How can most of you say that Next consoles have more power then current PC's?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by telefanatic (2883 posts) -

Thats just not plausible ? You guys think the next PS4 or Xbox will have some crazy specs ? Most PC gamers spend around $800- $1200 on a really nice rig, this is just not possible for the next consoles to have atleast a 660 GTX or a good AMD card, both 660 gtx or ATI 7950 go around for $300 on newegg, and thats what most of us have in our rigs, so you think these manufacturers will throw all these awesome parts in there and build these consoles with a starting price tag of $400 or $500 ??? I'm not even taking into consideration the ram,hdd,motherboards,cpus, and all the other little things that go into building a console, what about the next controllers ? They will probably be following the Wii U route with tablets, and thats just gonna up the price even more! So with that discuss.

#2 Posted by Jonwh18 (9350 posts) -

#1 I don't think next en consoles will be better then current gen PC's

#2 there are some major problems with your agruement though. More $$$ does not = better hardware. The Mac line is a great example of this. PC's are indeed better, but it certainly isn't because of their price tag anlone.

#3 Posted by Videodogg (12606 posts) -

I have a GTX680, I5 cpu and 12 gig DDR3 ram. I dont think any next gen console will even come close to those specs.

But we all know it is not just about specs. Most pc games dont even come close to using the hardware i spent so much money on. Console games are optimized better and get better results using less specs available, so i would expect many next gen games to look on par with anything my PC is capable. Just Saying.

#4 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

You have to remember that gaming companies, buy the hardware from compainies such as AMD in bulk, so therfore they alot cheaper for them.

#5 Posted by Jonwh18 (9350 posts) -

I have a GTX680, I5 cpu and 12 gig DDR3 ram. I dont think any next gen console will even come close to those specs.

But we all know it is not just about specs. Most pc games dont even come close to using the hardware i spent so much money on. Console games are optimized better and get better results using less specs available, so i would expect many next gen games to look on par with anything my PC is capable. Just Saying.

Videodogg

not really. WE really only see really optimized game later in the gen when devs are trying to squeeze ever last bit out of consoles. At the beginning of a generation there isn't a whole lot of optimization going on.

#6 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

Don't think they are saying they will have more power, just better looking games. Never seen anyone say it will be more powerful than a current PC hardware wise, unless they say it just to get a rise out of people.

#7 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

#1 I don't think next en consoles will be better then current gen PC's

#2 there are some major problems with your agruement though. More $$$ does not = better hardware. The Mac line is a great example of this. PC's are indeed better, but it certainly isn't because of their price tag anlone.

Jonwh18

PC have a bigger price tag... because you can do everything with it.

#8 Posted by telefanatic (2883 posts) -

[QUOTE="Videodogg"]

I have a GTX680, I5 cpu and 12 gig DDR3 ram. I dont think any next gen console will even come close to those specs.

But we all know it is not just about specs. Most pc games dont even come close to using the hardware i spent so much money on. Console games are optimized better and get better results using less specs available, so i would expect many next gen games to look on par with anything my PC is capable. Just Saying.

Jonwh18

not really. WE really only see really optimized game later in the gen when devs are trying to squeeze ever last bit out of consoles. At the beginning of a generation there isn't a whole lot of optimization going on.

That is true Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior tottaly blew me away graphicaly on 360 and Gears of War, there was also Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube which looked fantastic for its time. Then we got Crysis and everything looked like $hit afte that., thats not what i meant really, i just a ton of threads where people state that the next consoles will be a lot more powerful then most gaming rigs that we have. Thats a lie,

#9 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1863 posts) -

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

#10 Posted by free_milk (3903 posts) -

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

KillzoneSnake
Consolite arrogance....
#11 Posted by ClassicRockFTW (1106 posts) -

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

KillzoneSnake

nope

aINYb1.gif

#12 Posted by whiskeystrike (12096 posts) -

I think anyone who really cares that much about console graphics compared to PC either has plans to build a PC or is trolling. I doubt your average PS3/360 gamer cares about the graphical capabilties of a PC and if next gen consoles are going to top it.

#13 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

KillzoneSnake

PS3 came out in 2006 and the 8800GTX that is older still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3.

#14 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1863 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

ClassicRockFTW

nope

yep. and that is why what ever PC you have right now will not have graphics as good as PS4 :cool:

#15 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1863 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

MK-Professor

PS3 came out in 2006 and the 8800GTX that is older still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3.

an 8800 GTX came out at the same time as the PS3 :roll:

#16 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

KillzoneSnake

PS3 came out in 2006 and the 8800GTX that is older still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3.

an 8800 GTX came out at the same time as the PS3 :roll:

not realy

8800 GTX - release date November 06 2006(that complete destroys the ps3 even in today games, and that is only one GPU NOT two)

ps3 - release date japan and N.America November 11 2006 and Europe March 23 2007

why wait 5 months to get an inferior hardware?

