Consoles vs PC gameing thread.

[RS-232]

PC gamer fan here. BTW upgrading a PC yourself is a great way to learn the inner-workings of how pc's work. Do your homework First! It can get expensive should you short out a 200$ video card or motherboard

 

[Izack]

Why is anyone even remotely close to being offended here? They're only video games!

That said, games I play are typically quite old/low end graphically (on that note, I'm getting back in to Dwarf Fortress,) so this mid-end laptop I need for school is sufficient. For anything else, there's used hardware el cheapo.

 

[FADEC]

I play on PC and I absolutely can't stand PC snobs. Did you ever begin to think that some people don't have the disposable income to upgrade PC's?

Well, for about 100 Euro more than a Xbox 360 costs one can get new hardware which kills the Xbox 360 by far. This includes a mainboard, CPU, RAM and a new video card. Provided that you already have a nice case and hard drives. But that's what we talk about: upgrades.

Take the ASRock 870 Extreme3 AM3+ mainboard for example (which is a very nice one for its money, not the crap anymore Asrock built during earlier days). It just costs ~65 Euro. Put an AMD Phenom II X4 850 on it for example (~95 Euro). And get 8GB of DDR3 RAM (~40 Euro) and an Nvidia GTX550 Ti for ~110 Euro. That's only ~310 Euro and it will run almost everything, if not everything, with max settings.

Or take the same amount of money as for an Xbox 360 and you have an older PC upgraded that is still more powerful than the Xbox 360.

If something has become cheap these days than it's PC hardware. I'm going to build an AMD X6 killer machine in December in preparation for Guild Wars 2 and maybe, let's see, Skyrim

 

[Ark]

Well, for about 100 Euro more than a Xbox 360 costs one can get new hardware which kills the Xbox 360 by far. This includes a mainboard, CPU, RAM and a new video card. Provided that you already have a nice case and hard drives. But that's what we talk about: upgrades.

Take the ASRock 870 Extreme3 AM3+ mainboard for example (which is a very nice one for its money, not the crap anymore Asrock built during earlier days). It just costs ~65 Euro. Put an AMD Phenom II X4 850 on it for example (~95 Euro). And get 8GB of DDR3 RAM (~40 Euro) and an Nvidia GTX550 Ti for ~110 Euro. That's only ~310 Euro and it will run almost everything, if not everything, with max settings.

Or take the same amount of money as for an Xbox 360 and you have an older PC upgraded that is still more powerful than the Xbox 360.

If something has become cheap these days than it's PC hardware. I'm going to build an AMD X6 killer machine in December in preparation for Guild Wars 2 and maybe, let's see, Skyrim

I totally agree that cost is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. I just built a midrange gaming computer for my little brother with a $60 Gigabyte motherboard and a $90 Athelon 2 X3 460. $25 for 4 GB of RAM and it's good to go for most anything. That's less than $200 for a whole motherboard and CPU combo that'll be acceptable for the next 2-3 years easily, with more advanced CPUs available to be swapped into that socket.

I spend probably less than $200 a year on PC upgrades, including periodic repairs. This year I bought a Radeon HD 6790 and an Antec power supply for about $180. A PS3 cost around $500 brand new, that covers at least 3 years of upgrade expenditures for me. Gaming isn't the cheapest hobby in the world, but any idiot can put together a serviceable gaming rig for $400-$500 and keep it upgraded and in good repair for $200 a year. My little brother's computer cost him almost exactly $400 out of pocket, including the brand new case we found on Craigslist for $20 and my older Radeon card I sold him for $50. PC gaming is not that expensive unless you're a snob that can't stand running BF3 on anything but ultra settings and native resolution on a 24" monitor.

 

[Urwumpe]

This is why many people think PC gamers are snobs and jerks.

We are not arrogant, we know what we have installed. :lol:

 

[Codz]

We are not arrogant, we know what we have installed. :lol:

Thats not true of all PC gamers. I simply wish some of them would stop putting down consoles and their users. I enjoy PC gaming but hate when players take it too seriously.:thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Thats not true of all PC gamers. I simply wish some of them would stop putting down consoles and their users. I enjoy PC gaming but hate when players take it too seriously.:thumbup:

Why not? If you look at Germany, a huge number of console gamers life on welfare, are unemployed and not often really skilled except in playing "their" games. (More than often, the console replaces having to pay attention to your children and be a good parent)

There are few people who really buy the console as it is, for having something to play with their friends at the local TV. But then, most console games are not made for this kind of gaming, they are trying to pretend they are PC games.

