PC upgrade, X-Box 360 or PS3?

[Kenobi]

I feel like I "need" a new gaming system. The PS2 is dead as far as new good releases go, and my PC can't keep up with the most recent games.

So, I've got three options I can choose: either I fork out around 700 € to upgrade my rig decently (CPU, mobo and video card) or I go the considerably cheaper 360 way or PS3 way.

The so far announced PC releases for next year don't quite get my attention, with the exception of a handful of titles: W40K Dawn of War's new expansion set (which will run smooth as butter on my current rig) and Starcraft 2 (which will probably run pretty well). Alone in the dark, Bionic Commando, Deus Ex 3, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed, Devil may Cry 4, the new Brothers in Arms game are all potentially awesome titles. The thing is, each one of these games will "force" me to upgrade - and a not-so-cheap upgrade it would be - and all of them are/will be available for the PS3 and the 360.

With said upgrade, however, I would finally be able to play Crysis and Jericho (and a few others) properly.

To sum things up: should I stick to PC gaming, fork out around 500 € for 360 Premium + Halo 3 + Mass Effect or spend the same 500 € on a PS3 + Uncharted + Resistance/Ratchet & Clank?

One of the main factors here is money for value. Most of the (semi-)AAA titles to be released on the PC will be released on a 350/400 € system as well.

To make things easier, may I suggest some collective thinking and let each system's game library do the talking?

As I said before, the PC exclusive games announced to be released in 2008 so far are Starcraft 2 and DoW's expansion set. And that's it. By the way, I don't care about Far Cry 2.

The PC will have other potentially interesting titles, of course - but as I said, they'll "force" me to upgrade and are/will be available for consoles.

Speaking of consoles, the existant/upcoming common library for the 360 and the PS3 is very appealing, to say the least: CoD 3 (already have CoD 4 for the PC), The Darkness, Fatal Inertia, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield Bad Company, Burnout Paradise, Brothers in Arms 3, Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill 5, Mortal Kombat 8, the new Star Wars game, Street Fighter IV, and GTA IV, of course. So yeah, it seems that the PC is taking a beating so far.

As far as system exclusive games go, the 360 is in the lead right now: Halo 3, Mass Effect, PGR 3 & 4, Forza Motorsport 2, Rez HD...not bad at all. I didn't mention Bioshock and Gears of War because I have those for the PC.
Right now the PS3 only has Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank and maybe Resistance to justify its purchase. Doesn't look like much, does it?
The PS3, however, has a bright future ahead - GT 5, Tekken 6, MGS 4, FF XIII, GoW III, Heavy Rain, Wipeout HD...you name it. As far as I know, the only 360 exclusive games to be released that are worth mentioning are Halo Wars, Fable 2, and Gears of War 2.

Basically, this is where the "drama" lies: the PC is a multifunctional machine but it takes quite a bit more to turn it into a gaming rig than to just simply buy a console; the 360 has an amazing library right now but future exclusive games are lacking in number; the PS3 will have a huge number of AAA titles to be released in the future but its current library (especially the exclusive titles) pale in comparison to its rivals.

So, what do you think? What are your opinions?

P.S. If it matters, I have a regular T.V. Also, I have currently no intention of getting a Wii. The Wii only has about 4 games that I would buy. Oh, and sorry for the wall of text :)

[Sadasius]

I would go for the PC upgrade. Then again I am not a console gamer. I got the PS3 for my girlfriend for Christmas and it is an awesome gaming console. Wireless controllers, HD, Blue Ray, Folding the works. If I was to go the console route then PS3 is damn awesome not to mention has so many damn functions other then games. Also did I mention that it is backwards compatible if you get the 80gig one? Yup will play playstation and playstation 2 games on it. Some won't work but the majority does.

[Kenobi]

Well, about the backwards compatibility, I live in Europe, and we only get the 40 GB version here, which means that the backwards compatibility is zero, as far as PS2 games goes.

[PP Mguire]

As far as i heard the PS3 should be backwards compat with any one you get.

As far as an upgrade, if you feel your being "forced" into an upgrade then just get a console. I game on anything. Like i just got Guitar Hero III on PS2 so i dug that back out. I play Halo2 on my Xbox and ill have a Wii soon for Zelda.
My main thing though is PC and when i have an opportunity to upgrade i go for it. As time goes on games and hardware get better so if you dont stick with it, its gonna cost ALOT to get a decent upgrade instead of just replacing like one part or 2.

I admit, a full overhaul is pricey but with the prices of things today its not THAT bad. Deff alot better than it used to be.

And if you upgrade most things that are on console are also being relased on PC, as well as the PC exclusives. And, for 08 i wouldnt hold your breath on SC2. I heard theyve been working on it a LONG time and dont plan to release till its almost perfect.

[otakucore]

PS3 - Blu-Ray DvDs
XBOX - HD DvDs

Thats all I see if I was purchasing a console ;)

:offtopic:
I have BD/HD and its fantastic. Transformers was incredible to watch in high definition.

[PP Mguire]

And with the money for one of those you can buy an HD/Blu Ray drive for your PC. If thats all you see them for.

[Sadasius]

As far as i heard the PS3 should be backwards compat with any one you get.



Apparently the 40 gig one is not backwards compatible at all. The 60 gig one was the most backward compatible and the 80 gig one has issues with a few of the games. Oh and PS3 supports both HD and Blue Ray.

[SwedBear]

The original PS3 (60GB) had full backwards compability (I have one of those imported). The one that then was released in Europe had a bit less backwards compability as they removed one chip and did more in software. I think it's the same for the 80 GB in the US. The 40 GB in Europe now has no backwards compability (as well as less USB ports).

I got to say I've gotten tired on PC gaming. The need to find settings that work with your hardware. The issues with getting it to run well - getting patches etc. The need to upgrade at a steady pace ... And this even though I have two kick-ass PC's with great CPu's and great video cards. It's just easier on the consoles. I also prefer playing on my 40" full-HD LCD with my nice sound system than on my 24" Dell monitor.

I have all three consoles (yeah, I'm a tech junkie) and so far I still prefer the 360 over the two others. I have the HD-DVD drive (which can be used on PC) but to be honest, while I do have both HD-DVD and Blueray movies (Shrek 3, Transformers, Ratatoui etc.) I still get most stuff on DVD so until the majority of stuff you buy come out in one format I do not think HD-DVD or BR should be a reason to buy one console over the others. At the time a cheap stand-alone player will be available.

Both the 360 and PS3 can be used for other stuff in addition to games. Both got DivX support in their latest upgrades but I've found that the 360 plays more files that my PS3 does.

To me personally the 360's online support blows the PS3 out of the water for now. However - it is worth mentioning playing online costs around $50/year on the 360. You can chat with people, buy Xbox Live arcade games and other stuff for free but the actual online-gaming needs a Gold account. On PS3 it is free. However - I rather pay for something that is great that use something for free that is merely ok. Xbox Live is simply really well set up. Chat inside games even with friends playing other games (it's fun chatting with a guy while we are playing different games), every game supporting voice and leaderboards etc, your own identity that spans over every game etc.

It is a sticky point to many to pay for something you can do for free on the PC and PS3 but I simply think the whole service works so much better and tigheter in Live than on the PS3 and the PC (although Steam and Xfire is a good step on the way) that I gladly pay for it.

So far the multi-plattform games almost in every case has been better on the 360 than on the PS3. CoD4 is one of the first where both have been just as good. The rumble support and (IMHO) better online support tips the scale towards the 360 version anyway.

In the end you should, if you are going the console route, look at the existing games and coming games and see which you think you want the most and make a choice from that. And in the end you probably will own both consoles anyway :) in a year or two as the best way not to miss out on any exclusives is to own every console.

[SwedBear]

Oh and PS3 supports both HD and Blue Ray.

I think he meant HD-DVD and no, the PS3 does not support it. The 360 has a HD-DVD drive you can buy for it (which also works with a Vista PC).

/B

[Sadasius]

Oops I thought it did. There is a HD tag on the side of the PS3 and thought it was for HD DVD or maybe its for sound. I don't know as I don't have any HD movies to try it out with.

[s_gibson]

I still play games on the PC, but the 360 was the best money we ever spent. My son plays Halo 2 and 3 and the COD titles constantly. My daughter plays the Viva Pinate games. My wife plays the XBox Arcade stuff and I play as much of it as I find time to. I love the games on it, but I struggle with the controls for FPS games on the controller.

I didn't buy it to watch movies on, we bought it to play games on the 55" screen. I still get regular DVD's and upconvert. Mybe one day I'll pick a format, but for now they can fight without my money. I'm still upset Beta lost to VHS.

I'd say buy the console that has the games you want. No one at my house has even mentioned a PS3. I dont' think they have a PS3 only title that anyone here wants, but I've heard they do have some good PS3 only titles.

I know some people grip about the cost of XBox Live Gold, but I have to say it is well thought out, easy to use, very dependable and they are improving it more and more with each update. They will have my $4 and change a month.

Using the 360 as a Media Center Extender is cool also.

Good luck with your decision.

[PP Mguire]

Oops I thought it did. There is a HD tag on the side of the PS3 and thought it was for HD DVD or maybe its for sound. I don't know as I don't have any HD movies to try it out with.It probably means HD as in High Deffinition. By HD i meant an HD-DVD/Blu Ray drive for your PC.

[Xero (1)ne]

Either PC if you have balls, or 360 if you're lasy. :lol:

The 360's GPU outruns the PS3's Proven fact.

