So I'm sure everybody who gives a shit about these systems already knows most/all there is to know about them currently, so this is just simply a thread to discuss them before a Console War breaks out in the Video Games thread. Discuss away...

For anybody interested but not entirely up to date:

PlayStation 4 @ Wikipedia

Xbox One @ Wikipedia

BTW I'm proud to be a PlayStation.

Most likely I'll buy neither. Don't really have much interest in consoles except for trolling purposes.

Kinda too early to really decide for sure, but everything points toward the One being a total clusterfuck. If I ever buy a PS4 it'll be later in its generation when it's cheap (and if it's got decent exclusives.

Naturally I'll still be a PC person as neither console will likely make me want to spend the £400 needed when I can just go ahead and get a new graphics card for half that price which will probably outdo both.

I'm personally hoping the see the Xbone fail in a big way like in the days of the Jaguar / 3DO / CD-i etc. Just because it'll be funny.

Yea, I don't think it's too early to tell. Xbox One requires an internet connection at all times, even to play single player "offline games". So anybody who lives in a 3rd world country that doesn't have internet access, and anybody who is too broke to afford internet, and a lot of people who just don't like the idea of not being able to play videogames when the internet is down in their area for whatever reason (rain, maintenance, power outage at the hub/uplink station) are going to jump ship and switch to PlayStation or PC. Not to mention how they're doing the game registration so that only the game owner can play it, or has to be available for the Kinect to scan their face before the game can be played.

I'd say it's plenty well safe to assume that the Sony has finally won the Console Wars, unless Microsoft wakes up and realizes how big a mistake they're making and removes all that software. Most of my die-hard Xbox fanatic friends (who have sworn for years and to all matter of deities that they will NEVER ever get a PlayStation) are already talking about jumping ship to the PlayStation 4.

It's obvious that the PS4 is waaaay better, but still i'm not gonna get any of these...at least for now, PC all the way here

Written by psykometal on 28.05.2013 at 17:53

Yea, I don't think it's too early to tell. Xbox One requires an internet connection at all times, even to play single player "offline games". So anybody who lives in a 3rd world country that doesn't have internet access, and anybody who is too broke to afford internet, and a lot of people who just don't like the idea of not being able to play videogames when the internet is down in their area for whatever reason (rain, maintenance, power outage at the hub/uplink station) are going to jump ship and switch to PlayStation or PC. Not to mention how they're doing the game registration so that only the game owner can play it, or has to be available for the Kinect to scan their face before the game can be played.

I'd say it's plenty well safe to assume that the Sony has finally won the Console Wars, unless Microsoft wakes up and realizes how big a mistake they're making and removes all that software. Most of my die-hard Xbox fanatic friends (who have sworn for years and to all matter of deities that they will NEVER ever get a PlayStation) are already talking about jumping ship to the PlayStation 4.

It is too early to tell because virtually no games have been announced PS4 seems all well and good so far but if they don't release quality games then it means nothing at all. It's like judging an album before you've heard it based on the band's reputation and past releases.

Written by [user id=4365] on 28.05.2013 at 18:49

It is too early to tell because virtually no games have been announced PS4 seems all well and good so far but if they don't release quality games then it means nothing at all. It's like judging an album before you've heard it based on the band's reputation and past releases.

Actually, if you read the Wiki articles you'll see plenty of announced games so far which give plenty of indication that the types of games released on both systems are going to be the same as they always have been. We're not comparing these systems to the Wii here that caters to under-developed kids and old people that can hardly be considered "gamers".

It's plainly obvious that we can expect to see all the same types of games and exclusives. And the games are surely going to get better now that the tech specs on both systems are more common (vs shit like Cell), which both companies decided to do so that the systems would be easier for developers to develop games for. So it's nothing like comparing a band's previous material to what they might be coming out with on their new album. There was no change in the types of games from PlayStation to PS2, PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox360, and I seriously doubt (especially after looking over the so far announced games) that there will be any difference in the types of games between PS3/360 and the PS4/One.

