View Full Version : Why the hate for the consoles?


LordRahl
May 14, 2008, 04:38 PM
PC gamers brought this onto themselves.

There is only one major reason for game industry moving away from the PC market and towards the consoles. Piracy. I've read somewhere almost 90% of games for PC's are being pirated. So what there are more PC's out there than consoles, when the companies can't make money on their games, because people copy them instead of buying them.

On the other hand, piracy is much less common on consoles, especially the new generation - and virtually non-existent for PS3 (their encryption scheme has yet to be hacked, despite almost 2 years on the market).

I was always a big PC fan. I kept building/upgrading mine at home with latest hardware for over a decade. I hated consoles as an inferior, overpriced machine. It all changed when I got a PS3 almost a year ago. I bought it because I knew Blue-Ray is going to take over sooner or later, and didn't care that much about games.

But soon enough, I realized that a console has many advantages to a computer, especially as far as Multiplayer games are concerned. First of all - I can play everything on my big-screen, and not have to worry about resolution compatibility, or keeping my PC rig next to the TV. The whole GUI is much sleeker too, and fits more with the whole home-theater theme. And I can play while laying down on my couch, instead of sitting at the desk.

Finally - exclusive titles, like Uncharted, Grand Tourismo, Eye of Judgment, GTA4, can only be found on a console, and not PC.

I believe that is the direction the market will be heading in. You can see how much money is being made on console games. At the very best PC users can expect mediocre ports a year or two later, if that. Sure PC's still have the edge as far as strategy games go - but for how long? I already have a wireless keyboard, with a touchpad for my PS3. I'm glad my favorite game (Civ), is making it onto my favorite system. Hopefully more will follow.

BaconLad
May 14, 2008, 08:22 PM
99% agree with you.

all i would say is that on a personal level i feel that the industry is swaying towards consoles not because of piracy, but because there is only so much you can get from strategy games (which dominate the pc format). there is a massive sense of achievement involved with games like civ...
but console gaming can give you an incredibly deep experiance that stems around unique story telling and character development that can now rival hollywood productions.
uncharted, heavenly sword, resistance, and assasins creed for example (to name but a few) were like imerssive interactive movies. ive never got that from my pc, i get it regulary from my ps3 and i genuinely feel sad when i finish a game because it's over. thats why i go out and buy another game - repeat the experiance. and they just keep getting better and better...
ive spent more money on ps3 games in the last 18months than i have on pc games (never copys) in the last 5 years. and im sure that im not the only one.
i wouldnt say that the pc is in decline, but i would say there is probably more demand for the experiance a console offers. (just my opinion)

Civfan333
May 15, 2008, 08:02 PM
Hello, crysis anyone? The best graphics ever so far, and top-of-the-line computers have better graphics than any PS3...World of Warcraft is also NEVER coming to consoles...

Schuesseled
May 16, 2008, 09:22 AM
world of warcraft is rubbish.

You'd have to remortgage your house to get a top-of-the-line pc.

Consoles are so much more practical, but i prefer to use both.

Bigfoot3814
May 16, 2008, 10:39 AM
I don't think you should expect CivRevolution to be on the same level of depth and complexity that the PC games are. This will probably end up a more arcadey version.

A lot of people don't like this because they feel the game is being cheapened. Like Battlefield 2 on consoles.

BaconLad
May 16, 2008, 10:59 AM
Hello, crysis anyone? The best graphics ever so far, and top-of-the-line computers have better graphics than any PS3...World of Warcraft is also NEVER coming to consoles...

can the ps3 compete with a top of the range pc?
i got more than just a normal console when i parted with my 425quid.

crysis has got stunning graphics, no doubt about that.
it is scheduled to be released on ps3 sometime next year, so when it comes out we will know just how much the ps3 can compare with a top of the line pc...
but gaming isnt always about graphics. if it plays good - thats fantastic.
if it looks good -thats a bonus.

also, console gamers dont want world of warcraft...

Helmling
May 16, 2008, 11:02 AM
99% agree with you.

all i would say is that on a personal level i feel that the industry is swaying towards consoles not because of piracy, but because there is only so much you can get from strategy games (which dominate the pc format). there is a massive sense of achievement involved with games like civ...
but console gaming can give you an incredibly deep experiance that stems around unique story telling and character development that can now rival hollywood productions.
uncharted, heavenly sword, resistance, and assasins creed for example (to name but a few) were like imerssive interactive movies. ive never got that from my pc, i get it regulary from my ps3 and i genuinely feel sad when i finish a game because it's over. thats why i go out and buy another game - repeat the experiance. and they just keep getting better and better...
ive spent more money on ps3 games in the last 18months than i have on pc games (never copys) in the last 5 years. and im sure that im not the only one.
i wouldnt say that the pc is in decline, but i would say there is probably more demand for the experiance a console offers. (just my opinion)

I found the titles you mentioned to, like all single-player action games, devolve into tedious exercises in redundancy. Take Assassin's Creed: "Oh, this time I have to kill 10 Templars instead of 7..." That's what passes for "immersive interactive movies?" So far, the video game industry has not found a way for complex storylines to exist in games as anything but scripts that the player is led through like a bull with a bit in his nose.

Not so with strategy titles like Civ--and I may be out of touch with the actual numbers but I seriously doubt strategy titles "dominate" PC gaming--which generate a different "story" with each play.

What we really need is for games--PC and console--to grow out of the molds that have been set down and limited the growth of interactive entertainment as an art form for a decades now. Take the FPS. It's such a rut. The gameplay dynamic has not changed significantly since Doom. Yes, there are flashier graphics, more complex weapons, but ultimately the single-player FPS always ends up being a (usually long) series of trial and error to solve some contrived puzzle to get a door open in order to figure out, through trial and error, exactly how to kill the particular enemies in that particular room. The only FPS single-player game I've bothered to complete in recent memory is CoD4, and that was only because I read in advance that it was mercifully short. Even so, it took me about 45 minutes to finally successfully storm that damned missile silo at the end.

Civ struggles free of that mold through open gameplay. I'm looking forward to Spore because I hope it will do the same, but I think I've bought my last FPS.

BaconLad
May 16, 2008, 02:40 PM
I found the titles you mentioned to, like all single-player action games, devolve into tedious exercises in redundancy. Take Assassin's Creed: "Oh, this time I have to kill 10 Templars instead of 7..." That's what passes for "immersive interactive movies?" So far, the video game industry has not found a way for complex storylines to exist in games as anything but scripts that the player is led through like a bull with a bit in his nose.

Not so with strategy titles like Civ--and I may be out of touch with the actual numbers but I seriously doubt strategy titles "dominate" PC gaming--which generate a different "story" with each play.

What we really need is for games--PC and console--to grow out of the molds that have been set down and limited the growth of interactive entertainment as an art form for a decades now. Take the FPS. It's such a rut. The gameplay dynamic has not changed significantly since Doom. Yes, there are flashier graphics, more complex weapons, but ultimately the single-player FPS always ends up being a (usually long) series of trial and error to solve some contrived puzzle to get a door open in order to figure out, through trial and error, exactly how to kill the particular enemies in that particular room. The only FPS single-player game I've bothered to complete in recent memory is CoD4, and that was only because I read in advance that it was mercifully short. Even so, it took me about 45 minutes to finally successfully storm that damned missile silo at the end.

Civ struggles free of that mold through open gameplay. I'm looking forward to Spore because I hope it will do the same, but I think I've bought my last FPS.

i played through assasins creed twice, and experianced something different both times. theres a hell of a lot more to it than killing 7 templars - then killing 10......................................
theres plenty of different ways to finish each mission, and theres a really unique story line going on - in 2 different eras (past and present)
the story drives you to keep playing, to uncover just what the hell is going on...

"So far, the video game industry has not found a way for complex storylines to exist in games as anything but scripts that the player is led through like a bull with a bit in his nose.".

That's what passes for "immersive interactive movies?".

you have obviously never played - ico, shadow of the colososs, final fantasy, gta, manhunt, okami, metal gear solid, resident evil... i found these storylines more rich and engrossing than anything to come out of hollywood because rather than an observer, i was a participant in the story.

im not saying civ is bad, i love civ, i jst find console gaming on the whole is better than pc gaming, but as i said in a earlier post, this is just MY OPINION.
what ever you prefer is fine.

Civfan333
May 16, 2008, 04:04 PM
crysis has got stunning graphics, no doubt about that. it is scheduled to be released on ps3 sometime next year, so when it comes out we will know just how much the ps3 can compare with a top of the line pc...but gaming isnt always about graphics. if it plays good - thats fantastic. if it looks good -thats a bonus.
also, console gamers dont want world of warcraft...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Crysis is NEVER coming to consoles...