Just so I don't seem like a fanboy, the PS3's CPU(s) FREAKING PWN the 360's.

But the PS3 has like 3 games that are worth buying and all the features that you get on it you can do on a PC even better.

New PC=win

Old PC + 360=win

PS3=win after some games come out which will be a very long time.


They say that Metal Gear will be what sells the PS3....when it's coming to 360 as well. :lol:

[Kenobi]

I must confess I'm not very inclined towards the PC upgrade option. Like SwedBear, I'm tired of having to tweak certain games to death to get them to work decently, playing games that require a miraculous patch and other games with ridiculous system requirements (I'm looking at you, Gears of War, Guitar Hero III and Crysis!).

My last upgrade, in late 2005/early 2006 (video card + CPU + mobo + PSU) costed me around 700/750 €. I'm leaving out the cost of the other components.
The fact that a 350 € system runs Jericho and Vegas insanely better than my rig is a bit irritating, to say the least.

So yes, I'm thinking about getting a 360 now and wait for the PS3 to have more decent games - and a price drop wouldn't hurt, either.

There's only one thing that bothers me, though: the famous Red Ring of Death. Is it really that bad? Like some random curse on your new console that you can't avoid? There are reports of people that treat their 360's like a baby and the damn thing still breaks. Is this true?

[s_gibson]

It is Kenobi, I've had both the Unreadable Disk and the RROD in the 10 months I've had mine, and it is on a shelf by itself with nothing around it. Microsoft is pretty quick to fix it and the support is top knotch, but it stinks to have to wait for it to be returned. Many of my friends have had the RROD as well.

They modified them with a different heatsink setup after I bought mine and recently they came out with a newer pocessor which is supposed to keep it cooler and prevent the problem. Last time I checked there were site that track the new consoles which is supposed to stop the RROD for overheating.

It wouldn't deter me from buying another one. In fact I considered picking up another one just in case I have trouble with mine again. That way I'd have a backup :)

[Frag Maniac]

With titles like the ones mentioned and saying you aren't interested in FC2, you might as well go console because it would appear you are a fantasy RPG gamer through and through born and bred on Playstation. When you start appreciating good shooters maybe then you'll consider a PC upgrade worthwhile.

I will add that many that say PC upgrades aren't worth it don't even factor in the cost of the widescreen HDTVs they're playing console titles on, and plenty of them are using mom and dad's TV to do it on. I'm not saying you are doing that but many are and they never include it in the price of a console "system".

[Kenobi]

Frag Maniac, I believe you were well intentioned, however, you were incorrect on several points: I wasn't born and bred on Playstation. I've been a PC gamer for 11 years, and one of my first games was the original Quake. Quake II and the original Half-Life are IMO two of the best games ever made, so yes, I do appreciate good shooters. I just don't have any interest whatsoever in one specific shooter, that's all.

And I'm using a regular TV, for now at least.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards the 360. I'm posting a few questions about it in a new thread, so if anyone wants to take a look at it, I'd appreciate it :)

Thanks for the advice, everyone!

[Frag Maniac]

Well I noticed you've already posted a thread asking for help on your decision to buy a 360 so I guess it won't matter much what advocates of PC platform say but there are obvious compromises. I see this as a decision more of money than titles, mainly due to your only looking at current or soon to be released titles. A system or system upgrade is something that lasts more than short term if it's done well. There's also the fact that you aren't going to get anywhere near full use out of a 360 if you are just using a regular TV too, doesn't make much sense to me.

As it is with everything, you get what you pay for. Availability of good titles is indeed an important factor, but if you're going to take a system capable of hi def gaming and play on a 500 res TV what's the point? This is what I meant by Playstation mentality, console fanatics are willing to compromise things like that so the question of PC upgrade vs 360 or PS3 in the first place is kinda moot with that mindset. You may have not started out on a Playstation but who could tell with that kind of thinking?

[SwedBear]

"console fanatics"? Just because you plan on playing on a SDTV? There's a lot more to a console than just the graphics. Even on a SDTV you get a nice experience with a newer console even though you will not get the full experience.

Yes, the cost of a HDTV can be included in the total cost if you want. But then you have to include the cost of a similar good monitor in the cost for a PC. I would say that to get a similar experience you at least need a nice 22-24" LCD. And even if the prices have come down a lot they do cost money. At the same time the prices for a good 32" LCD also has come down so I would argue that the difference between a good monitor and a good LCD TV today doesn't need to be that big. While I do have a full-HD 40" LCD now I thought the 360 and PS3 games on my 720p 32" LCD look superb. And those are really cheap these days.

I'm not saying PC gaming sucks but even for me who has kick-ass components it is getting to a point where the extra power of the PC really isn't giving me anything extra over console gaming. When I put in a game like COD4 or Gears of War on my 360 I know it works right away (with great graphics) and the hasslefree experience on a 40" screen simply beats the experience on my 24" screen. I know I can hook my PC up to the TV (my Media Center is hooked up to the TV) but then I have to find a good way to use the mouse/keyboard while sitting confortable in my chair (or use a 360 gamepad) and so far I haven't gotten that far.

PC gaming still rules when it comes to RTS to me. While improvements have been made to RTS on the 360 I still feel it is much better on a PC. But other than that I prefer gaming on a console now.

That said - the new 8800GT and 8800GTS using the G92 GPU definitely are great news as they offer a significant upgrade for quite little money. Also Intel has some cheap CPU's that also offer a lot for little money. So the upgrade path right now is cheaper than it has been for quite a while (IMHO).

As for RROD. Some have it. Some don't. I still have a launch 360 (my sister has it now) which works fine. A friend of mine also has a launch 360 that works great. It sucks that the problem exists but it is not every old 360 that has it. The newer ones are supposed to be much better (no idea if it is true) and MS have been pretty quick with taking care of this problem so I wouldn't let that stop me from getting one (it didn't as I got an Elite recently).

/B

[Frag Maniac]

All the talk of console gaming on HDTV is moot if he's going to use a mere 500 res TV. As well 1280x720p on a 40" looks nowhere near as good as PC games look on 22"-24" monitors at higher res (which can be had for much less). You also get 3 times the warranty, better build quality, and more res options with a monitor. The only pluses I see of using an HDTV as a display is the 16:9 aspect ratio and built in HD tuners in some models, and that's ONLY if you intend to use it for multuipurpose.

Unless you go with a smaller HDTV with 1080p res they are somewhat lacluster as desktop displays due to their size and dot pitch. Even on a 32" 1366x768 720p HDTV you have over .5mm dot pitch, which is huge for use as a desktop display. They'd have to make a 27" 1080p 120Hz HDTV to spark my interest in using one as a desktop display, and even then there would still be tradeoffs.

And that's without even mentioning the other obvious tradeoffs to console gaming in general, smaller maps, little to no in game graphics settings, more expensive games (even though they're cheaper to make), expense of playing mp, etc, etc. IMHO there's a lot more hype in console gaming than in PC gaming despite PC game tech changing rapidly resulting in occaisional upgrades. If you add up all the console titles that cost $10 more and the money paid to play online, by the end of 3 years that is easily enough to afford a PC upgrade if you'd gone PC instead.

The truth is if you're careful about researching your PC parts and timing your purchases, you can easily use your rig for at least 3 yrs and then upgrade for about 10%-20% of the total build to get another year or two out of it. It's what I just did (at 10%) and when I build my next one I will have parts that will easily spank any console at a pretty reasonable price.

I do meet a lot of people that switch over to console from the annoyance of upgrading their PCs, but usually they are the type that either aren't that good at building a PC or researching/shopping for parts, or they just don't want to bother with it every few years. Those whom ARE good at it stay tuned in and don't need much time to make their decisions and most of them have affordable kickass PCs to prove it.

[SwedBear]

All the talk of console gaming on HDTV is moot if he's going to use a mere 500 res TV.

I'm not sure what your point is? He's said he uses a SDTV and haven't as far as I know claimed to have a HDTV. You are trying to argue that using a Xbox 360 on a SDTV is useless. I say it's not. Will you get the full HD-experience? Of course not. But I've myself used an SDTV for a while when I could not use a HDTV and the fidelity of the graphics still is great. I can compare that with PS2 and Xbox games and still the 360 games will look better. What is even more important is still that the console experience is not only about graphics. There's a lot more than just graphics that has made me mainly switch to play on consoles.

As well 1280x720p on a 40" looks nowhere near as good as PC games look on 22"-24" monitors at higher res (which can be had for much less).

Oh come on. Have you actually played any console games? Gears of War, COD4, Uncharted, Rachet and Clank are just a few games that are absolutely beautifull and easily match PC games. I every day in the week take 720p on a 32 or 40" over 1600x1200 on a 22 or 24". Not to mention the fact that with most new games you need a pretty beefy PC to be able to run at 1600x1200 or higher res with all details turned on. Resolution isn't everything.

You also get 3 times the warranty, better build quality, and more res options with a monitor. The only pluses I see of using an HDTV as a display is the 16:9 aspect ratio and built in HD tuners in some models, and that's ONLY if you intend to use it for multuipurpose.

Oh, and you know for a fact that this applies to every possible brand of TV or monitor? Has every monitor 3 times the warranty? Is every monitor higher quality than a TV?

I'm not sure what your argument really is and why you even are bringing this up? Has anyone questioned that monitors are cheaper or that they offer more resolutions? I said that the difference between cheap brand 32" TV's and 24" now are getting smaller but I do not think anyone would argue that monitors are more flexible. I would however argue that to approach the experience of a nice 32" or 40" TV you still need a 24" monitor and even with that I would choose the 32" TV anyday.