If anything, the change of games will be that maybe not so many developers will be doing Xbox One exclusives because they're not going to want to limit themselves to a system that is losing so badly to the PS4 because of it's internet and registration restrictions are driving away the Xbox's long time fans/users who either don't want to hassle with the internet restrictions or don't have any internet to be able to play the Xbox One.

Written by psykometal on 28.05.2013 at 19:01

Actually, if you read the Wiki articles you'll see plenty of announced games so far which give plenty of indication that the types of games released on both systems are going to be the same as they always have been. We're not comparing these systems to the Wii here that caters to under-developed kids and old people that can hardly be considered "gamers".

It's plainly obvious that we can expect to see all the same types of games and exclusives. And the games are surely going to get better now that the tech specs on both systems are more common (vs shit like Cell), which both companies decided to do so that the systems would be easier for developers to develop games for. So it's nothing like comparing a band's previous material to what they might be coming out with on their new album. There was no change in the types of games from PlayStation to PS2, PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox360, and I seriously doubt (especially after looking over the so far announced games) that there will be any difference in the types of games between PS3/360 and the PS4/One.

If anything, the change of games will be that maybe not so many developers will be doing Xbox One exclusives because they're not going to want to limit themselves to a system that is losing so badly to the PS4 because of it's internet and registration restrictions that are driving away the Xbox's long time fans/users.

Well fair enough, announced game names, but few, if any, available to play as yet, so the quality is still up for debate.

In any light to already announce the PS4 as the winners of this generation can only be attributed to fanboyism as much of the info is sketchy or not yet available. If you look back at the early days of the 360 and PS3 then all indications pointed toward the PS3 being the loser; overly expensive, difficult to develop for, eventual removal of backwards compatibility, inferior graphics to 360 on many games etc, yet it eventually brought it back due to the quality of its games. There is no "plainly obvious" here, only speculation but there's no reason why the One can change many of the issues should they have to (which they probably will if they want to succeed) and you or I have no idea what the quality of the games will be like for either. Presuming that PS4 games will all be brilliant is based off guesswork (and little more than names) and it's like assuming that the Wii U would be an assured success because the Wii was (which it clearly hasn't been so far).

Basically, stop jumping the gun because you have only a percentage of the information and almost no information or knowledge about what the games will be like It's been proved over and over again that the gaming climate can change drastically and nothing is assured: Nintendo falling from grace after dominating the last generation with an underpowered novelty console, Sega doing the same in failing to make successful consoles even though the Dreamcast was great and ahead of its time etc. Only a fanboy announces a winner over a half a year before the consoles are even released, and don't presume to speak for the masses who may flock to the One because of its front-room, entertainment oriented set-up.

Written by [user id=4365] on 28.05.2013 at 19:14

Well fair enough, announced game names, but few, if any, available to play as yet, so the quality is still up for debate.

In any light to already announce the PS4 as the winners of this generation can only be attributed to fanboyism as much of the info is sketchy or not yet available. If you look back at the early days of the 360 and PS3 then all indications pointed toward the PS3 being the loser; overly expensive, difficult to develop for, eventual removal of backwards compatibility, inferior graphics to 360 on many games etc, yet it eventually brought it back due to the quality of its games. There is no "plainly obvious" here, only speculation but there's no reason why the One can change many of the issues should they have to (which they probably will if they want to succeed) and you or I have no idea what the quality of the games will be like for either. Presuming that PS4 games will all be brilliant is based off guesswork (and little more than names) and it's like assuming that the Wii U would be an assured success because the Wii was (which it clearly hasn't been so far).

Basically, stop jumping the gun because you have only a percentage of the information and almost no information or knowledge about what the games will be like It's been proved over and over again that the gaming climate can change drastically and nothing is assured: Nintendo falling from grace after dominating the last generation with an underpowered novelty console, Sega doing the same in failing to make successful consoles even though the Dreamcast was great and ahead of its time etc. Only a fanboy announces a winner over a half a year before the consoles are even released, and don't presume to speak for the masses who may flock to the One because of its front-room, entertainment oriented set-up.

