Ge64 Wrote:ps
i like debating
this is not meant as an offence of any kind
just healthy debate
not argument. :)

I completely accept that.




Lets debate.

(and don't ask why i wrote that much, i just wrote. :gasp: :suprised: i guess it's becuase i can't let a challenge just slip by like that... And yes i do realise I'm probably taking this way too seriously.)

Ge64 Wrote:about price:

uhuh yeah but just cause most ppl already have a pc doesn't mean:

1. its connected to a tv
2. it can play any of the modern games
3. it can be upgraded to work with modern games (too old)

so, if the pc is so old, its cheaper and better to buy a console rather than buy a new pc/major upgrade (cpu and motherboard is considerd major imo)

If ur PC is generally ok, u will only need to upgrade ur gpu, which will not cost as much as a console.

If ur PC is very old, then the upgrade in inevitable. Meaning even if u DO buy a console, ur going to need to upgrade ur PC anyways, since u need stuff like a decent cpu, enough memory, enough HDD space, a DVD drive and all that stuff normally anyways when not playing games, then that means the PC upgrade cost for these parts is a fixed cost, and cannot be avoided, and thus cannot be counted, making the only upgrade that can be counted that is not needed when not playing games the gpu, making the console a more expensive upgrade.

Ge64 Wrote:because:

1. a console is always connected to a TV, not only because of the connection it has, but because:
2. it is small and the design is better. therefore, it fits in an entertainment center. a small PC is again 1. more expensive and 2. less suitable for gaming because they usually don't have 1. the same power as large desktops 2. scalability

Yes a console is ALWAYS connected to the TV, but that is more of a bad thing compared to a PC, which can gives u an option an option of connecting to the TV or not, thus having the benefits of both.

Having ONLY the option of using a TV can be bad sometimes, for example.

1. u loose privacy, if u don't have a TV in ur room. for example, u cannot play extremely graphically violent stuff with a 8yo sister in the house, and it will be hard trying to play with ur sister listening to really loud music.

Also, in some households, u have to share the TV with ur parents/siblings, therefore u have even less freedom in when/what u can play.


2. if u have and use ur personal TV in ur room, then it is likely that it is not as good as ur family TV in the lounge/wherever, and does not support HD TV, and does not have a very large screen, a does not have a resolution close to as good as a computer screen can have. And thus overall, will not be any better than ur computer monitor.

For a computer, if u really want the quality, u can choose to plug it into the TV. If u need the privary, play in ur room. More options is always better.
[/quote]

Ge64 Wrote:3. assuming everyone has a pc, but the pc needs to be replaced or upgraded to play games

Yes, and because everyone already has a PC, it makes upgrading cheaper, because ur only upgrading a select amount of components, e.g. the graphics. While if u buy a console, ur effectively buying every single component, e.g. cpu, gpu, HDD, Bluray/HDDVD drive, memory... Thus it is not as efficient.

And if ur PC does require every single component to be upgraded, then as said above, that upgrade is inevitable anyways.

U absolutely do not need a quad core with dual 8800gtx to play games. a general comp (example, Athlon X2 4400 with geforce 7600gt) can run all games on decent settings.

Ok, it won't run games if u set on the highest frame size with 16x antialiasing and antisotrophic filter and all the other settings on max, but imo that's just overkill. u don't need setting like that generally, and it does not make a difference significant enough to make u spend that much more money. It's just overkill. And buying a console, ur paying $$$ for the best parts, ie, overkill, when one year later, u can get the same parts on a PC for far less. This also highlights the fact that buying a console, ur always buying the parts at their peak price. U cannot as effectively wait the prices down as u can with PC components.


Note the word "decent". Yes, this does not mean as good as a console in pure quality, but it does mean better than a console on a quality/price ratio.

And if u really want pure quality, u can always get that quadcore and 8800. yes, it would cost u more, but it does not only heighten ur gaming experience, like a console does, but also improves your other experiances as well, e.g. u can encode video/run complicated compression algorithms/edit movies... a lot better also, so it's an upgrade which in overall effect, does more. +as mentioned above, u can always wait the prices down, and that upgrade won't even be as expensive as the console, as PC prices drop really fast, and console prices don't.

Ge64 Wrote:4. in terms of cost, console is definately more value for money. if you already have a PC, this is even more true because virtually any PC is suitable for most standard things but gaming (word processing, web browsing, IM, email etc).

Same argument as above.

To make ur PC able to game, u only really need a new gpu. everything else, ie cpu, RAM, HDD, DVD drive ... is needed when not gaming also.

If u look at buying the console as buying all the parts it is made of, then maybe, but remembering that upgrading ur PC does not need u to get all these extra parts, which includes some parts which are wasted on a console (ie HDD) or is a waste of money altogether, ie. blu-ray drive at the current time. Then the console is far less cost efficient.

+ Also, when ur PC phases out, u can always take the parts out and put use to them. When ur console phases out, it is useless. For example, u get a new PC. u can always take some parts form ur old PC and add to ur new one, or just use these parts and save money. U get a new console, ur old one is completely worthless, especially when the newer consoles are all backwards compatable.