Thrallia
May 16, 2008, 04:59 PM
Crytek has repeatedly stated Crysis will not come to consoles ever...and even if it did, they would be putting it on the 360 because it is easier to port to(and just as powerful)

BaconLad
May 17, 2008, 12:54 AM
Crytek has repeatedly stated Crysis will not come to consoles ever...and even if it did, they would be putting it on the 360 because it is easier to port to(and just as powerful)

well, according to psm3 magazine, someone from the developers of crysis, (during an interview) that a ps3 and 360 port was in the works and well under way...

Sub
May 17, 2008, 03:09 AM
Everyone should check out Stardocks (creators of gal civ) view on piracy. You might not agree with it, but it is a good read.

http://forums.galciv2.com/303512

Thrallia
May 17, 2008, 04:37 AM
well, according to psm3 magazine, someone from the developers of crysis, (during an interview) that a ps3 and 360 port was in the works and well under way...

yes...I'm gonna believe a magazine that is paid for by Sony over the people that actually made the game...

Thrallia
May 17, 2008, 04:40 AM
can the ps3 compete with a top of the range pc?
i got more than just a normal console when i parted with my 425quid.


When it came out, yes it could...now it cannot. DirectX10 pushed PCs past the PS3 and X360.

Yes, you got more than just a normal console, you got a console and a Blu-Ray player...that's about it though...you paid extra to get the Blu-Ray player, btw. You could have gotten a better console for cheaper by getting the 360 ;)(prepares for inevitable onslaught of attacks)

warpstorm
May 17, 2008, 07:18 AM
I don't know if Crysis is being made for the PS3, but Crytek is definitely making something for the PS3 as they are actively hiring PS3 programmers.

http://www.crytek.com/jobs/frankfurt/ps3-programmer/

BaconLad
May 17, 2008, 10:56 AM
yes...I'm gonna believe a magazine that is paid for by Sony over the people that actually made the game...

psm3 magazine is a unofficial mag, it doesnt recieve any funding what so ever from sony, and the info was provided by one of the lead developers of crysis.

BaconLad
May 17, 2008, 11:16 AM
When it came out, yes it could...now it cannot. DirectX10 pushed PCs past the PS3 and X360.

Yes, you got more than just a normal console, you got a console and a Blu-Ray player...that's about it though...you paid extra to get the Blu-Ray player, btw. You could have gotten a better console for cheaper by getting the 360 ;)(prepares for inevitable onslaught of attacks)


theres regular firmware updates that are free (yes, thats rite, ps3 owners can update/upgrade for free) these increase the performance of the machine. which at the moment is only operating at about 35percent of it's maximum capabillity. just think whats to come in the next 2/3 years.

ive owned 2 360's which in the opinion of most are poorly and cheaply manufactured, they both died after a few months and i wasnt that impressed with them anyway, theres a 30percent failure rate for the 360 compared to 3percent for the ps3 and i think the ps3 is superb.
microsoft make a bigger profit per unit sale than sony do on there machines, because sony used better quality components.
xbox live admittedly is better than the psn network, but you would expect microsoft to provide a better internet service than sony, but sony give us the psn network for free...

Yes, you got more than just a normal console, you got a console and a Blu-Ray player...that's about it though...you paid extra to get the Blu-Ray player)

decent blu ray players are actually pretty expensive, buying a ps3 solely as a blu ray player wouldnt be a bad investment. but thers more to a ps3 than that, your ps3 can do just about anything that a mac can.
if you really wanted to, it could double up as a pc (with linux) remember the ps3 has 8 processers, so it can be pretty powerful. much more than a 360.

warpstorm
May 17, 2008, 12:08 PM
microsoft make a bigger profit per unit sale than sony do on there machines, because sony used better quality components.

What profit are you talking about? Sony still loses over $100 dollars for each PS3 sold (I've heard recent estimates that it is much higher than this). I think Microsoft still loses money on each 360 sold also, but they were getting very close to break even last I heard.

Sony lost around $1.2 Billion last year on their games division (which is a big improvement over the $2 billion they lost the year before). With any luck next year they will get costs down low enough to turn a profit.


theres regular firmware updates that are free (yes, thats rite, ps3 owners can update/upgrade for free)


What is the big deal? 360 owners also get free updates (usually every quarter). My laptop also has free firmware updates and patches.

The biggest things that I see making the PS3 hard to work with (besides the substandard tools that Sony sells developers) are the aforementioned 8 processors (this is a simplification of the true architecture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29) which are hard to get the best performance out of and the limit of 256 MBs of RAM (the other RAM is dedicated to GPU) as opposed to the unified 512 MBs that the 360 uses (allowing a developer to budget the RAM between CPU and GPU at their discretion).

I am not slamming the PS3, it is a good machine (if somewhat harder to program for than the 360). If Microsoft doesn't come out with a new machine in a few years, it will likely become the dominant console for hardcore gamers in that time frame. (The Wii is looking poised to be the overall dominant console).

Schuesseled
May 17, 2008, 12:51 PM
What profit are you talking about? Sony still loses over $100 dollars for each PS3 sold (I've heard recent estimates that it is much higher than this). I think Microsoft still loses money on each 360 sold also, but they were getting very close to break even last I heard.

Sony lost around $1.2 Billion last year on their games division (which is a big improvement over the $2 billion they lost the year before). With any luck next year they will get costs down low enough to turn a profit.



What is the big deal? 360 owners also get free updates (usually every quarter). My laptop also has free firmware updates and patches.

The biggest things that I see making the PS3 hard to work with (besides the substandard tools that Sony sells developers) are the aforementioned 8 processors (this is a simplification of the true architecture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29) which are hard to get the best performance out of and the limit of 256 MBs of RAM (the other RAM is dedicated to GPU) as opposed to the unified 512 MBs that the 360 uses (allowing a developer to budget the RAM between CPU and GPU at their discretion).

I am not slamming the PS3, it is a good machine (if somewhat harder to program for than the 360). If Microsoft doesn't come out with a new machine in a few years, it will likely become the dominant console for hardcore gamers in that time frame. (The Wii is looking poised to be the overall dominant console).

thats the most rediculous thing i'v ever heard, you can't lose money on something and break even.

When P < VC, your screwed, if your talking P < AC then thats fine, fixed costs can be re-couperated in the long-run. Besides that he didn't say sony was making profits, he said they were losing more money on each console (again comepletley wrong, they are just not making as much profit) becasue they are of higher quality and have higher costs, now tihs also porbably incorrect, they probably have jsut as much mark-up on thier console and microsoft, it's jsut gonna take them longer to pay off the cost of development, because they also spent more on that.

warpstorm
May 17, 2008, 01:59 PM
thats the most rediculous thing i'v ever heard, you can't lose money on something and break even.

I meant that the cost (to produce) per unit was finally getting to the point where they (Microsoft) were no longer losing money for each one sold. I should have been more clear.

Yes, both Microsoft and Sony run their games divisions at a loss for a few years when they introduce new machines (Nintendo doesn't believe in this and always sells their machines for more than they cost to produce - since their company is their games division this makes sense).

Google it if you don't believe. Working in the industry as I do, I believe.

ps3 loss per unit

and

360 loss per unit

or even

sony game division loss

should do the trick.

The strategy they are following is to take a loss on the consoles for a few years, but make money later by taking a substantial cut of all software sales (and hardware add-ons, for example controllers) on that console.

BaconLad
May 17, 2008, 03:11 PM
just to clarify what i actually ment by saying that microsoft make more profit per unit sale than sony, becuse sony use better quality components.

by this i mean, it costs sony more money to make a ps3 than it costs microsoft to make a 360, because of the difference in the component quality used to manufacture them.
you could argue that the 360 is inferior tot he ps3 in that respect.

so microsoft should turn a bigger profit in a shorter space of time. but at what cost to the consumer? if you want quality and can afford it, buy from sony.

where i live, alot of people (well to do people - good jobs, big houses) see the 360 linked with younger, scruffy undesirable gamers, that you wouldnt want living next door to you. bad sterotype to have. (not my views/opinion)

it's like the car you drive, the clothes you wear, the house you live in, the places you go to, where you take your holidays...

thats just the way people think (not me personally - each to there own)

this is how bad the world is, my 15yr old brother demanded a ps3 shortly after they was launched because someone he knew at his school was frowned upon because he couldnt afford a ps3 and got a 360 instead, how sick is that! i actually remember being teased at school, becuase all the kids had sega mega drives and i had a nes...

im not sure what point im trying to make (if any) just make the most of what youve got. there both great machines.

Thrallia
May 18, 2008, 04:07 PM
I don't know if Crysis is being made for the PS3, but Crytek is definitely making something for the PS3 as they are actively hiring PS3 programmers.

http://www.crytek.com/jobs/frankfurt/ps3-programmer/

psm3 magazine is a unofficial mag, it doesnt recieve any funding what so ever from sony, and the info was provided by one of the lead developers of crysis.

how's about a quote directly from the head honcho of Crytek regarding Crysis?