#17 Posted by SamiRDuran (2714 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

MK-Professor

PS3 came out in 2006 and the 8800GTX that is older still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3.

+1

#18 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

#1 I don't think next en consoles will be better then current gen PC's

#2 there are some major problems with your agruement though. More $$$ does not = better hardware. The Mac line is a great example of this. PC's are indeed better, but it certainly isn't because of their price tag anlone.

Jonwh18
He is talking the price of the parts, you are talking a prebuild system made by the manufacturer and way over priced. BIG difference there.
#19 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1863 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

PS3 came out in 2006 and the 8800GTX that is older still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3.

MK-Professor

an 8800 GTX came out at the same time as the PS3 :roll:

not realy

8800 GTX - release date November 06 2006(that complete destroys the ps3 even in today games, and that is only one GPU NOT two)

ps3 - release date japan and N.America November 11 2006 and Europe March 23 2007

why wait 5 months to get an inferior hardware?

they both came out NOVEMBER 2006. So yes they came out as the same time.

lol funny guy :lol:

#20 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

an 8800 GTX came out at the same time as the PS3 :roll:

KillzoneSnake

not realy

8800 GTX - release date November 06 2006(that complete destroys the ps3 even in today games, and that is only one GPU NOT two)

ps3 - release date japan and N.America November 11 2006 and Europe March 23 2007

why wait 5 months to get an inferior hardware?

they both came out NOVEMBER 2006. So yes they came out as the same time.

lol funny guy :lol:

nope

I live in europe, so it came in March 23 2007 and the 8800 GTX November 06 2006.

#21 Posted by clyde46 (47461 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

an 8800 GTX came out at the same time as the PS3 :roll:

KillzoneSnake

not realy

8800 GTX - release date November 06 2006(that complete destroys the ps3 even in today games, and that is only one GPU NOT two)

ps3 - release date japan and N.America November 11 2006 and Europe March 23 2007

why wait 5 months to get an inferior hardware?

they both came out NOVEMBER 2006. So yes they came out as the same time.

lol funny guy :lol:

The PS3 came out here in 2007, thus it was 5-6 months late.
#22 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1863 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

not realy

8800 GTX - release date November 06 2006(that complete destroys the ps3 even in today games, and that is only one GPU NOT two)

ps3 - release date japan and N.America November 11 2006 and Europe March 23 2007

why wait 5 months to get an inferior hardware?

MK-Professor

they both came out NOVEMBER 2006. So yes they came out as the same time.

lol funny guy :lol:

nope

I live in europe, so it came in March 23 2007 and the 8800 GTX November 06 2006.

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

#23 Posted by clyde46 (47461 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

they both came out NOVEMBER 2006. So yes they came out as the same time.

lol funny guy :lol:

KillzoneSnake

nope

I live in europe, so it came in March 23 2007 and the 8800 GTX November 06 2006.

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.
#24 Posted by rockydog1111 (2076 posts) -

They won't be better, but did you ever think the 360 and PS3 would be pushing their hardware to where it is now? Not to the level of PC gaming, but good enough for most people.

#25 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1863 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

nope

I live in europe, so it came in March 23 2007 and the 8800 GTX November 06 2006.

clyde46

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.

and then come out the best looking exclusives.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxNO3w8c8g

poor 8800gtx today, so useless. ps3 still has another year of great looking exclusives ;)

#26 Posted by clyde46 (47461 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

KillzoneSnake

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.

and then come out the best looking exclusives.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxNO3w8c8g

poor 8800gtx today, so useless. ps3 still has another year of great looking exclusives ;)

The 8800GTX can still play games today at high settings. The 8800 series is 6 generations old and it still can beat the PS3 in terms of graphics and physics.
#27 Posted by Gue1 (11241 posts) -

They won't be better, but did you ever think the 360 and PS3 would be pushing their hardware to where it is now? Not to the level of PC gaming, but good enough for most people.

rockydog1111

not just good enough but a significant jump from prior consoles. I will never support a console that pull off a Wii. If the PS4 graphics look the same as what we have now with the PS3 and X360 then I will not buy that garbage.