Well, first off, according to the information that HAS been released thus far, both systems are operating on the same kind of AMD 8 core processor w/ 8GB of RAM and an AMD Radeon graphics card. So It's really not a far stretch to assume that both systems are gona look roughly about the same, graphics wise. Which also makes the Console War between PlayStation and Xbox fanboys a bit ridiculous now since it's going to now boil down to fanboyism and whether Xbox fanboys/girls want to deal with the ridiculous restrictions the One will have; unless Microsoft decides at the 11th hour to throw all those restrictions out the window.

Secondly, I started this thread because [teamster] tried to start a Console War in the Video Games thread, therefore I am just trying to divert that into an appropriate thread. Otherwise, I had no plans of creating a thread like this until closer to the release dates of the 2 systems; providing someone else didn't create one first.

Written by psykometal on 28.05.2013 at 20:43

Well, first off, according to the information that HAS been released thus far, both systems are operating on the same kind of AMD 8 core processor w/ 8GB of RAM and an AMD Radeon graphics card. So It's really not a far stretch to assume that both systems are gona look roughly about the same, graphics wise. Which also makes the Console War between PlayStation and Xbox fanboys a bit ridiculous now since it's going to now boil down to fanboyism and whether Xbox fanboys/girls want to deal with the ridiculous restrictions the One will have; unless Microsoft decides at the 11th hour to throw all those restrictions out the window.

Secondly, I started this thread because [teamster] tried to start a Console War in the Video Games thread, therefore I am just trying to divert that into an appropriate thread. Otherwise, I had no plans of creating a thread like this until closer to the release dates of the 2 systems; providing someone else didn't create one first.

Well the graphical capabilities of each are neither here nor there, rather it's the quality of the exclusives that matter in the long run. It's individual, creative IPs that make or break a console as far as I'm concerned. For all we know Microsoft might score more and better exclusives and the ones for Sony's console (say Killzone and Witcher 3 so far) could be duff. I've no doubt the cross platform games will be pretty similar, if not identical. To focus an argument entirely on what a console does or does not without even considering the game quality, which is ultimately what a console is for, is my issue here. It's all well and good having a console that allows second hand gaming, not needing an always on connection etc. but that means crap-all if there are no decent games to play on it.

But you announced up there that Sony won the console wars not only is that premature but your definition of "won" is spurious. The PS3 sold fewer consoles than both the 360 and Wii, and in its early days they were sold at a loss, so from another perspective they actually lost the console war last generation.

Written by [user id=4365] on 28.05.2013 at 21:03

Well the graphical capabilities of each are neither here nor there, rather it's the quality of the exclusives that matter in the long run. It's individual, creative IPs that make or break a console as far as I'm concerned. For all we know Microsoft might score more and better exclusives and the ones for Sony's console (say Killzone and Witcher 3 so far) could be duff. I've no doubt the cross platform games will be pretty similar, if not identical. To focus an argument entirely on what a console does or does not without even considering the game quality, which is ultimately what a console is for, is my issue here. It's all well and good having a console that allows second hand gaming, not needing an always on connection etc. but that means crap-all if there are no decent games to play on it.

But you announced up there that Sony won the console wars not only is that premature but your definition of "won" is spurious. The PS3 sold fewer consoles than both the 360 and Wii, and in its early days they were sold at a loss, so from another perspective they actually lost the console war last generation.

Never said I wasn't biased, I did indicate at the end "I'm a PlayStation". And that's what the Console Wars are all about, constant back and forth between the PlayStations (Maximals) and the Xboxes (Predacons). Did I really need to add "imo" at the end of my obviously premature "prediction"?

And I still think it's a fair assumption that the PlayStation 4 is likely to score more exclusives due to it's lack of "society's elite only" restrictions; unless of course Xbox pulls the stick out of their ass and realizes how stupid those restrictions are.

Granted, their will likely still be lots of First World (and luckier Third World) loyalists out there who have the good internet connections and don't mind the "no second-hand gaming" restrictions of the Xbox. But the fact still remains that Xbox is throwing a big fat "First World elitist" middle finger at all of their loyal fans out there who don't have internet for one reason or another and are completely alienating them to the point that they will have no choice but to switch to PC or PlayStation 4 if they want to play next gen games. Plus there will be lots of people who have a good internet connection who just don't want to risk not being able to play cuz their internet is down, and/or don't like the idea of no second-hand gaming (like yourself).