When my brother upgraded his machine, he managed to sell his cpu, RAM and motherboard on ebay for about $200AUS added up, and is currently still using his other parts like DVD drive, HDD, box, power pack... Therefore nothing is really wasted. U cannot say the same for a console that u decided to replace.

+ A comp is also more resistant to failure. one part fails, u replace that part. For a console, one part fails, u throw it out.

Ge64 Wrote:also the console plays music (replacing the cd player), dvds (replacing the dvd player), blu-ray or hd-dvd (assuming u get a ps3 or 360 with hddvd) (replacing the need for a nextgen player and adding hundreds of dollars in value), and replaces most functions of a harddisk recorder except for the harddisk recording function

The PC can play music, and supports far more music formats than any console can ever hope to acheive. e.g. Vorbis, HE-AAC, RM, most lossless codecs (flac, tta...), speech formats (speex...)

The PC can play DVDs, and other videos and supports far more video formats also. e.g Xvid, h264, rm, wmv pro, theora, and far more container types. e.g. ogm, mkv...

And even when a console supports a format, it may not support all specifications of the format. Ie, it may support AAC, but it probably doesn't support HE-AAC+PS.



The ability to play blu-ray and HD DVD is useless at the moment, until many years down, when a bluray drive will be cheap anyways. Why pay lots for one now when u can pay next to nothing a few years down.

Also, depending on which console, u get a blu-ray or a HD-DVD drive. Wee do not know which is going to win the format wars yet, so by buying one of the 2, u have a 50% chance of the one u choose loosing the format war, therefore more useless/worth less. U are not going to make this mistake with the computer, cause ur going to buy one when u know which won/will win, when the results are evident.

Ge64 Wrote:about games:

sure yeah old games are fine i totally agree and i worded my last post a bit wrong BUT: the issue here revolves more around being able to play the new games rather than the older ones. again assuming u already have a standard PC, which you can play old games on, getting a console is better.

again, if u have a standard PC, most parts won't need upgrading, then it would not cost u much to upgrade then. And u don't need a quadcore + dual 8800gtx, so with a midrange graphics card, ur PC can very quickly play games decently.

Ge64 Wrote:and
there are exclusives for both PC and console. there are good console games that will never be released for PC (all nintendo games, except emulated, Saints Row, etc whatever), but there are also lots of pc games that will never be released for console (Supreme commander, HL2, etc). so this evens it out.

quite true. except that u can emulate some of the older exclusive games now, like FF10. But for the newer exclusive games, yes. it's a double sided thing.

Ge64 Wrote:about emulation
most consoles can be hacked or natively support emulation (ps3 ps2 ps1, xbox is hacked, 360 is hacked, wii supports all previous nintendo consoles) and it is better to play console games on a consoles than with mouse and keyboard on a pc.

why go to all the effort to go and hack a console to emulate if u can just do it on PC, without any hacking whatsoever. There is a point in hacking handhelds, as u can take them with u and stuff, but emulation on an xbox360/ps3 would just be purely inferior to emulation on a PC.

While it is probably true for some games that it's better to play emulated games with a controller, compared to a keyboard, u can always stick a controller into a PC, but it's more difficult to stick a keyboard and mouse into a console. Some new consoles support it these days, but most old ones don't.

Ge64 Wrote:you assume the person in question already has a pc
upgrading a pc to play new games for the next 3 years at least (which is what a console allows, even more actually)
will cost you 2 to 3 or even 4 times as much as an xbox 360. and after 3 years, there will barely be any new games that will still run on ur pc, but there will be new games that run on the xbox 360 (and they will generally be very good because devs are used to the xbox 360's power by then).

As mentioned above, u do not need a quadcore+8800gtx power pc. A general pc will do. And if u really no need a quadcore+8800, u have the potential to save more money by waiting the prices down. Console prices go down far slower than graphics card prices.

If u want a standard pc, it will cost u less than a sonsole.

And ur PC not being able to run games 3 years later is under the assumption that ur trying to run games under the best settings. Under normal/low settings, it would not be too hard for a good graphics card now, lets say to run a game 3 years later.

And running a game 3 years later not on high settings is not actually worse than a console game, because 3 years later, technology would have greatly improved, and the game will be thus far better. A far better game on standard settings is probably still better than an old game on high setting. Here's an example. 3 years ago, PS2 games had graphics comparable to the PC games of the time. But if u compare to games released more recently, ie Oblivion, FEAR. yes u may not be able to play them on the best settings on the best graphics card 3 years ago (6800gtx?) but u can definately play it, and even on standard/low settings, they would still probably look better than a PS2 game, because the game is just that much more advanced.

Ge64 Wrote:so if its about playing the latest games
get a console. that's what theyre for

BUT, if you have the money, then go ahead and invest in a PC :P but that's after you have 2 out of 3 consoles :P

Ok, u get ONE console, but it's NEVER EVER worth the money to get another console, imo.


Also i didn't mention that with a computer, u can play ur games with ur favourite mods, and hack them or edit their saves to give u unlimited power/ammo/money.

And u can pirate games far more easily, and they are readily piratable, and doesn't need u to install a modchip, which sometimes degrades performance/increases loading time/decreases lifespan of console.




Damn that took ages to write.