"Crysis, developed by German studio Crytek and released in late 2007, was one of the most highly praised PC-exclusive games last year. It won GameSpot's Best of 2007 Editors' Choice award for Best PC Game and a host of other gongs.

However, it seems that all is not rosy at Crytek HQ in Germany. The studio's director and founder, Cevat Yerli, recently spoke out about the problems currently besetting his firm, PC gaming in general, and how Crytek plans to address the issues it faces.

In an interview with Croatian magazine PC Play, Yerli said, "We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin... PC gamers that pirate games, inherently destroy the platform.

"Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us, and I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore."

When asked if this meant that the rumours of Crysis coming to consoles were correct, Yerli simply stated that the port would be "impossible," saying that the game would have to be "largely changed to bring it to Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3," and that Crytek's "internal focus is not linked to bring Crysis to consoles.""

Thrallia
May 18, 2008, 04:18 PM
theres regular firmware updates that are free (yes, thats rite, ps3 owners can update/upgrade for free) these increase the performance of the machine. which at the moment is only operating at about 35percent of it's maximum capabillity. just think whats to come in the next 2/3 years.

ive owned 2 360's which in the opinion of most are poorly and cheaply manufactured, they both died after a few months and i wasnt that impressed with them anyway, theres a 30percent failure rate for the 360 compared to 3percent for the ps3 and i think the ps3 is superb.
microsoft make a bigger profit per unit sale than sony do on there machines, because sony used better quality components.
xbox live admittedly is better than the psn network, but you would expect microsoft to provide a better internet service than sony, but sony give us the psn network for free...



decent blu ray players are actually pretty expensive, buying a ps3 solely as a blu ray player wouldnt be a bad investment. but thers more to a ps3 than that, your ps3 can do just about anything that a mac can.
if you really wanted to, it could double up as a pc (with linux) remember the ps3 has 8 processers, so it can be pretty powerful. much more than a 360.

Yes, a PS3 as a blu-ray player is why there have been so many sold...I'd say roughly 75% of the PS3's my store sells are only used to play movies.

Xbox 360's get regular firmware/software updates as well, I'm not sure why you think that's only PS3s...and it doesn't matter what % of the cell processor is being used right now, the cell processor will never be anywhere near fully utilized in the PS3(which means it was a waste of money to bother putting it in in the first place) because of the sorry amount of RAM available to the CPU and the ridiculously low bus speed and bandwidths for sending data back and forth between the various processors in the PS3. That's why early high graphics games on the PS3 were broken(Lair), that's why you have to choose between 360 level graphics or 60 fps. That's why unless Sony redesigns it again in 3 years it will never last as long as the PS2 and PS1 did.

And for the record, I've never heard Sony's name used along with 'quality components'. The 360 does NOT have a 30% failure rate, it is more like 5-10%...but Microsoft gives a 1-3 year warranty, while Sony gives a meager 90 day warranty. So if you do have a problem with a 360, you'll likely get it fixed for free, but if you have a problem with a PS3, you'll have to pay for it.

As for how much they make on systems...Microsoft is currently making money on each system they sell, while Sony is losing 200 bucks per console...so sure, go ahead and buy a PS3....the more you buy, the faster Sony runs out of money :D

Thrallia
May 18, 2008, 04:22 PM
thats the most rediculous thing i'v ever heard, you can't lose money on something and break even.

When P < VC, your screwed, if your talking P < AC then thats fine, fixed costs can be re-couperated in the long-run. Besides that he didn't say sony was making profits, he said they were losing more money on each console (again comepletley wrong, they are just not making as much profit) becasue they are of higher quality and have higher costs, now tihs also porbably incorrect, they probably have jsut as much mark-up on thier console and microsoft, it's jsut gonna take them longer to pay off the cost of development, because they also spent more on that.

actually, Schuesseled, the only company that has ever reliably made a profit from their console is Nintendo...they always make a profit from day one. Microsoft started out with the 360 losing around 100 bucks per system, while Sony started out losing nearly 400 bucks per system.

The hope for console makers is to make back the money they lose on consoles with their royalties from sold games on their system. Microsoft has reached the point where they are making a lot of money reliably from the 360. Nintendo was always making tons of money from the Wii, and Sony is still bleeding money with the PS3 because there aren't enough worthwhile games out there that people want to buy for it, to make up for the money Sony is losing on each console.

just to clarify what i actually ment by saying that microsoft make more profit per unit sale than sony, becuse sony use better quality components.

by this i mean, it costs sony more money to make a ps3 than it costs microsoft to make a 360, because of the difference in the component quality used to manufacture them.
you could argue that the 360 is inferior tot he ps3 in that respect.

so microsoft should turn a bigger profit in a shorter space of time. but at what cost to the consumer? if you want quality and can afford it, buy from sony.

higher priced doesn't equal higher quality. The cell processor is no more powerful than the 360's processor thanks to the limitations of the rest of Sony's hardware, but it cost a heck of a lot more(and is more likely to fail, as it is new, experimental technology still). The cell processor and the blu-ray player are where the majority of sony's higher costs are located...so I don't see it as 'higher quality' I see it as adding unneccessary stuff.

BaconLad
May 19, 2008, 01:14 AM
The 360 does NOT have a 30% failure rate, it is more like 5-10%...but Microsoft gives a 1-3 year warranty, while Sony gives a meager 90 day warranty.

i baught a 360 on launch day, it had a 1yr warrenty, my 360 died within 6 months of purchase. microsoft put me in touch with a company that they use to fix the 360, they could NOT HONOUR THE WARRENTY because they was backed up with broken 360's they had to fix, so microsoft sent me a new 360 with a 1 yr warrenty, this one lasted a little bit longer but also died. microsoft again had to send me a new 360, this time it had a 3 yr warrenty, i sold it on ebay.... shortly after i saw i story on sky news, which stated microsoft was being threatend with legal action because of the number of people that only had 1 yr warrentys, who's 360's had conveniantly died just after the warrentys ran out... they also stated that the 360 had a 30 percent failure rate.

i baught a ps3 on launch day, it has a 1 YEAR WARRENTY, ive had it since the 23rd of march 2007 (uk launch date) and it works as well as ever.

BaconLad
May 19, 2008, 01:28 AM
higher priced doesn't equal higher quality.

why did microsoft release the higher priced xbox 360 elite?
was it to promote a higher standard 360?

the 360 does exactly what it says on the box, so does the ps3, there both great machines.

as a consumer, i feel more comfortable with sony. i know im getting quality.

christ, my ps1 still works perfectly after about 14yrs... i barely got 6 months from my 360...

Thrallia
May 19, 2008, 01:30 AM
it must be a store warranty, because Sony doesn't put a 1 year warranty on anything, not even their TVs.

And don't believe everything you see on tv, news stories are more about sensationalism than truthful statistics nowadays. Claiming 30% of systems are crashing is going to garner much more attention in the UK(where the 360 is considered anathema for some reason) than giving true figures(which a news organization wouldn't have access to anyway, only Microsoft does). Besides...Microsoft ate 1 billion bucks to cover repair expenses when they upgraded to a 3 year warranty...that's not equal to a 30% failure rate, that's much closer to 5-10% when you do the math.

Microsoft admitted they made mistakes with their early generations of the console, they changed how they were made, fixed the problems, and made sure that everyone who ever had a problem with a 360 was taken care of. That's a lot more than Sony ever did with their big paperweight called the PS2(now THAT had a 30% failure rate) I've had my 360 die on me, 6 months after I got it(got it used, it had been a launch system, so it died after nearly 2 years). I called Microsoft, got a box shipped to my house, sent it away, and got a brand new system in less than 2 weeks and less than 10 minutes on the phone. For you to have 2 systems die on you, even the launch generations of systems, is for you to have beaten the odds twice lol.

Thrallia
May 19, 2008, 01:32 AM
My PS1 works...very slowly and laggy. My PS2 still works also, but I'm in the minority there. You want a quality console, you should go with Nintendo...less than a .5% failure rate on every system they've ever made. My original Nintendo still works after 23 years!

BaconLad
May 19, 2008, 01:36 AM
My PS1 works...very slowly and laggy. My PS2 still works also, but I'm in the minority there. You want a quality console, you should go with Nintendo...less than a .5% failure rate on every system they've ever made. My original Nintendo still works after 23 years!

oh my god! so does mine!
forget all the next gen consoles, if you want real value for money get yourself a nes!!!

BaconLad
May 19, 2008, 02:18 AM
it must be a store warranty, because Sony doesn't put a 1 year warranty on anything, not even their TVs.

this is a quote from a section in the "safety and support" handbook that i just pulled out of my ps3 box.