And that is the sole reason I believe the PlayStation is going to "beat" the Xbox, unless Xbox has a change of hert about alienating/driving away so many of their customers out there. So my "prediction" is not entirely biased or based on fanboyism.

Written by psykometal on 28.05.2013 at 21:39

Never said I wasn't biased, I did indicate at the end "I'm a PlayStation". And that's what the Console Wars are all about, constant back and forth between the PlayStations (Maximals) and the Xboxes (Predacons). Did I really need to add "imo" at the end of my obviously premature "prediction"?

And I still think it's a fair assumption that the PlayStation 4 is likely to score more exclusives due to it's lack of "society's elite only" restrictions; unless of course Xbox pulls the stick out of their ass and realizes how stupid those restrictions are.

Granted, their will likely still be lots of First World (and luckier Third World) loyalists out there who have the good internet connections and don't mind the "no second-hand gaming" restrictions of the Xbox. But the fact still remains that Xbox is throwing a big fat "First World elitist" middle finger at all of their loyal fans out there who don't have internet for one reason or another and are completely alienating them to the point that they will have no choice but to switch to PC or PlayStation 4 if they want to play next gen games. Plus there will be lots of people who have a good internet connection who just don't want to risk not being able to play cuz their internet is down, and/or don't like the idea of no second-hand gaming (like yourself).

And that is the sole reason I believe the PlayStation is going to "beat" the Xbox, unless Xbox has a change of hert about alienating/driving away so many of their customers out there. So my "prediction" is not entirely biased or based on fanboyism.

But your bias is based of incomplete information and conclusion jumping, so whether or not you put "imo" at the end is irrelevant as it still makes you a fanboy and therefore not someone who should be entering into serious argument if you're going to let bias influence you

In any light I suspect the One will also fail in the eyes of general gamers who have been loyal to Microsoft, but I also believe that the all encompassing nature of the console will bring in new audiences, much like the Wii did (only it will appeal to techies and such who like gadgets, though it could also be attractive to families). Driving away customers is probably fine fair business if it brings in even more for other, untapped demographics. For that reason I think it's entirely possible the One will get its fair share of exclusives because producers want to make games that bring in profit i.e. they will make games for a console that will sell well.

As for the whole internet argument, so it won't sell well in areas with no internet. That's hardly an issue for Microsoft as these are areas where people are still playing Mega Drives and Snes consoles. If you live in a general area with no internet then I seriously doubt the people there will be able to afford a 400+ dollar console. As for the always on connection, poor internet might not be an issue, as the One will only need to connect once a day. As for the second hand game issue that area is far from clear cut as yet so any conclusion based on that is also premature, though it's certainly one of the biggest issues against it.

Written by [user id=4365] on 28.05.2013 at 22:05

But your bias is based of incomplete information and conclusion jumping, so whether or not you put "imo" at the end is irrelevant as it still makes you a fanboy and therefore not someone who should be entering into serious argument if you're going to let bias influence you

In any light I suspect the One will also fail in the eyes of general gamers who have been loyal to Microsoft, but I also believe that the all encompassing nature of the console will bring in new audiences, much like the Wii did (only it will appeal to techies and such who like gadgets, though it could also be attractive to families). Driving away customers is probably fine fair business if it brings in even more for other, untapped demographics. For that reason I think it's entirely possible the One will get its fair share of exclusives because producers want to make games that bring in profit i.e. they will make games for a console that will sell well.

As for the whole internet argument, so it won't sell well in areas with no internet. That's hardly an issue for Microsoft as these are areas where people are still playing Mega Drives and Snes consoles. If you live in a general area with no internet then I seriously doubt the people there will be able to afford a 400+ dollar console. As for the always on connection, poor internet might not be an issue, as the One will only need to connect once a day. As for the second hand game issue that area is far from clear cut as yet so any conclusion based on that is also premature, though it's certainly one of the biggest issues against it.