Unless you go with a smaller HDTV with 1080p res they are somewhat lacluster as desktop displays due to their size and dot pitch. Even on a 32" 1366x768 720p HDTV you have over .5mm dot pitch, which is huge for use as a desktop display. They'd have to make a 27" 1080p 120Hz HDTV to spark my interest in using one as a desktop display, and even then there would still be tradeoffs.

We were BTW talking exclusively about gaming, weren't we? So why bring up using the TV as desktop? No-one is saying that a console will replace the PC for everything. We are discussing gaming here.

However ... it's funny that I had no problems using my previous 32" TV with my Media PC at 1366x768. It was far from "lackluster". In fact, as I sat 3 or so meters from it the image was sharp and I had no problems sitting and doing stuff on it. My main complaint was that it is hard to find a good way to use the mouse and keyboard in my chair as I do not have a table there.

And that's without even mentioning the other obvious tradeoffs to console gaming in general, smaller maps, little to no in game graphics settings, more expensive games (even though they're cheaper to make), expense of playing mp, etc, etc. IMHO there's a lot more hype in console gaming than in PC gaming despite PC game tech changing rapidly resulting in occaisional upgrades. If you add up all the console titles that cost $10 more and the money paid to play online, by the end of 3 years that is easily enough to afford a PC upgrade if you'd gone PC instead.

Finally some relevant discussions.

Smaller maps - that's probably true. Not that I every felt that as an issue as I am more interested in having maps that fit the number of gamers than pack as many as possible in a huge map. To me it is more of a game decision.

little to no in game graphics settings - that's kind of one of the good things with the consoles. Why the hell do I have to spend time finding a setting that works well with my specific card? I want to get the best possible performance/graphics out-of-the-box. And considering how great a lot of games are looking on the consoles I do not miss this a bit.

more expensive games - that is a very valid complaint. Part of the price you have to pay for a cheap console is more expensive games. To me the rest of the positives easily outweights this negative though.

expense of playing mp - As I've said before, Xbox Live is worth every penny for me and I gladly would pay for something similar on the PC. The PC is getting services that remind us of Live (XFire, Steam etc.) but there is no service which is present in every possible PC game. I cannot pick up a PC game and know that I will be able to play online using the same gamertag as every other game, know that every player will ahve access to a headset and that voice comm works flawless, know that I with a flick of a button can see what games my friends are playing and easily send them a message (voice or text) or even chat while they are playing that other game. I'm not paying for playing online, I'm paying for an excellent service.

One point you did not take up which is relevant is lack of mod-support (although the PS3 promises to allow that). If youa re really in on mods then you will loose out on a console.

The truth is if you're careful about researching your PC parts and timing your purchases, you can easily use your rig for at least 3 yrs and then upgrade for about 10%-20% of the total build to get another year or two out of it. It's what I just did (at 10%) and when I build my next one I will have parts that will easily spank any console at a pretty reasonable price.

And will that upgrade allow you to play all the newest games at 1600x1200 or higher with the qwuality settings set to the highest? Let's hear your upgrade patch the past 4-5 years. I'm cusious to see what you spend and what your machine is now.

Not to mention that the majority of gamers see the PC/console as a tool for playing games and really are not interested in having to spend time to figure out which of all the gazillion models that AMD and NVIDIA are releasing that offerst the best performance/price in the specific game they are insterested in at the precise perfect time. They want something that works and which they do not have to spend time and money to keep in shape.

I do meet a lot of people that switch over to console from the annoyance of upgrading their PCs, but usually they are the type that either aren't that good at building a PC or researching/shopping for parts, or they just don't want to bother with it every few years. Those whom ARE good at it stay tuned in and don't need much time to make their decisions and most of them have affordable kickass PCs to prove it.

Console gaming has come to a point where you for quite little money get an experience that matches most PC's. It will never be able to match the absolutely high-end PC's but those DO cost a lot more. I myself have a kick-ass PC (actually 2) and yet see how much more fun I have with console gaming. I have several friends with good PC's taking the same step. It's nothing to do not knowing how to build a PC or being lazy. It has more to do with no longer feeling that there is any reason to spend energy on keeping your rig upgraded just for games when you can get the same experience or better with a console.

I dissagree that it is easy to upgrade your computer to keep it "kick-ass" unless you are prepared to keep doing it on a regular basis. You said you can take a 3 year old PC and for quite cheap upgrade it to keep it last 2 more years. But to compete with a console you would have to match the price of the original PC 3 years ago + the upgrade cost with the price of a console + TV. A console will not get outdated over time (well, not until a new version comes). The Xbox was "terminated" early as MS came in late behind the PS2 and wanted to get a head-start. There is nothing suggesting a Xbox 360 or PS3 won't last 4-5 or more years.

I do not see that PC gaming sucks, it just does not offer enough over console gaming for me anymore.

[Frag Maniac]

Not sure what my point is on SDTV on a Xbox? Come now, I've seen Xbox games on both SDTV and a decent WS monitor, I know what I'm talking about there. You would have to be seriously impaired of vision not to see the huge difference. It is a relative point and you should factor in the cost of an HDTV display to compare the graphics of a 360 to PC because that's the only way they'll even come close and even then they fall short. The only time they don't is in games that are first made for 360 then poorly ported to PC and/or not given proper attention on the PC end of the development. If you think the fidelity of graphics is great on an SDTV you are seriously living in the past.

Then you go on to say the console experience is not about graphics, well which is it, didn't you just say they were as good as PC? Resolution does matter, for you to say it doesn't makes it obvious you don't care much about graphic detail in the first place. And btw, there are plenty on the EG GoW forum whom would disagree with you saying the PC version has noticeably better graphics. It's just that it stutters due to lack of optimizing, hopefully it will be patched properly. This is often what happens though when a game comes out on console first, the console industry has done a lot to ruin some PC versions of games.

On average the difference in warranty between monitors and TVs is 3 to 1, anyone that knows anything about electronics knows that. In fact a lot of TVs that console gamers buy only have 90 day labor warranties. If you can't understand that a monitor has to be built more ruggedly than a TV it's kind of pointless to try and explain it. Monitors are designed to handle 24/7 operation at a variety of resolutions and refresh frequencies. It doesn't take a genius to know that that involves building them more ruggedly than the average TV. Choosing a 32" TV over a 24" monitor without even specifying 1080p makes it obvious you are strictly a couch gamer. You are limited to, I think you said 3 meters distance, vs quite a range of distances with a 24" monitor and it's largely due to that .5mm plus dot pitch I spoke of. That is a HUGE trade-off. "My main complaint was that it is hard to find a good way to use the mouse and keyboard in my chair as I do not have a table there." Case in point right there, not to mention having to mess with crappy wireless KB/mouse setups. And yet you say you "had no probems", again, contradicting your own words. I tend to think not being comfortable using the KB/M is a major part of what most would consider "lackluster".

Again, we are not just talking gaming here, we are talking console vs PC and that includes the details of the hardware used, why can't you see that?

Whew, finally a breather and I can delete all the stuff you said was the only relevant part. LOL Yet even then you brought up a very good point I missed. Mods!!!, not to mentioned numerous maps both sp and mp. Can you say Far Cry. Yeah baby, kicks butt to anything Far Cry console by a long shot, and maps and mods are stillL being made for it! You really should factor that in on value of console vs PC, especially when you consider those micro map console titles cost 60 friggin bucks, what a rip off.

Upgrades, clearly you can't see what I'm saying here. You must be thinking in terms of the many PC gamers whom are quick to upgrade as soon as new tech is available rather than those whom are very frugal about it. You obviously also aren't factoring in all the money you're throwing away paying $10 more per title and at least $60 a year for mp (depending on where you live).

I digress though, lets, talk apples to apples when you compare what an upgraded or 2-3 yr old PC will do settings wise vs your console playing at very limited settings, virtually NO settings for the most part. Even still that 3 yr old PC with best settings it can do still looks better graphically than games on your 360, especially if a crappy SDTV is used. After all, you did say console gaming isn't just about graphics, resolution isn't everything. It's clear here that you are justifying your claim that PC upgrades or their long term use is not as cost effective as consoles by saying you can play any titles written for the 360 but somehow the PC can't because you can't always use highest settings. That is quite absurd and a totally skewed view of how PCs and console compare both in expense and graphic quality.

I can play Crysis even with my cheap 3 yr $183 upgrade whereby I doubled the RAM to 2GB and went from an X800XT to a X1950Pro 512MB AGP at all High settings except for Medium shaders shadows, and Low Post processing, and that's at 1200x900 res. My using Medium shaders while helping to produce playable frame rates is also preferred as I don't like all the ambient occlusion lighting added in high settings anyway. I also prefer post processing at low due to all the blur effects Med or higher adds.

Games like this and the upcoming Far Cry 2 by Ubi would choke your 360 even at half the map size. Talk about Red Ring of Death!!! LOL Seriously though, the build quality, or lack thereof is something I didn't even touch on. You are stuck with MS's lousy engineering and bandaid solutions with the 360. On a PC you can choose any brand part you want in building and upgrading.