#28 Posted by Jonwh18 (9350 posts) -

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

nope

I live in europe, so it came in March 23 2007 and the 8800 GTX November 06 2006.

clyde46

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.

serious question, so for $637.50 ( a launch PS3 plus sales tax) you could get a PC in 2006 that out performs a PS3, along with basic methods of input for that PC (M + KB) and can still play today's AAA games like Assassin's creed 3 at a higher frame rate & resolution then a PS3?

#29 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

KillzoneSnake

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.

and then come out the best looking exclusives.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxNO3w8c8g

poor 8800gtx today, so useless. ps3 still has another year of great looking exclusives ;)

poor ps3 that even a prehistoric ATI x1950 pro (that is 2 times SLOWER than the newer 8800GTX) play games like crysis 2 with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3 lol.giflol.giflol.gif video

#30 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

they both came out NOVEMBER 2006. So yes they came out as the same time.

lol funny guy :lol:

KillzoneSnake

nope

I live in europe, so it came in March 23 2007 and the 8800 GTX November 06 2006.

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

and it is still older, why wait to get an inferior hardware?

#31 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 posts) -

"How can most of you say that Next console have more power then current PC's?"

That's easy, no one is.

----

Your arguments are trash, btw. A 1800XT/7800gtx cost around 500$ when the 360 was released, yet the 360's GPU was comparable to both.

"both 660 gtx or ATI 7950 go around for $300 on newegg, and thats what most of us have in our rigs"

No, 'most' of us have lesser GPU's, I think the 8800gt is one of the most common GPU's according to the Steam HW-Survey. And I have a 5850.

"I'm not even taking into consideration the ram,hdd,motherboards"

Which have nothing to do with "power"

----

The biggest issue with "power" of the next consoles isn't the cost of parts, it's the heat they put off and the desire of MS/Sony. "How much crap can we shove into a tiny box, and what is most cost effective for us?" Though there's a consideration of cost, it's not "if we spend more, we die (well, maybe for Sony it is)", it's "who can spend the least and win"

PS3 destroys near all PC's you could build in 2005. But... being a console you dont even need to be as strong as a PC to beat it. Consoles have optimizing PC gaming will never have. Also very strong dev support helps (naughty dog, santa monica, guerrilla games :cool:)

KillzoneSnake


As far as consumers were concerned PS3 didn't even exist in 2005, 360 did.

#32 Posted by GotNugz (681 posts) -
Remind me again what pc was faster than 360 or PS3 in late 2004 early 2005? Oh that's right there wasn't one. Remind me again what pc games trounced PS2 games in 2000? Oh right not much. Remind me again why theN64 destroyed anything on pc at launch in the 90's. people need to get a grip and look at history consoles have always been powerful at launch. Just as you say a gtx 680 is $500 well guess what an ati 1800XT was $550 in 2005 and Xenos was more than comparable. You do realize they sell consoles at a loss and that with their contracts with hardware companies they get stuff much cheaper than you ever will. So to get to the point it's very plausible if not probable that next gen consoles will have stuff that's high end.
#33 Posted by Farsendor1 (431 posts) -

hey Gots ps3 came out in 2006 not 2005

#34 Posted by clyde46 (47461 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

Jonwh18

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.

serious question, so for $637.50 ( a launch PS3 plus sales tax) you could get a PC in 2006 that out performs a PS3, along with basic methods of input for that PC (M + KB) and can still play today's AAA games like Assassin's creed 3 at a higher frame rate & resolution then a PS3?

In the UK, the PS3 was about $800.
#35 Posted by GarGx1 (3221 posts) -

The main reason that the next consoles will not be up to spec with a good PC and absolutely no chance against a top line PC is the time this generation has dwindled on for, and continues to do so. The hardware gap is enormous, gaming rigs are at least 10x more powerful than this generations consoles and will increase again next year and the year after that.

Assuming that the next consoles are getting released in 2014, it pretty much means they'll have this years mid range tech (if we're lucky) to be affordable, last years tech is looking more likely though as they will want to be profitable straight off the bat (especially taking into account Sony's finacial woahs). This will still be a 'quantum leap' in terms of console capability and I'm sure that the devs will do amazing things with them but they will not be anywhere close to the power of a top range PC running an intel i9 8 core cpu @ 6 Ghz? with 32GB Ram 2xNvidia GTX 880's in SLI (I'm obviously projecting the specs into 2014)

#36 Posted by AM-Gamer (5156 posts) -

Thats just not plausible ? You guys think the next PS4 or Xbox will have some crazy specs ? Most PC gamers spend around $800- $1200 on a really nice rig, this is just not possible for the next consoles to have atleast a 660 GTX or a good AMD card, both 660 gtx or ATI 7950 go around for $300 on newegg, and thats what most of us have in our rigs, so you think these manufacturers will throw all these awesome parts in there and build these consoles with a starting price tag of $400 or $500 ??? I'm not even taking into consideration the ram,hdd,motherboards,cpus, and all the other little things that go into building a console, what about the next controllers ? They will probably be following the Wii U route with tablets, and thats just gonna up the price even more! So with that discuss.