My argument that it will fail as far as gamers preferring one system or another for gaming purposes. Obviously the Xbox One will pull in other demographics because of it's "whole home entertainment" tech, but these console discussions are about the gaming part of it, not that other non-sense. At least for me that's what these discussions are about. If you or others want to argue regarding those elements then go for it, but I don't give a shit about my GAMING system being an entertainment system as well, so those demographics don't mean shit to me. I am simply saying I think it will fail in the GAMING community...guess I should've stated that in my OP as far as my opinion is concerned.

And these dicussions are always based on fanboyism between the PS lovers and Xbox lovers, not tech specs. Since you care for neither you have an unbiased opinion therefore you are on a different level than those of us who are console gamers. Stop trying to bring your gods of logic and reason into a biased flame war!!!

Written by psykometal on 28.05.2013 at 22:46

My argument that it will failing as far as gamers preferring one system or another for gaming purposes. Obviously the Xbox One will pull in other demographics because of it's "whole home entertainment" tech, but these console discussions are about the gaming part of it, not that other non-sense.

Really, well perhaps you should clarify that:



Seems like a pretty open topic to me

Quote:

At least for me that's what these discussions are about. If you or others want to argue regarding those elements then go for it, but I don't give a shit about my GAMING system being an entertainment system as well, so those demographics don't mean shit to me. I am simply saying I think it will fail in the GAMING community

Well from the off I've tried to focus my points on the simple fact that there are no GAMES available to play for it, so any arguments about these consoles regarding games cannot be conclusive. Your arguments surround the nature of the console, nothing specifically to do with actual games, only things which affect the way in which they're played. And when forking out hundreds of dollars / pounds other factors must be taken into consideration, like its ability to play Blu-Rays, whatever other entertainment factos may be included in said consoles. I think it's more than reasonable to take everything into consideration when one is talking about consoles "winning the console wars."

Written by [user id=4365] on 28.05.2013 at 22:56

Post

You must've clicked into it before I edited/added the bit at the end of my last post...

And this topic is plenty well open for people to discuss whatever they want regarding the systems, I was merely meaning that my opinion on the PS "beating" the Xbox is based on gaming, not entertainment.

Written by psykometal on 28.05.2013 at 23:15
I was merely meaning that my opinion on the PS "beating" the Xbox is based on gaming, not entertainment.

You realise that by saying that you just turned back to the whole "but no games have been available to play" rute all over again?

Seriously, I don't have a clue to why I read the whole discussion. It was like a bloody circle!

I am one of those people who doesn't really enjoy video games, like when I was a kid; however, I love Halo. I am addict. Until Sony gets Halo- which won't happen, I will stick with Microsoft. Technically, Sony cannot win this war/battle/etc.. PC gaming is also a staple of Microsoft. Just my opinions- of course.

PS4 for me most likely...if Xbox One turns out to be good as well...maybe I'll own both. Not that I play much games anymore

Written by X-Ray Rod on 29.05.2013 at 02:02

You realise that by saying that you just turned back to the whole "but no games have been available to play" rute all over again?

Seriously, I don't have a clue to why I read the whole discussion. It was like a bloody circle!

Console War "discussions" always are. Not even sure why Joe joined in on this topic since he's a PC gamer. But figured I'd give him the full treatment anyway cuz he pretty much asked for it.

Written by psykometal on 29.05.2013 at 03:20
Not even sure why Joe joined in on this topic since he's a PC gamer.

Irrelevant. I don't need to be in the middle of a war ground to have a solid opinion about the conflict. Being out of the woods surely gives you a far better view of the trees.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 29.05.2013 at 03:29

Irrelevant. I don't need to be in the middle of a war ground to have a solid opinion about the conflict. Being out of the woods surely gives you a far better view of the trees.

Well, I meant that usually PC gamers don't bother with geting involved in console debates since they don't care about consoles and usually they realize it's a bunch of biased back and forth non-sense like what you just read.

Written by psykometal on 29.05.2013 at 03:20

Not even sure why Joe joined in on this topic since he's a PC gamer.