"this guarantee is given to you, the first user of the product. it is personal to you, and can not be used by anyone else.
sony computer entertainment europe ltd (scee) guarantees that this product is free from defects in materials and workmanship that result in product failure during normal usage in accordance with the terms set out below and will, for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of original purchase, repair or (at scee's option) replace any component part of this product, free of charge, where it is faulty due to defective materials or workmanship. replacement will be with a new or refurbished component or unit at scee's option, which is guaranteed for the remainder of the original guarantee period."

so this should prove that sony do give yr long guarantees, but!!! further down on the same page it says.

"the benefits conferred by this guarantee are in addition to the statutory rights and remedies the consumer has in the uk and eire (ireland)"

so maybe those rights are different in the states?

when microsoft sent me a new 360, my guarantee was also renewed for that paticular 360, but it looks as if sony will only honour it for 1 yr, regardless of how many times they repair/replace your console. as soon as the yr is up on the original purchase date, your on your own. i might of had a lifetime guarantee with my 360's (unless microsoft have changed there policy)

Thrallia
May 19, 2008, 02:34 AM
Microsoft renews their warranty each time you get a new system, so yeah, you probably would've had a lifetime of warranties with them

And I think it must be a UK/Ireland thing, because Sony gives everything a 90 warranty in the US...I guess they consider Europe more important to court lol

Zelig
May 19, 2008, 08:52 AM
remember the ps3 has 8 processers, so it can be pretty powerful. much more than a 360.

Sure, if you want to just crunch numbers on parallel-processing optimized software.

For real games, the 360 consistently runs them at a higher resolution, with a better framerate.

DS_Legionary
May 19, 2008, 11:26 AM
I like how this thread went from being PC against consoles to a battle of the fanboys. Always happens I suppose.

Anywhoo I use both PC and console for my gaming needs. PC almost always provides a much more exciting multiplayer experience and better servers then consoles do, at least in my experience. The biggest downside to console multiplayer is the limited amount of people playing at the same time. I play BF2 (still) on PC and only play the big maps. It's that hectic sense of bullets flying around you all the time and always having to watch your back. Although I hear that there are some console game in dev for 60 player multi maps, so we shall see what happens there.

Then you've got strategy games. 99% of strategy games I prefer to play on the PC as well. This is just due to the limitations of a console controller. If a controller had as many easily accessible features as a keyboard and mouse did......I'd prolly play strategy games on a console.

Everything else is console for me. In the long run consoles are cheaper, more accessible to the masses and generally easier to use. I work tech support for my local cable company and you'd be surprised how few people actually know how to use their comp. I am astounded some of these people can feed themselves let alone find the power button sometimes if you catch my drift :) Consoles are just more user friendly. Pop the game in and it starts automatically. It's fool-proof (almost)

Now as far as this current generation of consoles go I'm a PS3 guy. I dislike the Wii due in large part to the selection of games. They are mostly kiddie games (some exceptions) and the novelty of the Wii-mote doesn't do it for me. The 360 is a piece of trash if you ask me. Everyone I know who has one has gotten the red light of doom at least once. 50% have gotten it more then once. I even worked with a guy who had it happen 9 times. That's unaccpetable for a console. I've never seen a PS3 die like a 360 (though I hear it does happen *crosses fingers it doesnt happen to me*), it's got an ok selection of games (only getting better if you ask me), blu-ray player and it's one of the most aesthetically pleasing peices of hardware I've ever purchased.

LordRahl
May 19, 2008, 12:51 PM
Yes, you got more than just a normal console, you got a console and a Blu-Ray player...that's about it though...you paid extra to get the Blu-Ray player, btw. You could have gotten a better console for cheaper by getting the 360 ;)(prepares for inevitable onslaught of attacks)

I see no point at all in getting a 360. The best combination is a powerful PC, and a PS3. Why? Exclusives. Any game that's out on 360, is going to end up on PC. PS3 exclusives on the other hand, are truly exclusive to PS3.

And Blue-Ray is just the deal maker. If I never played any games on my PS3, it would still be an awesome deal for the blue-ray alone.

cephalo
May 19, 2008, 01:28 PM
One big disadvantage that consoles have is that you can't buy a console and make games with it. The fact that computers are used for both playing and making games means that anyone with the necessary skills and some talent can create a computer game. Creating a console game requires considerably more capital investment and specialized knowledge of a particular hardware set. So much so that console game makers can't afford to take a risk and stray from a tried and true formula.

The only place where you can play cutting edge games is on the computer. Every game genre on consoles today came to computers first. So long as computers are the tools used for making games, they will be the source for everything new and untested. If computer games are in decline right now, just wait until console shooters and sports games start to get extremely stale and flame out. Then, computer games will make a comeback as the gaming audience looks for the next big thing.

Zelig
May 19, 2008, 02:20 PM
And Blue-Ray is just the deal maker. If I never played any games on my PS3, it would still be an awesome deal for the blue-ray alone.

Although if you have a PC anyway, you can just buy a blu-ray drive for $150, and hook up your PC to the big screen TV.

Sard
May 19, 2008, 02:27 PM
I'm a gamer! I love all game systems!

BaconLad
May 19, 2008, 02:34 PM
One big disadvantage that consoles have is that you can't buy a console and make games with it. The fact that computers are used for both playing and making games means that anyone with the necessary skills and some talent can create a computer game. Creating a console game requires considerably more capital investment and specialized knowledge of a particular hardware set. So much so that console game makers can't afford to take a risk and stray from a tried and true formula.

The only place where you can play cutting edge games is on the computer. Every game genre on consoles today came to computers first. So long as computers are the tools used for making games, they will be the source for everything new and untested. If computer games are in decline right now, just wait until console shooters and sports games start to get extremely stale and flame out. Then, computer games will make a comeback as the gaming audience looks for the next big thing.

google "yaroze". also, you can write programs/games on the ps3 with a little help from linux.

it depends what you mean by "cutting edge games"
in my opinion, cutting edge games = titles like uncharted, little big planet, mgs4.

lookback abit further, and theres god of war/2, mgs/2/3, ico, shadow of the colossos, okami

you may disagree, but we're all entitled to our opinion.
these games may have been desgined and made with the use of pc's but these games are console exclusive and will never be released on pc's.

theres more going on than "shooters and sports games"

ive always found "the next big thing" to be on consoles, starting about 20yrs ago with the likes of sonic and mario.

LordRahl
May 19, 2008, 03:22 PM
Every game genre on consoles today came to computers first.

Look-up Eye Of Judgment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP4TjzUfOeU&feature=related), and you'll see that consoles are pioneering new genres as well.

cephalo
May 19, 2008, 04:03 PM
it depends what you mean by "cutting edge games"
in my opinion, cutting edge games = titles like uncharted, little big planet, mgs4.

lookback abit further, and theres god of war/2, mgs/2/3, ico, shadow of the colossos, okami


These games are notable for their quality, but the gameplay is nothing that we haven't seen a thousand times. I played Okami all the way through and it was awsome because it had a great story and a great atmosphere, but gameplay wise, not very different from many things I have played on the pc in years past.

Here's the kind of thing that will never happen on consoles, which is why I'll always have a computer, and then get a console if I can find a good deal on one.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

BaconLad
May 19, 2008, 04:30 PM
These games are notable for their quality, but the gameplay is nothing that we haven't seen a thousand times. I played Okami all the way through and it was awsome because it had a great story and a great atmosphere, but gameplay wise, not very different from many things I have played on the pc in years past.

Here's the kind of thing that will never happen on consoles, which is why I'll always have a computer, and then get a console if I can find a good deal on one.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

i chose to list these games specificly because of there GAMEPLAY.
games like these, especially little big planet hasnt been seen "a thousand times before"
if so, then where the hell are they???

there have since been similar gameplay styles, eg, "mgs/2/3/4" - "splinter cell series"

you could argue that god of war is just a hack and slash, but it's so fluid, and the whole scale feels huge, giant monsters, different concepts, it is pretty unique.

other than that, you would struggle to compare anything to the other games i mentioned earlier.

ive got no idea what this orc fortress thing is, but it doesnt look like anyhing special. maybe nice to play, but it looks like it was made 25 yrs ago... it cant be better than civ

Civfan333
May 19, 2008, 09:09 PM
I'm a gamer! I love all game systems!
Good for you! one problem, most people can only afford ONE console, so they HAVE to believe it's the best so they start the console flamewars because they want THEIRS to be the best.

Sard
May 20, 2008, 10:30 AM
Good for you! one problem, most people can only afford ONE console, so they HAVE to believe it's the best so they start the console flamewars because they want THEIRS to be the best.