Wrong, the majority of gamers like having the flexibility to choose parts. Most of those whom buy consoles do it as a cheap compromise/stepping stone to a real gaming rig. It's also not as hard as you make it sound to stay in tune with what works for PC gaming, where to buy the parts, and how to upgrade when the time comes. In fact much of it is just common sense once you understand how PCs work. You'd have to have only dabbled into using one without really studying the parts to think otherwise. Anyone that uses a PC regularly should know the way they work hardware wise anyway to be able to handle any problems that may arise, which are few and far between if you have some basic knowhow.

Where did you come up with this claim that most gamers see their PCs as only gaming tools? Yeah, I can see that's true about console gamers because they know they're limited to primarily that, but anyone whom buys a PC knows they have a very versatile tool, so let's not kid ourselves there. And once again, it is a big part of factoring in the value of a PC, whether you use the excuse we are just talking gaming or not.

Yes console gaming has evolved, but when you say for quite little money, and an experience that matches most PCs you are really embellishing. I would say the PS3 has much closer graphic quality to that of PC. Without mentioning them at all I can see that you are not seeing the compromise and/or not able to use very good settings with your PC, OR, and this is very relevant to point out, are comparing games that were first made for console then crappily made for PC.

Once again on PC upgrading vs a 3 yr old console you are not factoring in all the money you spend on titles that cost $10 more and mp gaming. You add that up (or do you even keep track of it) and it's easily enough in 3 yrs time for a very good PC upgrade, esp if you're frugal about spending the money.

I don't know why you even brought up the long term use of consoles really. Last I checked there are no titles being made for the original Xbox anymore. Sure those whom have one can go 360 but with an old PC you can upgrade it. You are stuck for the most part using Windows if you want wide spectrum game access on PCs, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with hardware exclusively made by them. They're now trying to infest the PC gaming market with this Games for Windows hype. Crysis is a good example of their corporate BS in locking out Very High settings on XP and DX9 systems when in fact it has nothing to do with requiring either to play at such settings. It's merely a ploy to get people to buy Vista. They are saying such games certified by this label will also be compatible with their gamepads, big deal, it just brings up one more point about consoles I hate.

With the 360 especially, they locked out use of KB/M, yet they want Games for Windows to be made with support for their controller. Gamepads suck compared to KB/M, and SmartJoy FRAG videos (best KB/M adapter for original Xbox) have proven that those using KB/M pwn those using gamepads. Many of the games made for both console and PC are severely dumbed down in the PC version because of this alone, not to mention in other ways as well.

Your seeing that PC gaming doesn't offer you as much as console anymore, esp if you've gamed on anywhere near decent PC rigs, is not only a biased opinion it is one born of, yes, laziness in staying in tune with PC gear, despite your saying otherwise. I can tell by how hard you make it sound to do so you are not all that good at or interested in staying in the know and buying your PC parts. Using a PC has many benefits, but if it's user is more apathetic about it than respectful of it's value, sure he/or she is going to eventually disown it, as you have for it's gaming value, which is just one part of it's potential and even at that it's still unbeatable all around.

[s_gibson]

Lol!

[Frag Maniac]

Yeah I know gibson, you think it's all about 55", consoles, and PCs are just a conversation piece, what's new. :roll:

[Kenobi]

Here's my 2 cents on the matter: I've done a bit of gaming on my 360 since I set it up Saturday morning.
Even though I own a regular TV, the games still look amazing. Halo 3 looks phenomenal. The detail on the characters in Mass Effect is astounding. Does it look as good as HDTV? No, it doesn't. And I know, because I'd already played "next-gen" games on HDTV tv's. But the different is not as abismal as some people put it.

In the end of the day, it all comes down to what each of us wants. And I wanted an easy, not too expensive way to play some awesome games to be released in 2008: Alan Wake, Turok, Alone in the dark, Bionic Commando, DMC 4, Deux Ex 3, Fallout 3... True enough, they will all be released on the PC. But getting my PC to play those games would cost me between 700 and 800 euros. My 360 costed half of that. And don't forget the hassle of trying new sets of drivers to get that certain game to run 5 frames per second smoother, and the optimization to .ini files, and the patching, and the tweaking, and the overclocking... Add to that console exclusive games like Brutal Legend, the new Ninja Gaiden game, Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill 5, GTA IV, the upcoming Star Wars game, Soul Calibur IV, Street Fighter IV...you get the picture, I'm sure.

Don't get me wrong, I have not forsaken PC gaming. As I said before; I've been an avid PC gamer since 1996. I have too many PC games to mention. Saying how many (too many, believe me) would be impossible without being embarassed. It's just that at this particular point upgrading my PC doesn't seem worth it, as there is nothing to justify it. It may all change some time in the future, when PC gaming manages to overcome console gaming with a noticeable difference in quality - something it can't do right now. As I see it, PC and console gaming are pretty much equivalent to each other. The game is tied, with the advantage leaning towards the console team simply because it's a) cheaper and b) simpler.

[Frag Maniac]

OK I'll grant you the exclusive titles for your 360, that is a valid point. I have played Xbox games on my neighbor's SDTV though and it is far from acceptable once you've seen how good games can look on a PC.

As for price of upgrades, no one seems to touch on the points I made about long term cost of 360 titles and mp play. I have no idea how many games you buy so I'll just throw out an example.

Say you get 1 game a month, which is a fairly modest amount. That's $360 more at the end of 3 yrs you're paying for games alone. Add to that at least $180 for 3 yrs of mp play and that's $540 total more you've payed just for games and online play.

Since I feel that number of games is a modest amount, that total could easily reach what you are claiming is the cost of a PC upgrade and IMHO the amount you're mentioning is not best case scenario because here in the states if you shop at places like Newegg you can easily upgrade for the $540 amount, esp if you sell your old gear.

And yes, 3 yrs really IS a good upgrade cycle scenario, not 1 or 2 yrs like many are claiming. These are things that are not very hard to do and in fact those whom take interest in it by just caring about their gear really enjoy doing it.

[Sadasius]

I find the console perfect for those who do not wish to think or do much. It is a simple concept that hooks right up to a TV and you just have to turn it on and play at a cheap price. Too damn simple for me. I like to dial up a PC and using and programing the keys in a PC game to my liking and going nuts. PC gaming (not to mention the millions of other uses for a PC) and console gaming are two very different worlds. One is for the enthusiast and the other is for the lazy fat man/woman on the couch. I bought a PS3 for my girlfriend for Christmas and she loves it. I will admit it does have some good graphics for sure but everything is dummied down significantly (not to mention it is folding for our team too). For me it is unacceptable but for her she is not used to PC gaming and the console wins in simplicity and ease of use. There is always going to be a tit for tat on this subject and really is according to point of view to each individual. I love the quality of PC gaming. Consoles do not compare even with HD...sorry guys but yeah I have both and you can see the difference. Now it is harder to see the difference from a distance but a PC gamer is closer to the monitor as opposed to the console gamer playing from the couch. I need the awesome crisp graphics up close.

Also I have noticed when playing with my girlfriend on the console that I feel sick and disoriented after about an hour of play. I don't get that on the PC at all.

[SwedBear]

First off all Frag Maniac. I think this is an interesting discussion but you have to stop being a complete asshole if this discussion is going to continue. There is no need to start to patronize me by calling me “visionally impaired”, “living in the past”, “apathetic” etc. All you are doing is coming across like a close minded PC-Gamer. And quite frankly – I’m getting fed up with your attitude so shape up or shut up. I value good serious discussions but you better stop being quite so arrogant and rude if you want to continue this discussion.

I'm slowly giving up trying to get you to understand but lets try again:

Graphics:
Sigh. I fully agree that you do not get the full HD-experience on a SDTV. I've said that now several times. What I disagree on is that the graphics are ugly. I HAVE several times played 360 games on a SDTV and games do look nice (in fact the "built-in" AA helps for some games). And even more importantly I said that when deciding for a console you also do it for the "console" experience which are the other things we have talked about (games work right away etc.). So when someone with a SDTV chooses a console he might not use it for its full potential but to me there is no doubt he still can be satisfied, as long as he is prepared to accept less impressive graphics. There are reasons even people with good systems prefer consoles even if you have a hard time accepting it.

If you think the fidelity of graphics is great on an SDTV you are seriously living in the past.

Resolution does matter, for you to say it doesn't makes it obvious you don't care much about graphic detail in the first place.

I’m living fine in the present thank you. Maybe I am not a graphics whore but I do appreciate good graphics just as anyone else. Maybe I did not define fidelity correctly and misused that word. The 360 offers a lot more than just the support for high resolutions. You get better textures, better shadowing, better lighting etc. Just like a game today on the PC will look much better at 640x480 than a game coming out years ago at the same resolution.

That is also what I meant with “resolution does not mean everything”. What I was talking about was that you can argue that 1280x720 (720p) is a lower resolution that 1600x1200 but I say that more important than the resolution is the quality of the rest of the graphics: lighting, textures etc.

I'm not completely sure what your GoW comment has anything to do with it? You really seem to have a problem following the discussion. Just because I said that an SDTV still works fine for the 360 it somehow clashes with me then saying that consoles can have excellent graphics? I did mention that you won’t get the full HD-experience on a SDTV, didn’t I? And I thought this discussion was more general meaning that we are talking about what you can get from a console. Whoopidoo GoW can look better on the PC. That’s great. It is a year later though and again the question becomes, what kind of machine do you need to get that better graphics? Not to mention you yourself point out a problem with PC gaming: optimization. So we have a game that can look better than the 360 counterpart but it is not optimized meaning that a gamer needs to work to find a good balance between performance and looks. Of course you blame the consoles for this to (typical PC Gamer behavior) but do you seriously claim that only games that are ports from consoles are experiencing performance problems?