I own a 360, a PS2, PS1, Gamecube, SNES, a Mega Drive and a GBA , somewhere

[EDIT]

And an N64 and a Master System. Can't believe I forgot about those beauties.

Written by [user id=4365] on 29.05.2013 at 08:46

I own a 360, a PS2, PS1, Gamecube, SNES, a Mega Drive and a GBA , somewhere

However, at your own admission, you prefer (and stand by) PC gaming. So it seems to me you're a PC gamer who happens to have collected some consoles along the way. Which still makes you a PC gamer, not a console gamer. No?

Written by psykometal on 29.05.2013 at 09:00

However, at your own admission, you prefer (and stand by) PC gaming. So it seems to me you're a PC gamer who happens to have collected some consoles along the way. Which still makes you a PC gamer, not a console gamer. No?

At no point did I say I prefer PC games. I'm a PC gamer because it's more economically viable than forking out half a grand for a new console when I can get the same results by spending half that on a new GPU. I said up there I will probably get one of either consoles later in its generation when it's cheaper and enough decent games are out. You're trying to place value on my opinions by how willing I am to jump on a new console from the get go, but I'm simply far more pragmatic than that and am happy to wait for when the time is right. If you've obverved any of my posts about gaming in the past you'll easily see that my choice of games orient around console style games, not PC ones. I think the fact I've own at least one console from every generation going back to the Master System (in the 1980s) gives me more than enough reason to comment here

Effectively, you're trying to paint me into a corner, i.e PC or console gamer. The fact is I am both, a PC gamer that tends to favour console style games, and I like to think my impartial opinions here have reflected that. Just because I'm not a fanboy of a specific manufacturer it doesn't mean I can't have an opinion (rather it makes me more fit to have one if anything).

I'm not gonna buy any of them but PS4 is winning so hard right now , also the PS exclusive games have always been so much better. I would buy a PS4 but I couldn't buy any games given the ridiculous price of dollar in Iran , so I'm staying a PC gamer too ... and I doubt I regret it , Dark Souls II and WItcher 3 are coming , and there's always Dota 2 to play .

Written by [user id=4365] on 29.05.2013 at 09:05

At no point did I say I prefer PC games. I'm a PC gamer because it's more economically viable than forking out half a grand for a new console when I can get the same results by spending half that on a new GPU. I said up there I will probably get one of either consoles later in its generation when it's cheaper and enough decent games are out. You're trying to place value on my opinions by how willing I am to jump on a new console from the get go, but I'm simply far more pragmatic than that and am happy to wait for when the time is right. If you've obverved any of my posts about gaming in the past you'll easily see that my choice of games orient around console style games, not PC ones. I think the fact I've own at least one console from every generation going back to the Master System (in the 1980s) gives me more than enough reason to comment here

Effectively, you're trying to paint me into a corner, i.e PC or console gamer. The fact is I am both, a PC gamer that tends to favour console style games, and I like to think my impartial opinions here have reflected that. Just because I'm not a fanboy of a specific manufacturer it doesn't mean I can't have an opinion (rather it makes me more fit to have one if anything).

I do believe I made a statement, and then followed it with a question, indicating I was unsure if I was reading you correctly. Plus, I already stated that you not being a fanboy of either system meant you have an unbiased opinion for either system. And nowhere have I said you (of all people), who have an opinion on everything (just like Marcel ), can't have an opinion or can't comment here.

And no, I haven't paid attention to much of your comments in the gaming thread (mostly because I stopped paying much attention to that thread months ago). Most of what I recall you going on about is playing PC games, which is why I asked "No?" at the end of my last statement. To indicate I was inquiring if I had read you correctly since most of what I've read from you in here, and from what little I recall from the Video Games thread, you seemed to be more interested in PC gaming to me than console gaming.

I prefer console gaming BECAUSE I can fork over half a grand on a system that will last me for many years without requiring ANY hardware upgrades to keep up with current gaming standards. Versus spending $600+ to get a PC and then still having to spend a couple hundred a year in hardware upgrades. So from my point of view, getting a console is more economically viable than a PC (one time buy vs. annual upgrades).