Well, I don't own them all myself but I respect each one for what they are. All systems have good things to offer depending what you like. I can understand your explanation for the flamewars though, many people need to justify their own decisions.

LordRahl
May 20, 2008, 11:11 AM
Good for you! one problem, most people can only afford ONE console, so they HAVE to believe it's the best so they start the console flamewars because they want THEIRS to be the best.

There's more to that, because one console may be better than the other depending on a particular user. For me Blue-ray was the selling point. But if you don't care about HiDef movies, then there's that much less that PS3 has to offer for you. I was also never into First Person Shooters - but if somebody is into that kind of games, they have even more reasons to go for XBOX.

LordRahl
May 20, 2008, 11:14 AM
Here's the kind of thing that will never happen on consoles, which is why I'll always have a computer, and then get a console if I can find a good deal on one.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

I used to play those games (NetHack anyone?), but quite frankly Oblivion on my console is a worthy replacement nowadays.

warpstorm
May 20, 2008, 12:18 PM
Dwarf Fortress is not in the same genre as Oblivion (although there is a scaled back mode that makes it like NetHack). The ASCII graphics are probably throwing you off. It is a city building (well, dwarven fortress building) game. The detail level in that game (DF) is utterly insane.

Thrallia
May 20, 2008, 02:52 PM
perhaps, but despite my claims about people judging games/systems by graphics...I can't play a game with ASCII graphics. I can play a game with no graphics, or I can play a game with real graphics...but that's it.

LordRahl
May 20, 2008, 03:04 PM
Dwarf Fortress is not in the same genre as Oblivion (although there is a scaled back mode that makes it like NetHack). The ASCII graphics are probably throwing you off. It is a city building (well, dwarven fortress building) game. The detail level in that game (DF) is utterly insane.

I'll stick to chess in that case. And to tell you the truth, if somebody comes up with web based version of that game, then you could still play it using your PS3...

cephalo
May 20, 2008, 04:04 PM
Dwarf Fortress is not in the same genre as Oblivion (although there is a scaled back mode that makes it like NetHack). The ASCII graphics are probably throwing you off. It is a city building (well, dwarven fortress building) game. The detail level in that game (DF) is utterly insane.

The thing about DF is that it is a labor of love, not.... labor. That's what you can get with computer games. Console games have to sell because there are shareholders involved that are absolutely against risk taking. With computer games you might get a thousand failed experiments along with one gem that changes everything.

Seven Cities of Gold, Sim City, Civilization, Wolfenstein 3D, Quake, Dune II, Ultima Online (actually Meridian59 was first but it was terrible).

Consoles can take an existing formula and improve on it, but doing so 5 years later is not 'cutting edge' in terms of gameplay.

cephalo
May 20, 2008, 04:11 PM
perhaps, but despite my claims about people judging games/systems by graphics...I can't play a game with ASCII graphics. I can play a game with no graphics, or I can play a game with real graphics...but that's it.

If you can find the patience to spend a whole evening with DF and it's klunky intereface, I bet it wouldn't be your last. You'd be amazed at how ASCII can become your reality.

warpstorm
May 20, 2008, 04:43 PM
You can replace the ASCII with little tiled graphics.

Thrallia
May 21, 2008, 03:11 AM
ascii could never become my life...I think ascii graphics are horrible....they are high on initiative and creativity...low on readability and on me caring about them.

Civfan333
May 22, 2008, 12:35 AM
I agree with Thrallia....

cephalo
May 22, 2008, 07:47 AM
I agree with Thrallia....

So you guys wanna talk about gameplay, and you won't even try a free game because of it's graphics? I'm not knocking you guys, I too was very skeptical at first.

ASCII may seem primitive, but it's taken to an art form here. One glance at the screen and you can tell whos thirsty, hungry, depressed, crazy... how the air smells, how deep the water is, what species of tree something is, anything you can imagine. In a communicative sense, it shows more detail than normal graphics. Once you get some familarity with the symbolism, you only notice the situation in all of it's depth, not the graphics.

I was very surprised by that myself.

LordRahl
May 22, 2008, 08:20 AM
Here's an example of a free, community created game, with great graphics:
http://www.wesnoth.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIt69vznegs

In this day an age, adding a nice user interface is not that hard, but greatly improves overall experience.

kensington888
May 22, 2008, 08:57 AM
i like everything.

Civfan333
May 22, 2008, 04:20 PM
So you guys wanna talk about gameplay, and you won't even try a free game because of it's graphics? I'm not knocking you guys, I too was very skeptical at first.
I don't care how weird the graphics are, besides, you can get free games even free MMORPG's that have GREAT graphics...it's just that kind of artform is just too weird for me...

Jolly Rogerer
May 23, 2008, 01:01 AM
Why the hate for consoles? Dumbed down games, and often dumbed down gamers clogging up game sites with inane questions rife with misspellings and no punctuation.

The reason consoles exist isn't piracy, it's about control. In this instance Microsoft and Sony's desire to control software and software development through hardware. This is a paradigm that Apple has been trying to establish unsuccessfully for decades. The PC has been a worthy opponent thus far, and I hope that it continues to keep its would-be masters at bay. If it falls to the inroads made by Apple and the consoles etc., you'll see exactly the same mediocrity and expense that characterize Microsoft's product line become the standard across the board.

GVBN
May 23, 2008, 03:49 AM
Consoles are good if you like crappy games and outdated technology

azzaman333
May 23, 2008, 10:28 AM
Personally, the only console I would not buy out of the Wii, 360 and PS3 is the PS3. Partially because I despise Sony's tactic of using their console to win the HD format war, and partially because I'm not a fan of RPGs which is the main drawcard of the PS3. Plus, the 360 is cheaper than the PS3 and they both share a large number of games with each other anyway, and the sixaxis is a chunkier PS2 controller with a useless motion-sensor (which I find incredibly uncomfortable).

Schuesseled
May 23, 2008, 10:57 AM
Consoles are good if you like crappy games and outdated technology

ahem GTA 4

Thrallia
May 23, 2008, 03:11 PM
Personally, the only console I would not buy out of the Wii, 360 and PS3 is the PS3. Partially because I despise Sony's tactic of using their console to win the HD format war, and partially because I'm not a fan of RPGs which is the main drawcard of the PS3. Plus, the 360 is cheaper than the PS3 and they both share a large number of games with each other anyway, and the sixaxis is a chunkier PS2 controller with a useless motion-sensor (which I find incredibly uncomfortable).

Actually, right now the PS3 has only one RPG on it, while the 360 has a whole bunch of really good ones :) But all your other points are valid and I agree with them(and would add that while they share a bunch of games, I find the 360 has better exclusives)

Consoles are good if you like crappy games and outdated technology

Funny...the 360 and PS3 are more powerful than the recommended requirements for Civ4, and could likely play Crysis better than 80% of computers(if it was coded for them, that is)...and the Wii has entirely new technology that's never been used before in video games.

Why the hate for consoles? Dumbed down games, and often dumbed down gamers clogging up game sites with inane questions rife with misspellings and no punctuation.


You seriously think there are no dumbed down gamers or games on the PC, and that PC gamers actually know how to spell and punctuate? I highly disagree with you...I find I'm generally in the minority in keeping good grammar when typing online.

So you guys wanna talk about gameplay, and you won't even try a free game because of it's graphics? I'm not knocking you guys, I too was very skeptical at first.

ASCII may seem primitive, but it's taken to an art form here. One glance at the screen and you can tell whos thirsty, hungry, depressed, crazy... how the air smells, how deep the water is, what species of tree something is, anything you can imagine. In a communicative sense, it shows more detail than normal graphics. Once you get some familarity with the symbolism, you only notice the situation in all of it's depth, not the graphics.

I was very surprised by that myself.

I talk gameplay, and I talk down graphics...but no matter how good that game may be, I can't get past ASCII graphics. I've tried to play a number of ASCII graphics games in the past, and I just can't do it. I agree ASCII graphics are an art form...that may be why I can't stand them. I hate art. lol

bob_x
May 25, 2008, 11:45 AM
PC gamers brought this onto themselves.

There is only one major reason for game industry moving away from the PC market and towards the consoles. Piracy.

Actually, I think the reason is that console games work out of the box, while you often have to spend hours figuring out why the game won't work with your PC hardware.

And there's also the problem that games, even Civ4, come out running only on the latest most expensive PCs.

Zelig
May 25, 2008, 12:24 PM
ahem GTA 4

Which is going to look better and run better on PC when it gets released. GTA4 averages under 30 fps on the 360 (better than the PS3) at 1280x720 (also better than the PS3). Expect nice PCs to push 60 fps at 1920x1200.