telefanatic

LMAO system warriors crack me up!!! You think Sony and MS just go to newegg and slap a console together like some hermit does when he builds his pc? They spend billions on Research and developement and they get massive bulk discounts and then usually sell the hardware for a loss. A console that cost $600 to produce for an example would cost a pc gamre nearly double that to build themselves as they are buying each product with at least a 10% mark up. Not to mention a console is designed to work for the soul purpose of playing games while a pc is multiple parts slapped together. You are an idiot and a prime example of why some hermits are just a complete joke.

#37 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

Remind me again what pc was faster than 360 or PS3 in late 2004 early 2005? Oh that's right there wasn't one. Remind me again what pc games trounced PS2 games in 2000? Oh right not much. Remind me again why theN64 destroyed anything on pc at launch in the 90's. people need to get a grip and look at history consoles have always been powerful at launch. Just as you say a gtx 680 is $500 well guess what an ati 1800XT was $550 in 2005 and Xenos was more than comparable. You do realize they sell consoles at a loss and that with their contracts with hardware companies they get stuff much cheaper than you ever will. So to get to the point it's very plausible if not probable that next gen consoles will have stuff that's high end.GotNugz

There was plenty of PC back then more powerfull then PS3 or X360... Let's not even go there, SLI/Crossfire.

Yeah may get high end stuff, but there will always be something better on PC... it's time realise, there's no limit for PC.

#38 Posted by Jonwh18 (9350 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.clyde46

serious question, so for $637.50 ( a launch PS3 plus sales tax) you could get a PC in 2006 that out performs a PS3, along with basic methods of input for that PC (M + KB) and can still play today's AAA games like Assassin's creed 3 at a higher frame rate & resolution then a PS3?

In the UK, the PS3 was about $800.

if it was the UK wouldn't it be in euros? Either way I live in the US. Use US PC parts from 2006 if it amkes you feel better.

#39 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Jonwh18"] serious question, so for $637.50 ( a launch PS3 plus sales tax) you could get a PC in 2006 that out performs a PS3, along with basic methods of input for that PC (M + KB) and can still play today's AAA games like Assassin's creed 3 at a higher frame rate & resolution then a PS3?

Jonwh18

In the UK, the PS3 was about $800.

if it was the UK wouldn't it be in euros? Either way I live in the US. Use US PC parts from 2006 if it amkes you feel better.

UK use pounds,
anyway to answer your question:

back in 2006


gaming PC (qx6700, 8800GTX, 4GB ram, etc) for $1800
ps3 for $600 & low-end pc for $400 (Let's face it, everyone need a pc) = $1000

ps3 games cost on avenger 15$ more than pc games so,
an average gamer buy 12 games per year that means, 15x12 = $180 per year more expensive, 180x6 = $1080 in 6 years.

conclusion:
the above gaming PC will cost you $1800
and the ps3 with cost you $600+$400+$1080 = $2080

as you can see it came out cheaper and you play games with better graphics and performance than consoles.

#40 Posted by Jonwh18 (9350 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] In the UK, the PS3 was about $800.MK-Professor

if it was the UK wouldn't it be in euros? Either way I live in the US. Use US PC parts from 2006 if it amkes you feel better.

UK use pounds,
anyway to answer your question:

back in 2006


gaming PC (qx6700, 8800GTX, 4GB ram, etc) for $1800
ps3 for $600 & low-end pc for $400 (Let's face it, everyone need a pc) = $1000

ps3 games cost on avenger 15$ more than pc games so,
an average gamer buy 12 games per year that means, 15x12 = $180 per year more expensive, 180x6 = $1080 in 6 years.

conclusion:
the above gaming PC will cost you $1800
and the ps3 with cost you $600+$400+$1080 = $2080

as you can see it came out cheaper and you play games with better graphics and performance than consoles.

you can't just make random assumptions and throw in games and other stuff to infate the cost of one system or the other. We're looking at what you would get in the box of a launch PS3 fat. The gaming system and a method of input.

#41 Posted by lundy86_4 (44191 posts) -

There isn't going to be a major change in architecture this time around, so the consoles aren't going to get as close the the PC in terms of power. Especially now that multi-GPU setups are more viable.

#42 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

Only trolls say that.

I suppose that accounts for most posters, though.