PC gamers are usually people who are skilled enough to operate something more complex, and who usually spend a lot of their time choosing their hardware. But it is a pretty lonely way of gaming, even LAN parties can't compensate the fact that you are not playing with people, but rather alone in a network with them.

The difference between PC gamers and Console gamers: Console gamers are stupid enough to pay €60 to €90 for a game, that would often not even be worth €10 on a PC. A simple FPS engine with standard graphics sets, used for creating jump&run or FPS games. Epic. At least for the managers who can happily enjoy huge profits despite the license costs for the hardware platform. Which is why many PC games today are only adapted console games, and not full PC games.

Sorry, but I don't see consoles as evolutionary improvement over PCs. The Amiga was also a game computer, but it was capable of more than just that. Amiga & Co back then destroyed the console market, does somebody remember?

 

[Codz]

Why not? If you look at Germany, a huge number of console gamers life on welfare, are unemployed and not often really skilled except in playing "their" games. (More than often, the console replaces having to pay attention to your children and be a good parent)

There are few people who really buy the console as it is, for having something to play with their friends at the local TV. But then, most console games are not made for this kind of gaming, they are trying to pretend they are PC games.

PC gamers are usually people who are skilled enough to operate something more complex, and who usually spend a lot of their time choosing their hardware. But it is a pretty lonely way of gaming, even LAN parties can't compensate the fact that you are not playing with people, but rather alone in a network with them.

The difference between PC gamers and Console gamers: Console gamers are stupid enough to pay €60 to €90 for a game, that would often not even be worth €10 on a PC. A simple FPS engine with standard graphics sets, used for creating jump&run or FPS games. Epic. At least for the managers who can happily enjoy huge profits despite the license costs for the hardware platform. Which is why many PC games today are only adapted console games, and not full PC games.

Sorry, but I don't see consoles as evolutionary improvement over PCs. The Amiga was also a game computer, but it was capable of more than just that. Amiga & Co back then destroyed the console market, does somebody remember?

This is exactly what I meant by PC snob.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

This is exactly what I meant by PC snob.

So, are you saying that our claim that PCs are technologically superior to consoles is incorrect?

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

If consoles go out of date so quickly, I wonder why so many similar games are being released on them and the PC. The PC has less exclusives than consoles.

Any game that is on both consoles and PC almost always has better graphics on PC due to the outdated hardware of the consoles. And if you looked, I'm sure you'd find that the PC has much, much more exclusives than consoles. :dry:

 

[Codz]

Why not? If you look at Germany, a huge number of console gamers life on welfare, are unemployed and not often really skilled except in playing "their" games. (More than often, the console replaces having to pay attention to your children and be a good parent)

?

I'm saying this is incorrect. You wanna back this up with some figures?

 

[Jarvitä]

This is why many people think PC gamers are snobs and jerks.

Because they're more concerned with information delivery than being nice to people? :tiphat:

In any case, I really don't see it as "just a matter of preference". This generation of consoles (like the previous one) has basically been obsolete hardware-wise since soon after it launched. And since so many people own them (compared to PCs with up-to-date hardware), it's holding back game development, pure and simple.

Also, a console is basically a somewhat (xbox) to very (PS3) locked-down PC. I don't see why anyone would submit to having their software freedom restricted like this. Sorry, trivial entertainment isn't worth giving that up, even if it weren't available elsewhere.

 

[Codz]

Because they're more concerned with information delivery than being nice to people? :tiphat:

.

This is YOUR issue in any arguement you make.

 

[Keatah]

So we don't derail the Skyrim discussion. I personally am multiplatform but most newer releases I buy for console.

We can have two separate discussions. Besides, what's a Skyrim anyways? Is that a launch system of some sort?

PC or Laptop? What are you nuts?
Laptop for gaming is a joke.
Small screen, clumsy keyboard, limited hardware power, limited battery life (if you plug your laptop in and leave it plugged in, then it's better to get a PC).

I don't know about that. I tend to play many older games, so I suppose my hardware demands aren't that intensive to begin with. It all depends..

Proud PC fanboy. Better hardware, better controls, and better modding potential. Consoles hold back software development by requiring everything to be compatible with the same hardware 6 years down the road. Consoles are limited to only running software that's been approved by Microsoft or Sony, and customization ability is essentially nothing. The console philosophy is "Do it our way or get lost".

The only reason to own consoles is because many of the best games are hoarded as console exclusives to get people to buy them. If all the games I wanted to play were available on PC, I would ditch my consoles and never look back.

And I agree with the above, laptop gaming is worthless for heat issues alone.