Again – I’m not sure what the debate is here. The PC is very flexible so with the right parts you can get great gaming. I do not question that. The problem is that the PC is not a static hardware. So even though games might support 1920x1200 or higher and tons of quality settings, most will never be able to use them fully due to cost of a large monitor, a fast CPU, a fast video card etc.

What I do question is you trying to pretend that consoles suck and are far behind. This I disagree with from personal experience.

You seem to have gotten stuck in the SDTV discussion. I fully agree that if you want the full experience of a 360 or PS3 you definitely need to get a HDTV. And in that case, if you already have a good PC and large monitor you might just as well get a better video card. So ONLY talking about graphics – a PC with a good monitor and decent video card will have better graphics than a 360 or a PS3 on a SDTV.

However – if you have a HDTV (even a cheap 32” 720p LCD) I disagree with you that you generally will be worse off than on a PC. Because even though PC Games often will have support for higher resolutions and detail settings there is never a certainty that your machine will be able to run them. And games like CoD4, GoW, Uncharted etc. are proving that you can get kick-ass quality graphics on the current consoles to.

Monitors vs TV

On average the difference in warranty between monitors and TVs is 3 to 1, anyone that knows anything about electronics knows that. In fact a lot of TVs that console gamers buy only have 90 day labor warranties.

Well, you keep forgetting this is an international site. Warranties here in Sweden are far longer than that. I think that stands for most Europe to. So that is really a non-issue to me.

If you can't understand that a monitor has to be built more ruggedly than a TV it's kind of pointless to try and explain it.

You really are an ass, aren’t you? If you want to make a point there is no need to be patronizing or arrogant.

Monitors are designed to handle 24/7 operation at a variety of resolutions and refresh frequencies. It doesn't take a genius to know that that involves building them more ruggedly than the average TV. Choosing a 32" TV over a 24" monitor without even specifying 1080p makes it obvious you are strictly a couch gamer.

You know, this sounds all well and done but the TV’s I have had have all been on for many many hours per day and they still work. I’m curious – how many hours do you have to play/week to be considered a “couch gamer”? I played Mass Effect yesterday for about 5-6 hours. Am I a couch gamer then? The last month or so (since CoD4 was released) I’ve played a lot of 3-4 hours sessions (the time seems to run away). Am I a “couch gamer”? In fact, what IS a “couch gamer”? It sounds like you use it as a derogatory term for people you do not consider “real” gamers .

The important thing is that even when using a TV for 10 hours or more/day TV’s work fine so you might see that as some sort of argument for a PC – to me it’s just unimportant. If my TV breaks I have a warranty. If my monitor breaks I have a warranty. Millions of console gamers play a lot more than a causal game now and then.

You are limited to, I think you said 3 meters distance, vs quite a range of distances with a 24" monitor and it's largely due to that .5mm plus dot pitch I spoke of. That is a HUGE trade-off.

You do know what a TV is, do you? Why on earth would I like to sit 3 meters from my 24” monitor? Or 50 cm from my TV? You seriously are claiming that you would prefer gaming on a 24” from 3 meters than on a 32” screen from 3 meters? In fact, what the hell are you trying to claim?

For some quick PC-work (changing settings, opening folders to copy stuff, basic editing) the TV works fine. I was under the impression you meant that the display could not be used and thus it was lackluster. That is what I meant worked fine (and still does as I occasionally close the MCE interface and copy stuff on my Media PC). It is not like on a SDTV where you cannot read anything because everything is blurry. Yes, not having a good place to use your mouse/keyboard makes the whole experience less than optimal but to be honest; if I just got to it I could add a nice table.

But why the hell are we even discussing this? The discussion at the start was whether to upgrade a PC to make it better at gaming or to get a console. So it is Gaming we are talking about. Not whether the PC is better on word processing than the console or if a monitor is better for this than a TV. Of course a monitor wins if you are going to use it for other stuff than gaming.

But that is not the issue here. In fact, let’s take that again. We are talking about people like me who has started to prefer console gaming over PC gaming and thus rather spend money on a console than on upgrading the PC. We haven’t abandoned the PC. We still play exclusive games on the PC. We still use the PC for a lot of stuff. It’s not a question whether to never more use the PC for games or anything else but more where to put the money if you are deciding how to do your main gaming in the future.

“No mods”, “micromaps”

I fully understand your mod-comments. I think in this case it depends on how involved you have been playing with mods before. I fully admit I stopped installing different mods for games a few years ago so the lack of mods does not bother me at all. If you are heavily into mods then you definitely are better off keeping with the PC.

Re: micromaps – come one. Now you’re just being stupid. You make it sound like consoles have 8 person maps only. The consoles can handle much larger maps (Resistance have support for 40 players, PDZ had support for 32 players, Warhawk has support for 32 players) and it is up to the game to decide how big maps to support. I’ve played games online since before games supported internet play (via Kali95) and I’ve yet to feel that console games are lacking in this department. It’s not like maps are tiny. Seriously, to try to claim that consoles have “micomaps” just makes it more obvious that you simply do not “get” consoles. But let’s do it your way. So: if you need 64 people support then the PC is your choice.

Hardware

I digress though, lets, talk apples to apples when you compare what an upgraded or 2-3 yr old PC will do settings wise vs your console playing at very limited settings, virtually NO settings for the most part. Even still that 3 yr old PC with best settings it can do still looks better graphically than games on your 360

You see, this is what makes this whole discussion difficult. You claim that the console is playing at “very limited settings” or “virtually NO settings for most the part”. You do understand that just because I cannot turn on/off stuff and change graphical details it does not mean they are turned off or do not exist. Again, the 360 and PS3 has lots of really great looking games that easily match great games that you have on the PC. We can argue if there are settings that make PC games better and how much and what kind of machine you need for that but if you argue that the consoles have ugly graphics, then there is not even a firm ground to discuss from. You simply are not making sense.

It's clear here that you are justifying your claim that PC upgrades or their long term use is not as cost effective as consoles by saying you can play any titles written for the 360 but somehow the PC can't because you can't always use highest settings. That is quite absurd and a totally skewed view of how PCs and console compare both in expense and graphic quality.

You are missing the point here. You are saying the PC blows the consoles out of the water with higher resolutions and much better graphics. My point is that this is not exactly true. Depending on the game and the PC you will have to make compromises in graphics. So when you claim that the PC is so much better than the consoles in the graphics department it is a truth with lots of caveats. And that is quite important when discussing where to put the money. The strength of the consoles is that they are a static platform. They might not have the most powerful hardware but games are being optimized for them. There is a reason that as the console gets older the better games get (not all of course but you understand what I mean).

I can play Crysis even with my cheap 3 yr $183 upgrade whereby I doubled the RAM to 2GB and went from an X800XT to a X1950Pro 512MB AGP at all High settings except for Medium shaders shadows, and Low Post processing, and that's at 1200x900 res. My using Medium shaders while helping to produce playable frame rates is also preferred as I don't like all the ambient occlusion lighting added in high settings anyway. I also prefer post processing at low due to all the blur effects Med or higher adds.

I went down to my machine and put in a 1950XT in it. I know it’s a bit better but I do not have a 1950 Pro. Coupled with a Quad Core 6600 and 2 GB DDR3 I played at your settings (well, actually at 1200x800 as I did not have 1200x900 as a resolution). Quite frankly it wasn’t exactly neither smooth nor the most impressive graphics I’ve seen. In the foliage it was ok but for example when I got to the GPS jammer in the first mission not only did the framerate suffer but the graphics leaves a lot to offer. A lot is due to the fact that my 24”’s native res is 1920x1200.

Games like this and the upcoming Far Cry 2 by Ubi would choke your 360 even at half the map size. Talk about Red Ring of Death

It would? You sure about that? I think we have to disagree on that. I see no reason why the 360 or PS3 would not be able to have a game like Crysis. We have plenty of big free-roaming games. Have you tried Crackdown? A huge sandbox city where I can climb every house and look miles away to another part of the city and then either do a roof jumping race to it or hijack a car and drive over.

You assume a lot. Remember that the game has to run on far less powerful computer system also.

!!! LOL Seriously though, the build quality, or lack thereof is something I didn't even touch on. You are stuck with MS's lousy engineering and bandaid solutions with the 360. On a PC you can choose any brand part you want in building and upgrading.

There are no excuses for the issues with the Xbox 360. I’ve been spared though and in addition to my own launch 360 (which my sister has now) I have several friends who still have their launch 360’s. That said Microsoft at least has owned up, extended warranties and from the forums I visit it seems are trying to take care of exchanges as fast as possible.

PC’s no doubt are more flexible in what you can run and upgrade with. That does not mean they are immune to problems. In fact, I would argue that there are a lot different problems there. Bad drivers, incompabilities between hardware, OS issues and occasionally bad quality hardware.

Wrong, the majority of gamers like having the flexibility to choose parts. Most of those whom buy consoles do it as a cheap compromise/stepping stone to a real gaming rig. It's also not as hard as you make it sound to stay in tune with what works for PC gaming, where to buy the parts, and how to upgrade when the time comes. In fact much of it is just common sense once you understand how PCs work. You'd have to have only dabbled into using one without really studying the parts to think otherwise. Anyone that uses a PC regularly should know the way they work hardware wise anyway to be able to handle any problems that may arise, which are few and far between if you have some basic knowhow.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I’ve been around this business for 20 years, running this site for 11 and have enough contacts and friends around the world to draw my conclusions. You are a hard core PC user and gamer and I simply think you really have no touch with reality outside your little bubble.