Funny...the 360 and PS3 are more powerful than the recommended requirements for Civ4, and could likely play Crysis better than 80% of computers(if it was coded for them, that is)...and the Wii has entirely new technology that's never been used before in video games.

80%+ of computers are meant for office work, so that's to be expected. As it currently stands, a $140 PC video card has more power than a console, and a high-end PC easily doubles that graphical ability.

I talk gameplay, and I talk down graphics...but no matter how good that game may be, I can't get past ASCII graphics. I've tried to play a number of ASCII graphics games in the past, and I just can't do it. I agree ASCII graphics are an art form...that may be why I can't stand them. I hate art. lol

Agreed, ASCII symbols are completely arbitrary, and translate poorly into representing graphics. A limited number of sprites/tiles replacing ASCII symbols can be much more intuitive.

And there's also the problem that games, even Civ4, come out running only on the latest most expensive PCs.

That is in no way accurate, Civ4 runs fine on mid-range PCs that are 3-4 years old. High-end PCs from 2002, six years ago, meet the recommended requirements for Civ4.

Thrallia
May 26, 2008, 02:53 AM
really? you can get a graphics card for $140 that's twice as powerful as the most powerful one that was available in 2006?

blunt3d
May 26, 2008, 03:14 AM
I got both pc and a 360,i just think pc game sells have fallen because of the high requirements some of the top pc games have for you to play on the best settings and the hassle sometimes you have to go through to upgrade you're pc every couple of years:badcomp:. I just think everything is getting really expensive. I still love playing turn based games on my pc though because i can take my time and most of them dont need alot resources to run but when it comes to fast paced games i rather play them on a console where i can relax in my couch with a controller and just pop in the game and start playing alone or with friends.[pimp]

Zelig
May 26, 2008, 06:53 AM
really? you can get a graphics card for $140 that's twice as powerful as the most powerful one that was available in 2006?

Not sure where the 2006 date comes in to play, and I said the $140 card was simply more powerful, not twice as powerful. And actually, drop that to $130, I see the card available cheaper.

Anyhow, PS3 card is a variant of the Geforce 7 cards, falls between the 7800 GTX and 7900 GTX in power.

PS3 RSX: 500 MHz core, 256MB 128-bit 700 MHz memory, 24 pixel shaders, 8 vertex shaders, 24 texture mapping units, 8 render output units
Geforce 7900 GTX: 650 MHz core, 512MB 256-bit 800 MHz memory, 24 pixel shaders, 8 vertex shaders, 24 texture mapping units, 16 render output units

The 360 card is an ATI card, approximately similar to the R600 cards, but DX9.

Xenos: 500 MHz core, 512MB 128-bit 700 MHz memory, 48 unified shaders, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units

There's a lack of real similar desktop cards available to compare with (could go with the 3650, although more powerful, it would prove my point), so I'll just assume the 360 GPU is 15% faster than the PS3 one. (Going by the mean of these (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829&page=4) frame rate results).

Going by the tomshardware GPU charts, for overall FPS in all games:
7900 GTX (already more powerful than the PS3): 1612.40
Estimated Xenos score (15% greater than the 7900 GTX): 1854.26

The 9600 GT is slightly faster than the ATI HD3870, which scores 1839.90 on the tomshardware charts.

Thrallia
May 26, 2008, 02:36 PM
well, I ask about twice as powerful as the most powerful card available in 2006, because that's how powerful the 360 and PS3 graphics cards are supposed to be(according to the respective companies)...twice as powerful as the top of the line in 2006, when they were released.

Zelig
May 26, 2008, 02:43 PM
well, I ask about twice as powerful as the most powerful card available in 2006, because that's how powerful the 360 and PS3 graphics cards are supposed to be(according to the respective companies)...twice as powerful as the top of the line in 2006, when they were released.

They aren't, if you look at the specs, or measure their performance, they're very similar to top of the line cards released at the same time. (ie. 7900 GTX)

If NVidia or ATI were able to make significantly more powerful cards for the consoles at the time, they would have released variants for PC use as well.

edit: NVidia actually made the claim that the RSX would be twice as powerful as 6800 Ultra, which is fairly accurate, athough the 6800 Ultra was released in 2004.

Thrallia
May 26, 2008, 02:51 PM
ah, ok...so that must have just been one-up-manship or something when they both started bragging about super powerful cards lol

Schuesseled
May 27, 2008, 05:22 AM
Which is going to look better and run better on PC when it gets released. GTA4 averages under 30 fps on the 360 (better than the PS3) at 1280x720 (also better than the PS3). Expect nice PCs to push 60 fps at 1920x1200.


i never said that gta 4 wouldn't look better on pc's.

besides the fact that it probably wouldn't look better on the majority of pc's, most of which wouldn't be able to run it, and that's even if it came out for pc's.

azzaman333
May 27, 2008, 06:12 AM
i never said that gta 4 wouldn't look better on pc's.

besides the fact that it probably wouldn't look better on the majority of pc's, most of which wouldn't be able to run it, and that's even if it came out for pc's.

Zelig already addressed that most pc's aren't designed for gaming. Making the bolded part completely moot. And the part I've underlined? Of course it will come out on PC, what was the last GTA game which hasnt been ported to PC?

LordRahl
May 28, 2008, 04:16 PM
I enjoy GTA4, Grand Tourismo and Eye of Judgment on my PS3, while still playing Civ 4 on my PC. I get the best of both worlds.

And yes - Piracy is #1 reason for decline of PC gaming. Game developers are out there to make money, not be your friends. If 90% of your product is being stolen on the market - you move to a different one.

PC is not cheaper. Try putting a PC together today, with all the features included in PS3, for the same price - you can't. You won't be even able to do it for double the price. Blue-ray player alone will cost you what PS3 does.

grommit5
May 28, 2008, 11:20 PM
this is the most hilarious thread i have read in a long time. you're all really funny.

IMHO none of these are really comparable.

the 360 you all praise as better and cheaper than a PS3 doesn't come with a HD drive so how can you compare. Do i really save any money buy the time i put a HD drive on it? no, not really.

most people i know that bought a PS3 didn't but it for the games, they bought it for the Bluray to play movies. cheapest way to get HD. games are just an added benefit although i have found some good ones.

Wii sells so well because of price. it was never intended to be high end. it does however provide an extremely interactive game play. mariocart, super smash brothers, Wii fit.

pc's have thier own market and you don't really have to break the bank to get something that will play most new games extremely well. the $2000 pc (far from high end) i bought 2 years ago is working well and i haven't found anything yet it won't play. 2.66 dual core, ati x1900 with 512 meg and 2 gig ram. i'm not into run and shoot. getting to old for that twitch and click stuff. prefer turn based stratagy although i do like Oblivion and prefer it on the PC over PS3.

each has it's own advantages and disadvantages and i hope they all continue to thrive and grow.

GAME ON, NEVER GAME OVER!!!

PutCashIn
May 29, 2008, 12:47 AM
So, erm, will civRev only be realeased on the consoles?

warpstorm
May 29, 2008, 08:35 AM
So, erm, will civRev only be realeased on the consoles?

In a word, yes.

Civfan333
May 29, 2008, 01:48 PM
because, CIV 5 IS GONNA OWN!!

Jayjay72
May 29, 2008, 10:27 PM
I cant even express what a joke my anticipation level went into the toilet.
Console? What a joke! I have xbox360 and ps3 and pc and who the hell
would want to play it on damn console specially multi player. Sid you lost
a huge fan my man... Redeem yourself with civ 5 for pc only!

Jolly Rogerer
May 30, 2008, 01:27 AM
You seriously think there are no dumbed down gamers or games on the PC, and that PC gamers actually know how to spell and punctuate? I highly disagree with you...I find I'm generally in the minority in keeping good grammar when typing online.



Wow, you really beat the hell out of that strawman. I don't know why you ascribe to me something I did not say. You quoted me so I have to assume that you read what I said. Let me clarify so you can respond to a genuine opinion rather than one you made up.

I know for a fact that their are lazy, stupid unlettered barbarians who play PC games. But I also know that these types are even more common in the console world. People joke about it constantly on game sites dedicated to games which have been released on both types of system. You would regularly see more or less the same post written in the form of a text message asking:

"How come I can't do X or Y? It suxor!"

The answer was invariably:

"Because you have the console version of the game, please read the FAQs or the bolded, topped thread which deals directly with your question."

I personally don't hate console gamers. Their biggest crime is that they are generally young, and don't have the financial wherewithall to have a nice office with a decent PC like I do. But I do hate what consoles are doing to PC games. They are taking most of the retail shelf space and some of the design talent from PC games. In general the games designed for consoles are aimed at a lot younger demographic with a more run of the mill I.Q. The games can't be modded, and have severely limited input options which tend to relegate them more to the twitch category of gaming.