Thing with PC gaming though, while you have better hardware/controls/mods, you have to put up with a lot of tediousness like file management and controller configuration. You have to tweak the hardware. And you have to install mods. Installing mods is different for each game and simulation.

I suppose you need a good understanding of how the whole system comes together and operates. In my days of doing PC-tech work for everybody, I've had to explain that you can't really get a virus from a .jpg file. But what about a filename.jpg.exe or a filename.exe.jpg?? With windows paying attention to the last extension type?

And like for orbiter.. you need to know directory structures and how to unpack and copy files over. You need to know how to edit .ini files and config files too! Now we're getting in too deep! This is really beyond some folks that make 6 and 7 figure incomes, I know I see it all the time. But then, they don't bother with petty gaming. They're busy doing other productive things. Just an observation.

Always PC. My last console was the first Playstation back in the 1990s. I don't see a sense in buying a console when I own a high-end PC which is upgraded frequently. No console in the world can do what my PC can do. Especially space and flight simulation. So in my case consoles are just dumb toys.

At home = yes. On vacation = no joke but useful. I wish I had a gaming laptop, so I wouldn't have to drag my big PC along when I visit my brother for a few days in December.

I tend to agree. I remember, it was a 45 minute ritual for me to pack up a monitor, 2 disk drives, a hard drive, a good sized box of wires, connecting cables, joysticks, paddles, adapters, interface cards, external fan, modem, clock card, printer interface and printer, extension cords, rf cables, joystick adapters, 3-ring binders/folders full of 5.25 floppies, and of course the system console itself. We used to have these gaming sleepovers, and I usually brought along my Apple II+ or //e. And I transported the whole setup. I removed all the interface cards to prevent physical damage. In some cases this was a full hour ordeal to pack it. Then another hour to set it up. So all in all, it consumed 4 hours of my time to move the system from one location to another! At the time it was almost fun. I felt proud and cool being able to do all that. But now? I'd rather stuff my laptop in a baggie and go!

Initially, when a console comes out, it *seems* to be state of the art. Then software catches up. And then we see the full potential shine through. The nice thing about consoles is the hardware and OS is consistent. From a dev's pov, this is great!

Cartridge based consoles, years ago, in the commodore/atari/apple2 era were my favorite. And now, through emulation I quite thoroughly enjoy all those old games once again.

If you insult what someone enjoys doing because you want to feel superior then yes, that is an insult.

That's called Schadefreude, or rather something like it. I used to do that so much SO MUCH!! But I grew out of that. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude"]Schadenfreude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

If you have the cash to put out for a good PC, go ahead. My budget desktop was worth as much as a PS3 is these days yet can't play as many games well. That means this and a PS3 are about $600 USD. Also, there are many games that are exclusive to consoles.

If new downloadable games were significantly cheaper (e.g. on Steam), that would be more worth it. Steam has so many enticing sales, but I don't see why new releases are so expensive for downloads. The PS3 lacks hard drive space, using a laptop-sized one, and I don't think the Slim version is upgradeable so you'd run out of space real fast on that set-up. Not to mention the PS3 still has to install most games which is annoying and still eats up the entire disk on the PS3.

Computers die (of course), and PCs could have much important data and be much more expensive than a console nowadays. Consoles nonetheless will last for many years without the requirement to upgrade; the PS3 has been going strong since 2006. Backing up to the Skyrim thread, having too many add-ons and modifications eventually make me get bored with any game (even Orbiter) and re-install the entire thing clean. So many additions feels like cheating and is an overload, straying too far from the original game.

That being said, there are games that are far superior on the PC and some of them I can handle. Overall, most of my modern games are on the console but consoles are beat in simulation games (from SimCity to Orbiter).

Well, I've observed that more complex games are available on the PC. Consoles are for simple games. View that however you like, but I don't think we'll see x-plane or fsx or orbiter on a ps3.

Regarding add-ons, I've got an older orbiter install with like 10 or 12 gigs of extras. Many of them are betas and half completed. It's time to start fresh and recapture the essence of what orbiter is with a few well-chosen fully functional add-ons. Time to actually play it instead of reading about it and installing add-ons. While I don't see it as cheating I do see it as massive overload. Same thing with Celestia. I think I have 30 gigs of add-ons going now. Or something.

Depends on the point of view. More capabilities do make a PC superior to a console in my point of view. In case somebody identifies itself with a technology too much, he/she might feel superior/insulted.

Anybody that identifies with a technology to the point of it changing their personality has much deeper issues and needs to rethink some priorities. I used to be that way, a lot, and am much happier setting aside all the fanboi stuff. You know, like what's better, AMD or INTEL? ATI or NVIDIA? Seats 15 and 16 or seats 17 and 18? They're all center of the theater!! It isn't that big a deal anymore. Go with what works and don't get your panties all bunched up over minor things.