#43 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"] if it was the UK wouldn't it be in euros? Either way I live in the US. Use US PC parts from 2006 if it amkes you feel better.

Jonwh18

UK use pounds,
anyway to answer your question:

back in 2006


gaming PC (qx6700, 8800GTX, 4GB ram, etc) for $1800
ps3 for $600 & low-end pc for $400 (Let's face it, everyone need a pc) = $1000

ps3 games cost on avenger 15$ more than pc games so,
an average gamer buy 12 games per year that means, 15x12 = $180 per year more expensive, 180x6 = $1080 in 6 years.

conclusion:
the above gaming PC will cost you $1800
and the ps3 with cost you $600+$400+$1080 = $2080

as you can see it came out cheaper and you play games with better graphics and performance than consoles.

you can't just make random assumptions and throw in games and other stuff to infate the cost of one system or the other. We're looking at what you would get in the box of a launch PS3 fat. The gaming system and a method of input.

These are not random assumptions but facts, of course the upfront cost of the system above is greater because play games with better graphics and performance and also can do a million things more. But in the long run it came cheaper.

#44 Posted by lundy86_4 (44191 posts) -

These are not random assumptions but facts, of course the upfront cost of the system above is greater because play games with better graphics and performance and also can do a million things more. But in the long run it came cheaper.

MK-Professor

Nope, they are random assumptions. Where are you getting the amount of games an average gamer will buy? Let alone the fact that sales do happen for console titles, and I personally, get $20 off every big release I pre-order from Best Buy. I got AC3 for $50 after taxes.

#45 Posted by SwarmKing (106 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

thats too bad for you. still PS3 came out 2006 :) 2009 if you live in thailand LOL

KillzoneSnake

Regardless, the PS3 was trumped as it walked out the door.

and then come out the best looking exclusives.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxNO3w8c8g

poor 8800gtx today, so useless. ps3 still has another year of great looking exclusives ;)

Buddy, if you want to troll you should do so subtly. The ";)" makes it too obvious but maybe my trollradar is advanced from my years on this place.
#46 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

These are not random assumptions but facts, of course the upfront cost of the system above is greater because play games with better graphics and performance and also can do a million things more. But in the long run it came cheaper.

lundy86_4

Nope, they are random assumptions. Where are you getting the amount of games an average gamer will buy? Let alone the fact that sales do happen for console titles, and I personally, get $20 off every big release I pre-order from Best Buy. I got AC3 for $50 after taxes.

Everyone I know who knows about Steam sales buys at least 12 games per sale, and many inbetween.

If you are bragging about getting AC3 for $50, I am led that PC and console gamers have different definitions of a "sale". When you get AC3 for 30 dollars or less, we'll talk.

#47 Posted by MK-Professor (3898 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

These are not random assumptions but facts, of course the upfront cost of the system above is greater because play games with better graphics and performance and also can do a million things more. But in the long run it came cheaper.

lundy86_4

Nope, they are random assumptions. Where are you getting the amount of games an average gamer will buy? Let alone the fact that sales do happen for console titles, and I personally, get $20 off every big release I pre-order from Best Buy. I got AC3 for $50 after taxes.

in fact when i say "ps3 games cost on avenger 15$ more than pc games so" i was a bit generous i usually get pc games on one third of the console price.

#48 Posted by 04dcarraher (20429 posts) -
There are multiple factors why the next consoles will not be powerhouses compared to modern high end pc's. The economy is the main factor and how much the masses are willing to spend. The fact that MS and Sony lost major amounts of money for years because of design and putting together an expensive generation from part choices to reliability factors, while Nintendo pretty much made money from the start until the decline of Wii sales in 2010. MS & Sony want to break even or start making profit from the get go, which means that they can not design an expensive console and take losses. Next are the issues that arise from using high end cpu's and gpu's. The power requirements and the need will increase the console to be more expensive, along with the need for more/bigger/better cooling solutions.
#49 Posted by percuvius2 (1982 posts) -

I don't expect next gen consoles to out perform my CPU or RAM, but I do expect better GPU performance than my 7870 by the time the neXtBOX launches.

#50 Posted by lundy86_4 (44191 posts) -

in fact when i say "ps3 games cost on avenger 15$ more than pc games so" i was a bit generous i usually get pc games on one third of the console price.

MK-Professor

What does this teach you? Unless you have a large enough sampling, you are talking out of your ass. You don't know the average cost of games. If you have a study with a reasonable conclusion, then show it to us.

Furthermore, do you have a study naming the average amount of games an individual will buy?

Your entire post was based off of assumptions.

----

You aren't debating with a child here, so put up, or shut up.