In other words console games are not for me, but compete indirectly with the type of games that I do enjoy. I think you will find a lot of the "hate" for consoles by other people is for similar reasons. The fact that consoles are also the ultimate camel's nose for those who seek to control every aspect of your electronic entertainment is just icing on the cake.

Pratputajao
May 30, 2008, 09:37 PM
Well, while I am going to get a console (ps3) my main problem with them is- Priority. Almost no good strat games and few good western RPGs. These are the games I like but are not very high on the priorities list for the programers for Consoles. Too many sports, racing, fighting, FPS for me. I am not 14 anymore and fancy graphics only do so much for me (the PC has the BEST graphics anyway...if you are into that).

I would be a very happy person indeed if Strat and RPG games got the attention on consoles that they are given on the PC. But these type games arent " for the masses" thus they are VERY few and far between. I doubt this will change any time soon.

Warspite2
May 31, 2008, 12:13 AM
PC gamers brought this onto themselves.

There is only one major reason for game industry moving away from the PC market and towards the consoles. Piracy. I've read somewhere almost 90% of games for PC's are being pirated. So what there are more PC's out there than consoles, when the companies can't make money on their games, because people copy them instead of buying them.

On the other hand, piracy is much less common on consoles, especially the new generation - and virtually non-existent for PS3 (their encryption scheme has yet to be hacked, despite almost 2 years on the market).

I was always a big PC fan. I kept building/upgrading mine at home with latest hardware for over a decade. I hated consoles as an inferior, overpriced machine. It all changed when I got a PS3 almost a year ago. I bought it because I knew Blue-Ray is going to take over sooner or later, and didn't care that much about games.

But soon enough, I realized that a console has many advantages to a computer, especially as far as Multiplayer games are concerned. First of all - I can play everything on my big-screen, and not have to worry about resolution compatibility, or keeping my PC rig next to the TV. The whole GUI is much sleeker too, and fits more with the whole home-theater theme. And I can play while laying down on my couch, instead of sitting at the desk.

Finally - exclusive titles, like Uncharted, Grand Tourismo, Eye of Judgment, GTA4, can only be found on a console, and not PC.

I believe that is the direction the market will be heading in. You can see how much money is being made on console games. At the very best PC users can expect mediocre ports a year or two later, if that. Sure PC's still have the edge as far as strategy games go - but for how long? I already have a wireless keyboard, with a touchpad for my PS3. I'm glad my favorite game (Civ), is making it onto my favorite system. Hopefully more will follow.

I really don't know why people say this. It has been said for years that the gaming industry is moving away from PC and into consoles. This is simply not the case. We have major titles hitting the PC lately. Just wait, just wait until SPORE is released not to mention the Sims 3. Also, ever heard of a company called Stardock? Those exclusive titles you mention, I personally don't have any interest in them. Then the PC exclusive titles are much stronger. Console games are like fast food. They are there for a quick gaming session and they have very short shelf life. This is why the gamestops and other local video game stores have tons of pre-owned console games. This is because they have about a week of gameplay in each game then the game is basically beat and brought to the store for a trade in. The PC literally has YEARS of life in many games, Civ4 being one of them. I can play Civ4 for years not to mention galciv2 and others like it. Serious gamers are not going anywhere and as long as we are here, there will be tons of new PC games. This all said, I am very happy to see a version of Civ coming to the consoles. Maybe it will create a new crowd for strategy games with consoles instead of first person shooters.

Thrallia
May 31, 2008, 12:45 AM
the 360 you all praise as better and cheaper than a PS3 doesn't come with a HD drive so how can you compare. Do i really save any money buy the time i put a HD drive on it? no, not really.


um...Actually the 360 Pro has a hard drive and is cheaper than the 40GB PS3, and the 360 Elite has a hard drive and is cheaper than the 80GB PS3.

I cant even express what a joke my anticipation level went into the toilet.
Console? What a joke! I have xbox360 and ps3 and pc and who the hell
would want to play it on damn console specially multi player. Sid you lost
a huge fan my man... Redeem yourself with civ 5 for pc only!

try playing the demo before you bash the game, will you? bashing it and then not trying it out when you can do so for free smacks to me of being prejudice against your own system

Well, while I am going to get a console (ps3) my main problem with them is- Priority. Almost no good strat games and few good western RPGs. These are the games I like but are not very high on the priorities list for the programers for Consoles. Too many sports, racing, fighting, FPS for me. I am not 14 anymore and fancy graphics only do so much for me (the PC has the BEST graphics anyway...if you are into that).

I would be a very happy person indeed if Strat and RPG games got the attention on consoles that they are given on the PC. But these type games arent " for the masses" thus they are VERY few and far between. I doubt this will change any time soon.

then I would recommend getting a 360 instead. More RPGs(of all origins) and most/many of the RTS games coming out for the PC are coming to the 360 either at the same time or later. LOTR:BME2, C&C3, C&C3: Kane's Wrath, Universe at War, Supreme Commander, and the list goes on of RTS games scheduled for 360 release. Meanwhile the PS3 is not scheduled for a single strategy game of any kind other than CivRev.

Schuesseled
May 31, 2008, 05:44 AM
RTS on a console, that's jsut silly, xbox should leave them on the traditional PC, more TBS for consoles.

Thrallia
May 31, 2008, 02:17 PM
why? it doesn't take away from the PC version, just spreads the love to another audience :) I can't afford to upgrade my PC to the point where it can play these new RTS games(newest RTS I can play is Empire Earth II and Warcraft 3)

Civfan333
May 31, 2008, 11:56 PM
RTS on a console, that's jsut silly, xbox should leave them on the traditional PC, more TBS for consoles.

what about Tom Clancy's Endwar? World in Conflict? CoC Tiberium Wars? all pretty good RTS's (well, I hope so for Endwar)

Schuesseled
Jun 01, 2008, 04:15 AM
what about Tom Clancy's Endwar? World in Conflict? CoC Tiberium Wars? all pretty good RTS's (well, I hope so for Endwar)


i would hate to play C&C on a console. Much easier on the pc with the mouse and keyboard shortcuts.

warpstorm
Jun 01, 2008, 10:44 AM
I am very biased, but I think the new radial system in CNC3:Kane's Wrath is the best implementation of an RTS on a console yet. (I do prefer a mouse and keyboard for RTSs though).

mlc82
Jun 01, 2008, 12:12 PM
I really don't know why people say this. It has been said for years that the gaming industry is moving away from PC and into consoles. This is simply not the case. We have major titles hitting the PC lately. Just wait, just wait until SPORE is released not to mention the Sims 3. Also, ever heard of a company called Stardock? Those exclusive titles you mention, I personally don't have any interest in them. Then the PC exclusive titles are much stronger. Console games are like fast food. They are there for a quick gaming session and they have very short shelf life. This is why the gamestops and other local video game stores have tons of pre-owned console games. This is because they have about a week of gameplay in each game then the game is basically beat and brought to the store for a trade in. The PC literally has YEARS of life in many games, Civ4 being one of them. I can play Civ4 for years not to mention galciv2 and others like it. Serious gamers are not going anywhere and as long as we are here, there will be tons of new PC games. This all said, I am very happy to see a version of Civ coming to the consoles. Maybe it will create a new crowd for strategy games with consoles instead of first person shooters.

I agree with this guy. The reason many of us long-time PC Gamers get upset when a loved PC game series goes console, is because it'll almost certainly lead to us old fans getting dumbed-down games in the future. It's all about the money, and sadly now that the game industry has gone the same way as music and Hollywood (bowing to their corporate, bean counting overlords), creativity has pretty well gone out of the window as it is- pretty much every mainstream game coming out now, even the high ranking ones, are just the same old games we've been playing for years with better graphics each time around.

I have a bad feeling personally that, if Civ Revolutions ends up being a big hit on the consoles, Civ V for PC with then end up coming out with a "New Streamlined Interface!" to make the game "More Accesible to New Players/People Who Aren't Interested in 4x Games!". Who knows what that'll consist of, but I'd bet that us old Civ fans will quickly be forgotten if the almighty dollar seems to point toward a dumbed down, easier game cashing in a larger amount of sales. Just look at the Total War series if you need clarification, and compare the last two (Rome and Medieval 2, without any mods) to Shogun and Medieval 1- The graphics are prettier, and the challenge is pretty well gone.