Where did you come up with this claim that most gamers see their PCs as only gaming tools? Yeah, I can see that's true about console gamers because they know they're limited to primarily that, but anyone whom buys a PC knows they have a very versatile tool, so let's not kid ourselves there. And once again, it is a big part of factoring in the value of a PC, whether you use the excuse we are just talking gaming or not.

Sigh, WE WERE DISCUSSING GAMING HERE! I’m fully aware that computers can do other stuff. And no one has said that this is a consoles or nothing debate. The discussion was whether to spend money to upgrade a computer for games or get a console. If you choose to use your computer primarily for other stuff then the hardware need radically changes. So instead of getting a new video card, more memory and maybe a new CPU you get a console and a new HD for your computer.

And you are free to disagree but I still say that outside the more hard core circle of PC users, PC’s are tools for work, gaming, music listening etc.
And just to upset you even more – choosing to game on a console over a PC does not make you lesser of a gamer.

Yes console gaming has evolved, but when you say for quite little money, and an experience that matches most PCs you are really embellishing. I would say the PS3 has much closer graphic quality to that of PC. Without mentioning them at all I can see that you are not seeing the compromise and/or not able to use very good settings with your PC, OR, and this is very relevant to point out, are comparing games that were first made for console then crappily made for PC.

No I am not. May I ask what your reference is? I own a Xbox 360, a PS3 (and BTW so far there is no difference between the 360 and PS3 in terms of graphics, in fact the PS3 has several crappy ports of 360 games), a PC with Quad Core 6600 (and a 6850 when I need Dual Core), a wide variety of video cards including HD2900XT’s, 8800GTX, 8800GTS 512 MB, 8800GT, HD3870, HD3850, lots of memory. I have a nice 24” Dell screen plus a 5.1 sound system. I also have a 40” LCD plus another 5.1 sound system. I own basically all the major PC games (UT3, Crysis, COD:OP, Supreme Commander, Hellgate etc.) and play them. I also own tons of console games (COD4, Halo 3, Uncharted, Rachet&Clank, Mass Effect etc. etc.). I play them regularly.

You are really deluding yourself if you think that the consoles today do not offer an experience that matches the PC. In fact, who the hell are you to claim that I am lying? Where did you get the nerve to accuse me of making stuff up? I clearly said that the PC is more flexible and that at the highest end you get graphics that are better than the consoles – however at a price.

Again: the discussion here is whether it is better to upgrade your existing PC for games or go with a new console. Adding two 8800 Ultra’s, a Quad Core Extreme and 4 GB of DDR3 always will give you a kick-ass PC that basically shreds everything else but again, at what cost?

Once again on PC upgrading vs a 3 yr old console you are not factoring in all the money you spend on titles that cost $10 more and mp gaming. You add that up (or do you even keep track of it) and it's easily enough in 3 yrs time for a very good PC upgrade, esp if you're frugal about spending the money.

I guess it depends on how you see it. I rather take something I prefer now and take the extra cost for the games than try to save money each year and have, in my opinion, a lesser experience and then at the end of 3 years upgrade. You are different. Fair enough. I do not know how things are in the US BTW but here in Sweden I can easily trade in console games after I am done with them and get new games cheaper. That is no longer possible with PC games. I’ve also noticed that the second hand value of console games is much higher when sold over our own E-bay auction site. So in my case (even though I rarely trade in anything – I love games ;) ) I do not necessarily have to pay full price.

don't know why you even brought up the long term use of consoles really. Last I checked there are no titles being made for the original Xbox anymore.

Actually there are but not many. Did you even read what I wrote? Microsoft came in late to the party with the Xbox. The only way they would be able to compete with the PS3 in this generation would be to launch at the same time or earlier. Remember that the PS3 was supposed to launch just a few months after the Xbox 360 at first before it got delayed. So this time there is no indications that the 360 is not going to be around a lot longer. The fun thing is that the Xbox actually was around for 5 years (lauched 15 november 2001 and discontinued 13th november 2006, a year after the 360 was released). So for $300 you get a machine that got games for 4-5 years and which games also improved year for year as developers learned the machine. I can live if the Xbox 360 “only” is around until 2010 as I would know that games that came out around that still would run great on it while a PC from end of 2005 definitely needs a lot of upgrades to stay current 2010.

Sure those whom have one can go 360 but with an old PC you can upgrade it. You are stuck for the most part using Windows if you want wide spectrum game access on PCs, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with hardware exclusively made by them. They're now trying to infest the PC gaming market with this Games for Windows hype. Crysis is a good example of their corporate BS in locking out Very High settings on XP and DX9 systems when in fact it has nothing to do with requiring either to play at such settings. It's merely a ploy to get people to buy Vista. They are saying such games certified by this label will also be compatible with their gamepads, big deal, it just brings up one more point about consoles I hate.

Well, for one thing it makes it obvious why you are behaving like true fanboy then. You hate Microsoft, Windows and consoles. It’s a piece of hardware. How the heck can anyone “hate” consoles?

Your seeing that PC gaming doesn't offer you as much as console anymore, esp if you've gamed on anywhere near decent PC rigs, is not only a biased opinion it is one born of, yes, laziness in staying in tune with PC gear, despite your saying otherwise.

So now I’m not only biased but also lazy? Again, who the **** are you to label me? I have an opinion that does not mesh with yours and now I’m biased and lazy? How is it possible to have a good discussion when you can’t handle that someone has a different opinion than you?

I can tell by how hard you make it sound to do so you are not all that good at or interested in staying in the know and buying your PC parts. Using a PC has many benefits, but if it's user is more apathetic about it than respectful of it's value, sure he/or she is going to eventually disown it, as you have for it's gaming value, which is just one part of it's potential and even at that it's still unbeatable all around.

“Disown” it? I’m “not good at PC’s”? I’m “apathetic”? Hey Scott and Miles – maybe it is time for me to quit then :)? Clearly I am crap at PC’s I hate them and I’m apparently disowning them to …

Seriously though.

The only one doing justifications here are you. I do not have to justify anything as I am a grown man who is fully able to make a logic and thought-through decision. You and many other die-hard PC Gamers are obviously not getting it. You can try to say that we are lazy, not care about gaming, “couch gamers” etc. but the truth is that, right or wrong, we make our decision based on the positives and negatives of both console and PC gaming.

There’s been a lot of talk about graphics but again I think the consoles offer a lot more. The experience might not be as hard-core as on the PC and I am sure there are a lot of people who love to tinker to find the right settings for a game (or the right driver, I had to upgrade my ATI driver as the first I had installed had issues with Crysis) and loathe the simplicity of the consoles. But to me personally I rather put my energy on the games and like the fact I just have to pop in a DVD/BR-disc and start playing.

Same goes for the online. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had issues playing on the PC. Scott and I try playing games from time to time and some games just work crappy. For example I think it was WiC where neither of us could start a game which the other one could join and in the end we had to jump into other peoples games if we wanted to play together. Or COH which I a long time had huge issues with when playing with Scott and others. I kept lagging out. The 360 is not immune to laggy games (PES I am looking at you) but overall the experience is that I almost 99% will know it will work fine playing with friends without having to fiddle with settings or open ports in the router etc. That to me is worth lot.

It feels like this discussion is pointless though as you've already made up your mind that consoles gamers are lazy, don't know computers and generally less of gamers than PC gamers. It it makes you feel better about your own choice then fine. You're really missing out though. The ultimate solution is to have both :).

/B

[SwedBear]

I find the console perfect for those who do not wish to think or do much. It is a simple concept that hooks right up to a TV and you just have to turn it on and play at a cheap price. Too damn simple for me. I like to dial up a PC and using and programing the keys in a PC game to my liking and going nuts. PC gaming (not to mention the millions of other uses for a PC) and console gaming are two very different worlds. One is for the enthusiast and the other is for the lazy fat man/woman on the couch.


So because not everyone wants to fiddle with the key settings they are "lazy fat"? Are you guys really so insecure that the only way you can come up with to defend PC gaming is to claim you are "leet" while console gamers are fat and lazy? It's odd - even though I've played PC games for close to 15 years now I never bothered to program my keyboard all those years. I must be a "lazy fat" gamer then?

How hard is it to understand that deciding that you rather game on a console over a PC does not mean you are a casual gamer.

I bought a PS3 for my girlfriend for Christmas and she loves it. I will admit it does have some good graphics for sure but everything is dummied down significantly (not to mention it is folding for our team too).

What games do she have? I hear a lot about the "dummied down" complaint from old PC gamers. I never really understood that. Since the console have a gamepad you have to change the way to handle certain games meaning that you no longer can put every possible thing onto the keyboard. In what way is mapping every possible feature on the keyboard make it "less dumm" than making a intelligent mapping onto the gamepad? A good developer will make a good mapping giving you all the necessary controll at the tip of your finger. COD4 for instance works like a charm. I cannot see anything that the keyboard/mouse could do better (I'm talking about mapping controls - we can argue about playing fps games on a gamepad later).

The problem as I see it is when a company takes the game and do not change it to suit the PC. On a PC you map commands etc. to the keyboard as the mouse only has 2-3 buttons. On the consoles you map everything to the gamepad as the gamepad has 12 buttons and two analogue sticks.

The controll method needs to be suited for each plattform.

I love the quality of PC gaming. Consoles do not compare even with HD...sorry guys but yeah I have both and you can see the difference. Now it is harder to see the difference from a distance but a PC gamer is closer to the monitor as opposed to the console gamer playing from the couch. I need the awesome crisp graphics up close.

