoles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you need to quit while your ahead : )

 

the console market nearly doubled the amount of games sold during 04 than it did in 03 . PC games are getting less new titles because the console market is shifting more product , popular games are ported amongst the consoles & to the PC to maximise profits .

 

it has nothing to do with consoles being the better gaming platform (popularity doesnt equal performance does it)

 

but , any game that you find that has a high degree of complexity , such as simulators or RTS/RPG , you see the premier titles being PC exclusive

 

IF developers cater to the high end market at the expense of everyone else. Then the market becomes even smaller

no , not at all correct

 

game development doesnt stay still , console games become more advanced , new PC games dont exclude older PC's because you turn down settings either in game or your systems settings . even when sequals are based on the same game engine they eek out more graphical demands & fill in more/better AI within more developed enviroments

 

what you do see is when a game gets released without new features or with flashy graphics you see poor reviews & complaints & general lackof enthusiasm from the gaming community

 

the PC market hasnt shrunk because PC's can run more complex games than consoles , its shrunk because the shift in the market

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

it has nothing to do with consoles being the better gaming platform (popularity doesnt equal performance does it)

 

the PC market hasnt shrunk because PC's can run more complex games than consoles , its shrunk because the shift in the market

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never said it was. Of course a

[kirottu]

Of course a

[Invoker]

Of course a

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

There aren

[AlanC9]

Funny -- what I take from this discussion is that console gamers seem to be less tolerant of hardware difficulties, but more tolerant of crappy games. Didn't the XBox folks think the KotOR 2 ending was OK?

 

As a PC gamer, I can't think of a single worthwhile of the last few years that didn't appear on the PC, while there are several PC games that never appeared on consoles. Probably because I'm a fan of dying genres.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Funny -- what I take from this discussion is that console gamers seem to be less tolerant of hardware difficulties, but more tolerant of crappy games. Didn't the XBox folks think the KotOR 2 ending was OK?

 

As a PC gamer, I can't think of a single worthwhile of the last few years that didn't appear on the PC, while there are several PC games that never appeared on consoles. Probably because I'm a fan of dying genres.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The ending didnt make KOTORII a crappy game. The ending wasnt that great. I miss my 20 minute closing cinematics but just because of that, the quality of the rest of the game dosnt devalue.

 

Well if your happy with it, your happy with it. Not a problem. I want to play games like MGS III and FFXII personally. The only PC game of note recently has been HL II and as I'm not a big FPS fan I dont really care about it that much. Oh there was Vampires, until it started to bug out.

[Drakron]

Funny -- what I take from this discussion is that console gamers seem to be less tolerant of hardware difficulties, but more tolerant of crappy games. Didn't the XBox folks think the KotOR 2 ending was OK?

 

Xbox titles are not very diversed.

 

Also Xbox games tend to be hyped and given higher scores, just because the Xbox review were too busy trying to excuse one of the few decent Xbox titles does not mean that game is good, it simply lacks competion on that plataform.

 

As a PC gamer, I can't think of a single worthwhile of the last few years that didn't appear on the PC, while there are several PC games that never appeared on consoles. Probably because I'm a fan of dying genres.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well try the Biohazard/Resident Evil games that became console only.

 

Also there are series that remain console only such as Suikiden, Onimusha, Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo ...

[Nartwak]

I -think- some of the Resident Evil titles were also released on the PC.

[dabise]

I -think- some of the Resident Evil titles were also released on the PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Resident Evil 1 was released on PC quite a while after it was made for the Playstation. In fact I think it came out AFTER resident evil 2 was released for the PS1 and PC.

 

 

They stopped porting these titles to PC simply because there was no market for it. Same goes for Final Fantasy games. 7 and 8 both came out for PC and then they stopped because the market was just too small. People figured out that getting a $200 console was a better solution for these games and many other titles.

 

 

All the PC has to offer that a console does not is improved graphics and a little more customization (Patches and 3rd party software). These little perks aren't worth the extra $1000 dollars for a computer system. I find console graphics to be very good and just being able to sit back on my recliner and play a game on a large screen TV with fast loading times, little or no crashing and not having to sit at a computer desk for recreation is great.

 

I can't use my computer while sitting in my comfy recliner so consoles won the battle hehe.

[Nartwak]

Resident Evil 1 was released on PC quite a while after it was made for the Playstation.  In fact I think it came out AFTER resident evil 2 was released for the PS1 and PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks.