Plenty of other game series went the "Streamlined!" route as well, off the top of my head I can think of:
Deus Ex- with the horrible DX: Invisible Wars that rightfully bombed

Rainbow Six Series- from squad based tactical shooter to Call of Duty 2 in vegas

The Elder Scrolls series with Oblivion- (Yes I know, many people love it, I don't think it's a bad game after 4 gigs or so worth of mods, but it's still more of an action game with stats than "RPG")

I could probably think of plenty more if I dug around in my mind:(

On the piracy issue, I've yet to hear companies such as Firaxis, Stardock, MatrixGames (excellent wargaming indie company), or others creating games (as someone else said) that have years of playability behind them, howling and screeching about piracy. It seems mainly to be coming from developers creating games that have maybe a week's worth of play time to them, and then after getting a "Game of the Year!" award for having pretty graphics, won't be remembered when the next game just like it with better graphics comes out. No wonder no one wants to plop down $50-60 for that. Add in the same developers then deciding to punish their legitimate customers with intrusive DRM method copy protection, and no wonder they're losing sales at the rate they are.

grommit5
Jun 01, 2008, 09:35 PM
um...Actually the 360 Pro has a hard drive and is cheaper than the 40GB PS3, and the 360 Elite has a hard drive and is cheaper than the 80GB PS3.

my bad, should have been more specific, I was referring to high def not hard drive, as in bluRay

lucashp
Jun 02, 2008, 12:52 AM
also, console gamers dont want world of warcraft...

Actually, I use to play WoW on the PC.

Got to level 34. got bored.

If, however if it returned to the ps3 I would pay for it online.

Thrallia
Jun 02, 2008, 02:39 AM
I'd love to play it on my 360...if I didn't have to pay a monthly fee on top of my XBL membership(which I actually have yet to pay for, thanks to my trial membership cards)

Qpla
Jun 02, 2008, 03:46 AM
On the piracy issue, I've yet to hear companies such as Firaxis, Stardock, MatrixGames (excellent wargaming indie company), or others creating games (as someone else said) that have years of playability behind them, howling and screeching about piracy. It seems mainly to be coming from developers creating games that have maybe a week's worth of play time to them, and then after getting a "Game of the Year!" award for having pretty graphics, won't be remembered when the next game just like it with better graphics comes out. No wonder no one wants to plop down $50-60 for that. Add in the same developers then deciding to punish their legitimate customers with intrusive DRM method copy protection, and no wonder they're losing sales at the rate they are.

Well, if a really awesome game with new ideas would come out for the PC it would still probably be pirated since, you know, it's free.

oodabay
Jun 02, 2008, 06:02 AM
I didn't read every thread, so if someone already mentioned it, I apologize for the redundancy. I do not own a console, but my brother-in-law does. We are both fans of CIV IV and he mentioned the one disadvantage of a console over a PC is his inability to download mods.

azzaman333
Jun 02, 2008, 08:58 AM
Well, if a really awesome game with new ideas would come out for the PC ppl would still pirate it because "Why to pay for a game when you can download it from the internet by pressing one button"

I know people who pirate the yearly EA sports titles because they feel the games are cash cows and that even if they pirate it its not going to cause too much financial harm to the monster that is EA. However, games such as Audiosurf they will fork out the $10 because it isn't a ripoff and its supporting a small developer who made an original game.

And anyway, from my experience, if people pirate a game they were never going to buy it in the first place, so its certainly not losing any sales from them.

Smidlee
Jun 02, 2008, 09:32 AM
um...Actually the 360 Pro has a hard drive and is cheaper than the 40GB PS3, and the 360 Elite has a hard drive and is cheaper than the 80GB PS3.

Actually Wal-Mart now has a special on PS3 that you get a free $100 gift card. Since I can buy both gas and groceries at Walmart this is the same as cash to me. So for now PS3 seems to be cheaper than 360. Plus the fact PS3 can play Blu-ray ( plus no cost to play Rev online) that's a pretty good deal.

Thrallia
Jun 02, 2008, 12:03 PM
as long as you don't care about being able to play any of the hundreds of great PS2 games, then yeah...its a good deal(or about not having to install the game on your hard drive to get the same performance that I can get on my 360...)

Smidlee
Jun 02, 2008, 12:18 PM
as long as you don't care about being able to play any of the hundreds of great PS2 games, then yeah...its a good deal(or about not having to install the game on your hard drive to get the same performance that I can get on my 360...) The reason why 360 doesn't install games is the fact not all 360 owners have a HDD. HDD loads faster and a lot quieter than continue spinning a DVD X12 the speed.
By the way that would be also true if you got a 360. As far As I know 360 doesn't play PS2 games either. :)

LordRahl
Jun 02, 2008, 01:09 PM
as long as you don't care about being able to play any of the hundreds of great PS2 games, then yeah...its a good deal(or about not having to install the game on your hard drive to get the same performance that I can get on my 360...)

Having to read from DVD drive = longer loading times.

Thrallia
Jun 02, 2008, 04:06 PM
The reason why 360 doesn't install games is the fact not all 360 owners have a HDD. HDD loads faster and a lot quieter than continue spinning a DVD X12 the speed.
By the way that would be also true if you got a 360. As far As I know 360 doesn't play PS2 games either. :)

true, it doesn't...but it never has, Sony removed that feature and didn't bother publicizing it as much as they did when they called themselves 'the only console with full BC'. So now, no one knows that they can't play their PS2 games on their PS3 if they aren't an informed consumer(which is most people)

Having to read from DVD drive = longer loading times.

you would think so...but if you read the reviews for all the games that require hard drive installs on the PS3 and don't for the 360, the 360 either loads faster still, or barely loads slower(like, barely noticeably)

grommit5
Jun 02, 2008, 04:14 PM
true, it doesn't...but it never has, Sony removed that feature and didn't bother publicizing it as much as they did when they called themselves 'the only console with full BC'. So now, no one knows that they can't play their PS2 games on their PS3 if they aren't an informed consumer(which is most people)

i don't think you give the average computer/console user enough credit. i can't think of a single person i know that didn't realize the current PS3 version was not backwards compatable.

Tboy
Jun 02, 2008, 05:22 PM
i don't think you give the average computer/console user enough credit. i can't think of a single person i know that didn't realize the current PS3 version was not backwards compatable.

True - heck, it's almost an assumption that next-gens are backwards compatible.

PCs will always have a place - but the main prob is, games are just one aspect on a PC, whereas they are the entirety on a console. Still, strategy games always do and always will work best on the PC.

Smidlee
Jun 02, 2008, 06:53 PM
By the way anyone who is interested it seems that Best Buy (http://news.punchjump.com/article.php?id=6117%A0)(though not a good since you are limited to buying electronics) has also offered $100 gift card with 40Gb PS3 to match Walmart. Notice it ends this week also you probably have to request to match Walmart offer.

Thrallia
Jun 03, 2008, 12:10 PM
i don't think you give the average computer/console user enough credit. i can't think of a single person i know that didn't realize the current PS3 version was not backwards compatable.

I work in a retail gaming store....nearly every single person that comes in looking to purchase a PS3 doesn't know this.

Zelig
Jun 03, 2008, 12:22 PM
i don't think you give the average computer/console user enough credit. i can't think of a single person i know that didn't realize the current PS3 version was not backwards compatable.

To be fair, every PS3 version except the 40GB version has some amount of backwards compatibility.

Thrallia
Jun 03, 2008, 12:51 PM
and, to be fair, Sony has stopped producing all the other versions, thus causing any new owners to be screwed without realizing it.

pat4
Jun 03, 2008, 12:56 PM
I love pc games but I have to give consoles the nod simply for multiplayer. And I don't mean crap internet multiplayer where you sit on your own in the dark and cheer yourselg on as you kill "sexypants56". Consoles have real multiplayer where you can play with your friends in your sitting room. My friend is much better than me at football but on the ps2 I can kick his ass.

Btw has anyone ever played those olympics games. They are amazing almost no skill required just fast thumbs, even my dad can play it, and that fact alone makes consoles better because anyone can play them.

Smidlee
Jun 03, 2008, 01:17 PM
and, to be fair, Sony has stopped producing all the other versions, thus causing any new owners to be screwed without realizing it. If that's true then who is this guy on eBay selling all those PS3 80GB and Medal Gear Solid 4 bundle (http://search.ebay.com/ps3-80gb_W0QQcrlpZ1933597673Q5f9426QQfclZ4QQfnuZ0QQfso oZ1QQfsopZ3QQgbrZ1QQkeywordZps3Q2080gb)?

Thrallia
Jun 03, 2008, 01:31 PM
well, you can't find the 80GB system in stores anywhere, I know Sony is coming out with a MGS4 bundle that includes the 80GB system, but that's the only way to get a new PS3 that isn't a 40GB.

grommit5
Jun 05, 2008, 09:52 PM
I work in a retail gaming store....nearly every single person that comes in looking to purchase a PS3 doesn't know this.

well then, it's a good thing you're there to set them straight.

if i'm going to put out that kind of cash i do a little research before i go shopping.

Thrallia
Jun 05, 2008, 10:31 PM
no kidding...you'd think that people were made of gold, the way they buy stuff without researching it first.