Why not? If you look at Germany, a huge number of console gamers life on welfare, are unemployed and not often really skilled except in playing "their" games. (More than often, the console replaces having to pay attention to your children and be a good parent)

There are few people who really buy the console as it is, for having something to play with their friends at the local TV. But then, most console games are not made for this kind of gaming, they are trying to pretend they are PC games.

PC gamers are usually people who are skilled enough to operate something more complex, and who usually spend a lot of their time choosing their hardware. But it is a pretty lonely way of gaming, even LAN parties can't compensate the fact that you are not playing with people, but rather alone in a network with them.

The difference between PC gamers and Console gamers: Console gamers are stupid enough to pay €60 to €90 for a game, that would often not even be worth €10 on a PC. A simple FPS engine with standard graphics sets, used for creating jump&run or FPS games. Epic. At least for the managers who can happily enjoy huge profits despite the license costs for the hardware platform. Which is why many PC games today are only adapted console games, and not full PC games.

Sorry, but I don't see consoles as evolutionary improvement over PCs. The Amiga was also a game computer, but it was capable of more than just that. Amiga & Co back then destroyed the console market, does somebody remember?

Console gaming needs to stay family oriented and present challenges that allow multi-player to happen almost instantly by pressing the power-on button. This is what made the Atari 2600 and Intellivision (and others of that era) shine like a supernova! Today, console games are too complex for effective multi-playing. You've got to go the network route. And that means more complexity and isolation.

We had so much fun with games like Surround and Video Olympics, or perhaps Missile Command or Dodge'Em. Stuff like that. -- http://atariage.com -- The console was unobtrusive, the graphics simple, the gameplay engrossing. The game was really about you and your partner or opponent competing and having fun together and not necessarily about the game itself. The graphics were simple and the learning curve took all of 3 minutes to get the ball rolling! No pun intended.

The PC gaming experience is really isolating and a solitary activity. As a game becomes more involved and detailed, the more *you* want to command it and control it. This leaves little room for a 2nd person to play and interact with you. Whereas on the 1st 8-bit cartridge based systems there were few rules to a game. No rules to interfere with your playstyle. It was about you and your buddy and good times.

In my opinion consoles have gotten away from that. It started around 1986 or 1987 (the advent of 16-bit gaming), and has gotten worse since.

Regarding the Amiga, I had high hopes for that system. Really high hopes! But I quickly found myself sinking endless amounts of money into it. And always waiting with baited breath for the next games to come out that were supposed to be arcade quality. It was one disappointment after another after another. It wouldn't be until years later when M.A.M.E. came out that I would again play my arcade favorites.

There were so many things wrong with the Amiga series. The basic structure of the system really made it tough to change out individual components. In a real PC you can change ram and cpu and everything else. But the Amiga relied too much on custom chips that prevented major changes. And as advanced as they were, they lacked upgradability.

It was frustrating and tedious to use. Nothing seemed to have a precise consistency to it. Transferring files, graphics formats, modem operations, archiving software, building collections, graphic editing. All a big tangled mess. It was like that in the "pioneer" days of early computing, of course. But the thing was they promised me the Amiga would be different and make things easy.

It was nice when the PC started to grow up and handle all the file formats I wanted. Nice to have some "enforced" standards, like USB, and NTFS, and a stable operating system like Windows. Files made with one program could be used in another, and if not, there were conversion tools available.

I could finally make a file, whether it be a text document or graphic image and be assured that another PC could make use of it. Even a PC from another manufacturer. Everything on the Amiga was too proprietary. Despite having good hardware for its time period. The Amiga never grew into anything significant aside from a few niche markets. The Apple II was far more successful and penetrated far more markets then the Amiga could ever hope to dream about.

As far as the Amiga destroying the console market, well, I don't think so. It neither owned it nor hurt it. The Amiga was just another blight on an ailing industry. I think the industry did it to itself. I tell ya' I hated almost all 16-bit consoles, and the latter 8-bitters like NES. It seemed that the graphics were becoming more cut & paste - like sprites and paper cutouts pasted onto a background. The industry was washing itself out. A lot of stupidware came into being, software was just so bad and pointless.

 

[Ghostrider]

Oh man. Another C64/Speccy war. I'm outta here.

 

[Keatah]

As for me, having been a fanboi from 1992 to 2009 when it came to nVidia graphics cards and iNTEL CPU's, I tell you it's a really dumb and stupid thing. All it does is make you waste time beta testing early-adopted hardware. Being an "early adopter" means you pay someone (with time and money) for the "right" to help fix newly released hardware & software. Something that should be done prior to the release of something. Whatever it may be.