Yes they do compare. I have all three and they do compare. Not every game of course but then that is the same on all plattforms. The problem for the PS3 unfortunately is that it has very few good games right now. The majority of ported games from the 360 are really crappy with worse graphics and even worse framerate. I think Burnout Paradise and COD4 are the exceptions.

Also I have noticed when playing with my girlfriend on the console that I feel sick and disoriented after about an hour of play. I don't get that on the PC at all.

On PC's there's long been people who got nausia (sp?) after playing fps games (the rocking motion). Could it be the same?

[Sadasius]

Yeah your post got mangled a little. Hate that when that happens. The fat lazy thing was a T-bone for you to chew on...:lol: Don't worry....it's not real meat and low cal! Sorry had to....Door was open...again...:ahhhhh:

But in all fairness the console is great in certain instances like when having people over and playing together (didn't know we could use our PSP's as controllers...that was cool). A heck of a lot better then trying to set up a last minute lan. Not trying to dis console gaming entirely. It has many good points in which I would use it. But my main gaming is when I have my alone time away from everything and my chance to escape. It has to be perfect....not a waste of time but something I can really get into. Like Supreme Commander Forged Alliance or something. I just cannot for the life of me do that on a console. I play the PS3 to actually spend time with the ol lady and she enjoys that and she knows I hate console gaming. So in all fairness my mention is bias between the two and should not be taken seriously. Everyone is different and will have different gaming needs and opinions.

I think one of the things that PC Gamers cannot get used to is the gamepads or controllers. I am in this category. I NEED the mouse and the keyboard.

[SwedBear]

I'm lucky I noticed it being mangled though :). I first didn't see it. Not sure what happened. Took a long time fixing :).

I actually haven't tried the PSP as control yet. I think I rather get the new Dualshock as I think the current PS3 pad is to light.

I fullya gree with you on RTS games (I think I mentioned it earlier). While they are improving I cannot get the control I want with a pad. So I probably will not get WiC when it comes on the 360 even though the online play is tempting (also finsihed it on the PC).

FSP games I actually prefer on the pad now. I think it has a lot to do with what you are used to. I've played fps since the first Wolfenstein so it's not that I never got into fps on the PC.

What I like with the pad is that with dual analogue sticks I get so much more feeling in movement than on the PC. you do loose some precision though but with a little added aiming help I have no more problems aiming and shooting than on the PC. On the other hand I have all the commands directly at my finger tips (shoulder buttons etc.) so that is a plus for me (and as I said ;) - I don't re-map stuff on the PC).

But I really think it is something you need to get used to. At first I hated it. I think Halo was the first game that got it right.

I don't think there is a doubt that some games work better on certain plattforms so if you are a RTS gamer for example I would never recommend a console. If you like car games though you would have a good choice on both plattforms (although I really prefer steering with a pad compared to keyboard or wheel). I suck using the wheel on either the PC or consoles :).

/B

[Sadasius]

Yeah the PSP was a hidden bonus because while I was at work I would game on it when I was really REALLY bored. But needless to say I got used to it and the feel of it. Just finished Manhunt 2 on it the other day actually. So when a friend of mine saw that we had 2 PSP's and not enough controllers he said we could use them as controllers. He helped set it up. I was kind of embarrassed as I am usually the guy who knows how to almost set anything up. Mind you I did have to help him with the wireless router connection...lol. But it did feel better then. I think that's why MS is trying to get the controllers to be used ont he PC. Heck I almost went for it myself actually for UT3 as they have a special section for it or something. I forget...Need RAM! :lol:

[Frag Maniac]

LOL, LMAO, I put things in indirect, somewhat non obscene terms, merely stating obvious factors that are valid points of view and you call me an asshole SB? At least I didn't call anyone a lazy fat man.

You need to get your priorites straight here. Your opinions do not give you the power of forum cop just because ours conflict with them so keep the "shape up or shut up, ...you better stop being quite so arrogant and rude if you want to continue this discussion" talk to yourself.

You're acting like a 2 year old that throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. We had our opinions to say yes, but you don't see us trying to flex some kind of half ass forum muscle spewing angry words and telling people what to do.

You say you like to have conversations on such matters yet you want them to be conducted soley on your terms. Might I add that it was you when you couldn't tolerate my disagreeing with you whom started the griping.

After the way you started that last response to me I din't bother reading the rest of it, you simply need to grow up a bit. Much of what you interpreted as sarcasm is your own attitude problem about people strongly disagreeing with you.

You say stop with the insults and don't continue this conversation, I will put that in more appropriate words. Whom would want to converse with you after seeing how you respond? I will continue to talk about any subject matter I care to here, just not with immature members like you. It's amazing you even were made moderator.

If anything I have not been one to perpetuate conflicts here, in fact I've made it well known that I prefer to use the ignore list when I encounter immature posters that would rather rant and fuss when they don't get their way in a conversation than carry on lengthy arguments with them. You happen to be one of those. I've decided I'd simply rather not see your posts than bother responding to the tone of your childlike attitude.

(Edited)
WTF? Just found out I cannot put you on my ignore list because you're a mod/admin, now I see why you act so controlling. That is utterly ridiculous.:roll: I guess I'll just have to pretend I don't see your posts, not much in them worth reading anyway. I refuse to be told to converse on someone's unfair terms merely because they're a moderator, not to mention one whom use's obscenities even when those he accuses of bashing don't.

[SwedBear]

Frag Maniac - you alone have been rude and throwing insults. A healthy discussion works even if the parties have very opposite opinions as long as there is a respect for each others opinions. Throwing around insults does not show any respect.

I told you to stop doing this if you wanted to keep discussing and I stand by that. I have not told you to stop discussing. It should not be hard to discuss something like this without namecalling, shouldn't it? Others in the thread have managed it fine even if we have different opinions.

Heated discussions can include a few not-so-well thought words and that is ok. But you crossed the line several times. In fact, the tone of your posts was more like what you get in a forum like System Wars at Gamespot.

If I wasn't interested in this discussion I would just ban you right off or just ignore you. Even though you kept insulting me and consoles owners I responded to each of your points explaining even more my point of view and even agreeing with a few of your points.

I'm not discussing "on my terms". I'm telling you what we expect from a poster here on this site and forum. We rarely ban people and allow a lot but we expect that posters behave in a mature way.

There is actually only one person in here throwing a tantrum and that is you. You can accuse me of being inmature, I could not care less, but in the end you need to calm down yourself first and look back at what you wrote.

I got to admit I had a little chuckle when you question why I was allowed to be a moderator. You do know I started this site, I've run it for 11 years and that I, together with Miles and Scott, ARE the site? I've managed fine to keep a friendly atmosphere on the site and forum for 11 years.

You can be all huffy and puffy about how stupid I am for telling you to shape up but that does not change the fact that you have to accept that if you want to discuss things on this site you have to accept that you cannot throw insults around you.

Don't get me wrong though, I do not expect is that you agree with me on the topic of this discussion (gaming on PC/consoles). I'm fine with you dissagreeing even though I love to challenge your opinions. What I am not fine with is the way you are discussing.

In the end this is a warning to you. Keep up your behaviour and eventually you will get temp banned. It won't happen now though as I expect you to come to your senses and realize that it was not your opinion that got me to warn you but your behaviour.

/B

[SwedBear]

Yeah the PSP was a hidden bonus because while I was at work I would game on it when I was really REALLY bored. But needless to say I got used to it and the feel of it. Just finished Manhunt 2 on it the other day actually. So when a friend of mine saw that we had 2 PSP's and not enough controllers he said we could use them as controllers. He helped set it up. I was kind of embarrassed as I am usually the guy who knows how to almost set anything up. Mind you I did have to help him with the wireless router connection...lol. But it did feel better then. I think that's why MS is trying to get the controllers to be used ont he PC. Heck I almost went for it myself actually for UT3 as they have a special section for it or something. I forget...Need RAM! :lol:

I need to start playing aorund with my PSP and the PS3. Have you tried the remote gaming thingy yet? I think you can play some older PS1 games on the PSP from the PS3.

I must start using my PS3 more. So far there just have been to little games that have interested me as I rather have them on my 360. I as planning to get UT3 when I was in New York just before Christmas but I forgot it. And it's not out here yet. Thought it would be fun to compare it to the PC version.

[Sadasius]

Nah I haven't tried the remote gaming yet. Interested in finding out though. Will probably wait till this weekend to see what it can do. She has a whole bunch of PS1 and PS2 games so we will see. That would be cool if you could play multiplayer and instead of tiling the TV it would just play on the PSP.

[Frag Maniac]

Insults?, I was not the one calling anyone a fat man or asshole now was I? It appears you're saying this is a do as I say, not as I do forum. Go ahead and carry on with your hypocritical association giving preferential treatment to longer standing members whom directly insulted you vs my presenting an obvious point of visual differences without name calling. It's clear that for some reason you are singling me out here, but I simply care not to discuss anything with you any further SwedBear.

And if you have the sole authority to ban me over something as absurd as you've claimed, I feel this is indeed a forum not worth chatting on in the first place. It takes a lot more than starting a forum to make somone fair in how they conduct one. I don't see other staff here acting so childish. From now on I will just entirely ignore reading your posts since I can't put you on my ignore list. Like I said, there's nothing in them worth reading if you're going to act so silly and self righteous.