[Yst]

I -think- some of the Resident Evil titles were also released on the PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They stopped porting these titles to PC simply because there was no market for it. Same goes for Final Fantasy games. 7 and 8 both came out for PC and then they stopped because the market was just too small. People figured out that getting a $200 console was a better solution for these games and many other titles.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Moreso, I find that among the core PC gamer and particularly RPGer base, there is simply very little interest in certain types of game particularly characteristic of the console aesthetic. And bad ports only reduce interest all the more. FF7 was a classic example of a very console-oriented RPG gameplay style made the worse by a terrible port. The execution hardly served to inspire interest. The P&P D&Ders and PC Gamers with whom I graduated high school around the time Final Fantasy 7 was coming out, while they were big fans of certain PC titles, even for that most momentous of all console RPGs, FF7, with its massive fan following, found themselves mostly apathetic about it. Some played it, and some didn't. Certainly, virtually no one I knew played FF8 or FF9, which stretched the link between their style of play and storytelling, and classic 'RPG' mechanics beyond any really meaningful connection whatsoever. Among the PC gamers I knew, NONE bought the FF7 PC version, but not because they decided FF7 for PS1 was a better option. None of them bought that at the time, either (I only got a PS1 a year ago, myself). Rather, they didn't buy it, because it was a crappy port of a game which didn't serve the aesthetic preferences of the platform's adherents.

[anakins revenge]

to me-dont wanna interrupt u guys's convo, i think xbox is better for action/shoot em up games like halo,rainbow six, hell pretty much all Tom Clancy games.

 

BUT

 

 

PC is better for RPG's cuz they can always be extended and improved, final fantasy i think the newest one is 11, great graphics, starwars galaxy, the matrix game thats comin out soon, etc

[Archangel]

to me-dont wanna interrupt u guys's convo, i think xbox is better for action/shoot em up games like halo,rainbow six, hell pretty much all Tom Clancy games.

 

BUT

 

 

PC is better for RPG's cuz they can always be extended and improved, final fantasy i think the newest one is 11, great graphics, starwars galaxy, the matrix game thats comin out soon, etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well... I differ with you, there's nothing more easy than shoot by clicking the mouse, just on target, the game most sold in the history Half-life, it's made just for PCs 'cause the PC is better in shooter games, in my opnion PC is better in everything...

[AlanC9]

All the PC has to offer that a console does not is improved graphics and a little more customization (Patches and 3rd party software).  These little perks aren't worth the extra $1000 dollars for a computer system.  I find console graphics to be very good and just being able to sit back on my recliner and play a game on a large screen TV with fast loading times, little or no crashing and not having to sit at a computer desk for recreation is great.

 

I can't use my computer while sitting in my comfy recliner so consoles won the battle hehe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An extra 1000? Please. A midrange gaming PC can be put together for well under $1000 total.

 

But yeah, the form factor is a real difference. Personally, I prefer to play at the computer desk anyway. Too many games that I like simply wouldn't work without being up close to the screen (hardcore strat games will never work on TV screens).

[Yst]

All the PC has to offer that a console does not is improved graphics and a little more customization (Patches and 3rd party software).  These little perks aren't worth the extra $1000 dollars for a computer system.  I find console graphics to be very good and just being able to sit back on my recliner and play a game on a large screen TV with fast loading times, little or no crashing and not having to sit at a computer desk for recreation is great.

 

I can't use my computer while sitting in my comfy recliner so consoles won the battle hehe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An extra 1000? Please. A midrange gaming PC can be put together for well under $1000 total.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And as I say, most financially capable households in the web already own a midrange PC, so the price of entry is in fact $0 for that majority of households. For those who have an old, out of date PC, the price to upgrade to a video card within minimum specs for all current games is between $50USD and $100USD. The price to upgrade to a CPU within minimum specs for all current games is between $50USD and $100USD. As for RAM, there are stores which practically give away generic DDR for free, and that's been the case for a while. DDR 2100 is virtually worthless these days, but still fully capable of running all modern games.

[Meshugger]

Without reading the rest of the thread, i say that the PC has a huge advantage over any console: SDK + other non-gamer options. If you have a PC for the sole reason to play games, then sell it already and buy yourself a console instead.

 

As for TSL on Xbox vs PC, the PC has a more stable framerate, better graphics and yadda-yadda...except for one thing, the audio: The xbox is connected to my home theater system.