OH MY FUCKING GOD - Revolution

[Lexx]

I've got to say that the PC pwns all and that consoles are for noobs.

That's the thing.. most console games worth playing are eventually ported to the PC, with the exception of GameCube/Nintendo games. Which is why I shall be getting a Revolution (eventually).

[L'homme magique]

I've got to say that the PC pwns all and that consoles are for noobs.  You all have PCs or you wouldn't be able to read this, just download ROMs and ISOs and emulate the games if you want.
Note: God(the poster) does not condone the illegal use of anything so yeah don't break the law.
Note v2.0: Halo sux the big bawls!

kid, shut up.

Why were you buying that $400 Xbox 360 again?

because it will have other games that are just as fun in their own right.

[chompy]

Bleh @ iamgod6455, mod -1 troll

So your telling me I just download whatever roms and ISOs and play them.... yes let me get my rom of Halo 2 to be loaded into my computer to play them. It didnt work what am I doing wrong? whats that you say I cannot play it, and why would that be.... dah

I've said this once and i'll say it again.
Consoles = spend ~300 bucks
Computer = spend ~2000 for a decent setup

Consoles = less pissfarting around to get crap working, can play the latest games without the hassel of wondering when it will work.
Computer = more flawed by moores law, therefore life for $2000 piece of equipment is < or > 18months depending on if you can afford am upgrade. Yea you can install crap on it but if you install crap it runs like crap.

Heh, 300USD gets you a a pretty decent CPU system "Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each" I'd buy it for the sheer processing power this thing has.

[harvey danger]

And because of this weird intertwining thing it does, it can fool each processor into doing two things at once instead of just one by creating a "virtual processor." So basically it's 300 for a 6-processor system. How much would a PC with 6 processors cost, if they even sell those for conventional use in the first place?

I have no money to even buy a remedial PC for the games I want to play. And by the time I do get the cash, I'll be in college and I'll need a laptop, which is another $1-2000. Unless of course you think I should lug my desktop around campus with me.

But, as Chompy said, with consoles there's no installation, no worrying about whether you have the required hardware, no fooling with the system when there's problems playing a game, and no need to upgrade every 18 months. With consoles you can wait around 5 years for the next generation. Till then, all the games work perfectly fine, and as can be seen by these new systems, will all look beautiful.

And no, most decent console games don't get ported to PC, like, as stated by Magicman, Nintendo. I have a whole shelf of games that I loved upstairs that I'll never see on a PC, because most of them just don't work on the PC. You can't bring a Resident Evil or a Zelda or a Burnout to the PC, and you can't bring a Command & Conquer or most MMO's to console. It's two different markets with different tastes. Things generally just don't sell well when not on their native platform.

I buy the $400 360 because it offers me more than Nintendo has in the past 5 years. It's a shame developers and consumers have given Nintendo that kiddie persona, but it's a reality, and because of that I won't see 3/4 of the games worth buying on the 360 on a Nintendo system. The only reason I still have my GCN still is SSBM, RE4, and hopefully the Zelda game, if they don't postpone it again. I used to be a Nintendo fanatic, but they've let me down, and the Xbox hasn't.

And if Halo sucks balls then there must be a completely profane and irrational reason for the game to sell so much. 

[L'homme magique]

You can't bring a Resident Evil to the PC

They can and have >_>

[harvey danger]

Erm, really?

[L'homme magique]

RE, RE2, and RE3 were all ported to PC.

[Cronaroth]

the system is gonna be CRAZY (in the good way)---i cant wait to try it out since the controller just sounds fun to use especially for FPS games...and it sounds great for strategy....god imagine the possibilities

[Einkoro]

And because of this weird intertwining thing it does, it can fool each processor into doing two things at once instead of just one by creating a "virtual processor." So basically it's 300 for a 6-processor system. How much would a PC with 6 processors cost, if they even sell those for conventional use in the first place?

You cannot compare the different architectures between a PC and the ones used in the new consoles on how many CPUs are in the system and the cost. There is a major reason for the cost difference between the processors used in a general purpose PC and the new console CPUs, some suggested reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_CPU_architectures

If engineering or science in general scares you, you can skip the above and just read this:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html

Also, hyperthreading is bad (the virtual processors). It causes alot more problems than it does good, the only reason Intel uses it because their architecture is so slow from the incredably long pipeline and they need to use half assed methods to try and compete with AMD's architecture.

[harvey danger]

You're responding to that post NOW? 

Erm, yeah, computer architecture scares me.  But all I gained from the arsTechnica article was that the choice to hyperthread frustrates developers because it's not as easy to program with as the older CPU stuff.

So maybe there's a reason for the price difference, but my point still stands that I prefer a console over a PC in the long run. I prefer user-friendliness over trying to raise money to upgrade my PC every year or two and worrying over whether or not I have this and that widget to make a game work on my PC.  And the 360 is still going to be able to do cool stuff that most general-use PCs (the majority) cannot.

[Einkoro]

Parallel processing and multi-threading was what the developers find harder to program, and most of all in-order processors. Hyper-threading has security issues and causes awful problems with a lot of older software, plus the faking of a second CPU can degrade performance in many situations.

So maybe there's a reason for the price difference, but my point still stands that I prefer a console over a PC in the long run. I prefer user-friendliness over trying to raise money to upgrade my PC every year or two and worrying over whether or not I have this and that widget to make a game work on my PC.

Understandable and sad. I'm a born and bred hardcore PC gaming/whatever person but even I think PC gaming is on its death bed and going out. Publishers keep pushing unfinished garbage out the door that requires hundreds of megabytes of patches if they even bother to release any. They force invasive DRM on us such as StarForce that more often than not will destroy a Windows install and cause all sorts of fucking problems. The only games released are usually rehashed FPSs and RTSs with better and better graphics with little game play. Most PC games seem to take, what, 10 hours to complete and more often than not you can do it without even replaying anything from death because its so easy. I want it where 20hr was the bare minimum, 30-40 the norm, and 50+ the common length of RPGs.

Over the last five years my expenditure on games has almost dropped to nothing, so sad/  :'(

[harvey danger]

Indeed. There's only been 1 game I actively played over a more than a few months, and that was Medieval: Total War (I would play Rome, but, alas, my processor sucks). I've already given up on Command and Conquer and the Ages games. I think my opinion has been more shaped by my ability to play over just what the games are, but I've seen what's going on and it really is kinda sad. 

Not to say console games are much better; I think most Nintendo gamers are happy that all Zelda games past the new one are taking place in a new universe/dimension/world. I think I might even venture to say there's even more rehash on consoles than on PC's; with PC's there are still those little underground development companies making games people want to play, but on consoles everything's dominated by the large companies and their World War II shooters. 

Makes you wonder, sometimes, why we even play new video games, doesn't it? Makes us grateful for the System Shock's and Fallout's of the world...

[L'homme magique]

Makes us grateful for the System Shock's and Fallout's of the world...

which are both on PC

zing

[Einkoro]

Makes us grateful for the System Shock's and Fallout's of the world...

which are both on PC

zing

And require effort to make run on XP. Fully expect Vista to destroy them entirely.

Hopefully with the decline of the games, gamers will speak with their wallets and the profits will go down the tubes and then publishers/developers will realize something is seriously wrong and things will change. Or maybe, they'll think OH NOES MUST BE MOAR PIRATS TAKING PROFIT!!!1 

[Smeagol]

I've already given up on the Ages games

Try the Age 3 demo then. It's worth playing just for the cannons. Pity play.com are still screwing me over with the delivery. I should have recieved the game 3 days (and counting) ago ffs!