[Goliath182]

Id go with a 360 unless your a big fan of metal gear or killzone. Just about every other AAA PS3 title will be on 360. And no offence but PC gaming just hasnt been the same since the 90s. A lot of the best games that come out on consoles eather arrive late to rhe pc or not at all. But if you only want graphics go with a pc because consoles cant match a maxes out pc.

[SwedBear]

Frag: quit your whining. You cannot win this. In the end it is our forum and you accept the rules that we have when you join the forum. We pride ourselves of having a mature forum where there is little flaming and lots of helpfull people. We strive to have a friendly athmosphere and yet try not to moderate the forum heavy-handely. At times we get involved and try to make sure that discussions do not spin out of control but we very rarerly ban people or lock/delete threads.

Our dicsussion is still open and visible to everyone. You have not been silenced or forced to agree with anything. All you have been is told to change your tone and behaviour. It is as simple as that.

If you have a complaint towards me you are very welcome to contact Scott or Miles and tell them how mean I am. In fact, I invite anyone who do not want to openly say anything to PM me or anyone else in the staff if you have an opinion.

Now back to the actual topic in this thread.

/B

[Scott]

My door is always open to be talked too. That is unless it is closed. Which it has been alot of lately. Actually I think it is locked right now and I lost the key.

Oh well. Just knock and see what happens.

Thought this thread needed a little humor.

:offtopic:

Scott

[SwedBear]

Id go with a 360 unless your a big fan of metal gear or killzone. Just about every other AAA PS3 title will be on 360. And no offence but PC gaming just hasnt been the same since the 90s. A lot of the best games that come out on consoles eather arrive late to rhe pc or not at all. But if you only want graphics go with a pc because consoles cant match a maxes out pc.

I think 2008 will be the deciding year for the PS3. They need a lot of exclusives or at least great ports to start making the PS3 look like a better value than the 360. I also think they finally need to get Home going as well as get all the missing functionality in PSN working (like being able to bring up the X-bar inside games so you can send messages to friends while playing games).

In some way I think that NVIDIA and AMD are unintentionally pushing people towards consoles. I've noticed an increase of confusion amongst PC gaming friends who are getting more and more confused about wich of all the gazzilion models of video cards they should upgrade with. Just look at the 8x00 series. There now is 9 different cards in that series:

GeForce 8800 Ultra
GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB,320 MB)
GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8600 GT
GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 8400 GS

Ever more confusing is that the 8800GT is as fast or faster than the 8800GTS 320/640MB while the 8800GTS 512 MB is as fast as the 8800GTX.

Heck, even I am starting to be a bit confused on which card is faster than the other and how good they are in each games (I'm actually doing an article testing as many of these and AMD cards I can in a bunch of games). Imagine PC gamers that do not follow hardware sites religiously. Then add all the Series 7 cards and all AMD's cards and .... yup - it takes time to find the right card.

If you really are only interested in playing games then I find it quite natural to start looking towards the consoles as a lot of PC games now can be found there to.

As being said before, PC gamers can offer real good image quality on high-end machines. But I think that we on hardware sites like this have a tendency to forget that the vast majority of gamers do not have those machines. I took a look at the Valve hardware survey (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html) they run on Steam. 13th November => 2 January only 9% were using a GeForce 8800 card. The vast majority were running much slower cards. In fact, no 2-5 on the list was 7600, 6600, 8600 and 5200 (ouch).

So for the majority of Steam gamers they never will be near using the max quality of many games.

I do not think PC gaming ever will go away or "loose". Frag is correct that PC gaming IS more flexible as the keyboard/mouse makes it possible to have more complex controlls and games can offer superior graphics for those who have those high-end PC's. I also think there are genres that fit much better on PC's (RTS, MMORGS) as well as the fact that the PC does allow for mod-support.

Consoles though now, IMHO of course, also offer a rich gaming experience. Maybe different than PC but non-the-less a rich experience.

[borschtBomber[SS]]

SwedBear, you nail it right on the head. It is difficult to keep up with all of the many versions of video cards out right now, and IMO Nvidia is far guiltier of this than ATi/AMD right now. It's crazy rediculous trying to figure it all out when you think that you have 6 different models using 8800 alone.

See I personally cannot play FPS or RTS on a console. I can still play racing games with a gamepad though I prefer using my wheel on the PC. However we have a Wii, which I mainly use to play games with my kids and family. The more adult oriented games I play on my PC. Each has its place and quite honestly it sometimes gets tiring hearing (or reading) people trying to convice someone they should go one way or the other. To each his own. My brother prefer's gaming on consoles, I prefer PCs..but we also have different tastes in games and he prefer's not to have to tweak a game where as I don't mind it. :)

[Ranzear]

Too lazy to read five pages of fanboyisms.

Think of the 8800s as two classes, 90nm and 65nm (correct me on these, I remember a 75nm process but it may have been an ATI chip). The 65nm die shrink bumps every card up a class because of the lower TDP and leaner, cleaner build.

I'm looking to go to two 65nm 8800GTS 512mb cards when water blocks are released for them, but not likely any time soon without rethrottling my 401k aspirations.

As for PS3 vs 360, the price points were an incredible marketing scheme on M$'s part. $300 for a console, $150 for the wireless LAN, $200 or a higher core price for the harddrive, $170 for the HDDVD player that isn't even utilized for games, do the ****ing math. Too bad it all worked and people still think a PS3 is more expensive.

They don't compare to the XBOX vs PS2 days, the feature sets alone define them completely seperately.

[borschtBomber[SS]]

Think of the 8800s as two classes, 90nm and 65nm (correct me on these, I remember a 75nm process but it may have been an ATI chip). The 65nm die shrink bumps every card up a class because of the lower TDP and leaner, cleaner build.


Still doesn't change the fact that there are 6 different models using 8800 in the name. Thats confusing and stupid no matter how you look at it. ;)

[Sadasius]

It looks as though they are redoing the entire 8800 line up with the 65nm process. I bet you the 8800 GTX and Ultra will be next in the new process.

[SwedBear]

Too lazy to read five pages of fanboyisms.
Actually except from a few heated arguments there is quite little fanboyisn here, just opinions.


Think of the 8800s as two classes, 90nm and 65nm (correct me on these, I remember a 75nm process but it may have been an ATI chip). The 65nm die shrink bumps every card up a class because of the lower TDP and leaner, cleaner build.

The problem is that for the regular consumer there is no way they can from the name forgure out what is what. You and I know that the 8800GT and the 8800GTS 512 MB are the new G92 chips but for average consumer Joe he will see the 8800GTS 640 MB and the 8800GTS 512 MB and figure that 640 MB ir better than 512 MB.

I personally think NVIDIA should have gone with 8850GT and 8850GTS just to distinguish them from the "other" 8800 cards.



I'm looking to go to two 65nm 8800GTS 512mb cards when water blocks are released for them, but not likely any time soon without rethrottling my 401k aspirations.

The 8800GTS 512 MB really is a nice card at a great price.



As for PS3 vs 360, the price points were an incredible marketing scheme on M$'s part. $300 for a console, $150 for the wireless LAN, $200 or a higher core price for the harddrive, $170 for the HDDVD player that isn't even utilized for games, do the ****ing math. Too bad it all worked and people still think a PS3 is more expensive.

There's a bit of a difference here. Simply - these are extras. Not everyone needs a wireless adapter. Heck, I bought a cheap Linksys Gameadapter for 50$ that bridges wirelss to regular network and now I rather hook it up to my wired network anyway. As for the harddrive, if you can buy the 350$ 360 with 20 GB HD, why would you go for a 300$ 360 and then add 200$ for a harddrive? Again you also have a choice. I know a few people who apparently feel fine with the Core as they are not interested in downloading stuff. I would never buy the Core or the Arcade but at least there is a choice. As for the HD-DVD. Again, if you buy the console for games then it becomes an optional extra to go for HD-DVD or not. Not everyone is ready to take a stand in the HD-format war. Games are not suffering from the DVD.

The PS3 no doubt has a lot of great stuff in it. But the simple fact is that when it came out it was insanely expensive. And even now, with the cut down 40 GB version here in Sweden (no backwards compability, 40 GB HD, only 2 USB ports) it still is more expensive than both the Premium HDMI or the Elite. True, you do not get a HD-drive with the 360 but again, you have a choice.

As I said before I think 2008 will be the year which will decide the fate of the PS3. I think it will do just fine getting some good exclusives and hopefully some better multi-plattform ports (because up until now those ports have almost all been much better on the 360) but I do not think the PS3 will dominate over the 360 as the PS2 did over the PS2. Hopefully both consoles can live and prosper in the shadow of the Wii.

Oh, and writing M$, that's fanboyish ;).

[borschtBomber[SS]]

Hopefully both consoles can live and prosper in the shadow of the Wii.

lmao, that was probably the funniest thing to me how Microsoft and Sony both regarded Nintendo as no threat at all :wink:

[Sadasius]

I personally think NVIDIA should have gone with 8850GT and 8850GTS just to distinguish them from the "other" 8800 cards.


I could not agree more. Or even to promote their new process I would have went 8865GT, 8865 GTS, 8865 GTX and 8865 Ultra...Oops getting ahead of myself!

[borschtBomber[SS]]

haha, that would've been a great idea Sadasius...of course it would really only be enthusiasts that would get it...but still would be a nice thing to differentiate the products.

[mivanx77]

OMFG, PS3 = wifi, blu-ray, 1080p movies!!!

[dumdum]

just to tell you that remembering 1080p is the best