Also, because of the "no upgrades required" aspect, when a new console game is coming out you know it's going to play in your console just fine. But with certain PC games, you gotta hunt down the tech specs to make sure your PC hardware is up to spec, otherwise you gotta wait til you can afford to upgrade your GPU before you can get that game. That's something I do recall seeing a lot of in the Video Games threads when big games, like Skyrim and Dark Souls, come out is people getting bummed out about not being able to run the games due to hardware requirements. Plus, it's much easier to pack up a console and take to a buddies house, than to lug a big ass heavy tower over.

Written by psykometal on 29.05.2013 at 11:46

I do believe I made a statement, and then followed it with a question, indicating I was unsure if I was reading you correctly. Plus, I already stated that you not being a fanboy of either system meant you have an unbiased opinion for either system. And nowhere have I said you (of all people), who have an opinion on everything (just like Marcel ), can't have an opinion or can't comment here.

And no, I haven't paid attention to much of your comments in the gaming thread (mostly because I stopped paying much attention to that thread months ago). Most of what I recall you going on about is playing PC games, which is why I asked "No?" at the end of my last statement. To indicate I was inquiring if I had read you correctly since most of what I've read from you in here, and from what little I recall from the Video Games thread, you seemed to be more interested in PC gaming to me than console gaming.

I prefer console gaming BECAUSE I can fork over half a grand on a system that will last me for many years without requiring ANY hardware upgrades to keep up with current gaming standards. Versus spending $600+ to get a PC and then still having to spend a couple hundred a year in hardware upgrades. So from my point of view, getting a console is more economically viable than a PC (one time buy vs. annual upgrades).

Also, because of the "no upgrades required" aspect, when a new console game is coming out you know it's going to play in your console just fine. But with certain PC games, you gotta hunt down the tech specs to make sure your PC hardware is up to spec, otherwise you gotta wait til you can afford to upgrade your GPU before you can get that game. That's something I do recall seeing a lot of in the Video Games threads when big games, like Skyrim and Dark Souls, come out is people getting bummed out about not being able to run the games due to hardware requirements. Plus, it's much easier to pack up a console and take to a buddies house, than to lug a big ass heavy tower over.

If you don't mean to say something then don't imply it; I'm not going to pick apart every one of your sentences to look for little rhetorical "no?" comments and such, which may or may not completely void what you spent lines and paragraphs writing

Thinking you need to upgrade an a yearly basis to be able to play games is a pretty good example of console favouritism proganda. I suggest you do more research into the matter instead of assuming that everyone who plays games on a PC is someone that insists on having the latest hardware and spending a fortune to do so. Use your head: if I get my PC into a state where it can compete with consoles then naturally it will make games look as good, or at least nearly so, for the duration of that console's lifespan (even if it does mean playing the game or Medium, or lower, settings). Also: the proliferation of new technology and components means that computer parts are constantly lowering in price and really the only thing that often needs to be upgraded is the graphics card as processors seem to have gotten to the point where the extra power offers little performance boost and really hasn't for a while now since quad cores were introduced. It's easy to pick up a good second hand graphics card for cheap if you shop cleverly. There are still games being made today that state the minimum spec graphics card is a GeForce 8800; a 7 or 8 year old card so these people who can't run Dark Souls (a relatively low spec game) must have quite low spec or old PCs indeed. I enjoy PCs versatility and the fact it's now a hub for almost every console I've ever played (through emulators). Just because they're being played on a PC doesn't negate the fact that they're console games. For that reason you couldn't be very aware of what I talk about in threads regarding games, as they are mostly games which appear on both console and PC (and some only consoles and a few PC only).

I'm not oblivious to the pros and cons of both so we don't need to get into that (offtopic) subject.

PS4 for me, but I might just go to PC gaming.
Got to start saving up money now.

Written by [user id=4365] on 29.05.2013 at 14:17

Thinking you need to upgrade an a yearly basis to be able to play games is a pretty good example of console favouritism proganda.

I would be one of those people who would feel the need to upgrade on a yearly basis so that I can play games on the desired/intended higher settings. Which is why I stated "from my point of view".