For a while thereafter I was a software fanboi, singing the praises of photoshop and itunes and stuff like that. But, thankfully, that phase lasted only a year or two.

Then I transformed into a technology fanboi, like I'd be evangelizing certain hardware features like USB or SSD or something stupid like that. Or perhaps endlessly extolling the virtues of USB hard disks from WD, or something like that.

Now I'm bored of that too. And happier! Thankfully! I do hereby conclude fanboism is a disease, similar to OCD & hoarding.

Thing is with the fanboi disorder, you make everyone feel bad in your presence if they don't have "your" hardware going. You don't even know it. It just sort of happens!

---------- Post added at 04:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 AM ----------

Oh man. Another C64/Speccy war. I'm outta here.

Why is this another C64 war?? Everyone here knows all about it. And if they don't, well, I'm sure they're smart enough to use Bing and smarten themselves up.

Oh one other thing. I've never really gone for the "big name" titles like John Madden's Hockey 2010 or similar. These "big games" just reek of sensationalism and corporate moneymaking.

 

[Ghostrider]

Why is this another C64 war?? Everyone here knows all about it. And if they don't, well, I'm sure they're smart enough to use Bing and smarten themselves up.

Because it's always the same "my bike is shinier than yours" argument. Crazy as I may be about hardware, they're just tools in a box.

Ah, cool response. :lol:

 

[agentgonzo]

PC or Laptop? What are you nuts?

Laptop for gaming is a joke.
Small screen, clumsy keyboard, limited hardware power, limited battery life (if you plug your laptop in and leave it plugged in, then it's better to get a PC).

You've obviously never seen gaming laptops. My friend has an alienware laptop. Screen is about 20" or so and better res than my desktop. Keyboard is designed to be useful, so has a number pad and is as good as a desktop one. It's got SLI'd graphics and is more powerful than my desktop in both GPU and CPU. Battery life will always be a problem, so it's plugged in when doing gaming, but it's a lot more portable to take to LAN parties than my entire rig.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

I've coincidentally just come back from a LAN party. We've been doing these over the past 10 years and it's quite entertaining that you can see the 'console crowd' mentality of the game devs that's made its way into the PC gaming arena. And it's infuriating.

A lot of the mainstream FPSes these days are designed for consoles with very little thought to PC gaming. Most games have a limit of 4 people playing in co-op mode when there is absolutely no reason there should be a limit there. The maps are big enough. If there are more players, you just have more/better opposition. The only reason is that it's designed for consoles and you can only really fit 4 players on a single TV. So we can't get a decent game going because we have too many friends.

And the network configurations are getting more and more annoying. It's very handy being able to see a message saying 'X is playing Y' and you just join in with them, but the point of LAN parties is not just to have a random selection of people from the internet playing. We're all in one room. We want to have our own server running so we can apportion one side of the room to one team and the other to the other. We don't want to join a public server because we don't want random internet people in our game and we don't want the latency of having all the network traffic go across the internet only to come right back again. BFBC2 is a great game, but we don't play it at LAN parties because it is UNUSABLE in a LAN situation.

I have nothing against consoles. They are very good and work well in a living-room situation when you have a friend pop over, but they console mentality is slowly destroying the LAN-party gaming experience.

 

[Keatah]

Here, and this is rare that I mention it - I know for a fact my OS configuration is the most stable in town. Nothing else can compare to it. The reliability, dependability, consistency.. Speed and efficiency.. It's all there! I just don't bother bragging or drawing attention to it anymore. And that's how it should be. This is what consoles are good at, VERY GOOD at.. They obfuscate a lot of the wizardry and technobable associated with making a game work.

Consoles are good at making things "just work". No dicking around with settings like BLIT or FLIP on openGL apps. Or setting DXT1 texture compression. Also there is less controller configuration, another intimidating and tedious factor on the PC platform.

Now, my focus is turning more towards content and usability. As hardware improves, it seems to become less important. The fine details are getting washed away and rightfully so. Who cares if you have a 256 or 384 bit data bus?? In the old days it was a big stink to get a 64-bit or 128-bit VRAM interface. Or an even bigger and more important thing to spend time considering a certain size cache. Do we go with a CPU that sported a 256k cache at full speed? Or do we opt for a 512k cache running at 1/2 clock?

For a long time, between the years of 1989 to almost present day, speccing a PC was an arduous and tedious thing. You needed to carefully pick through memory, graphics, cpu, mobo, power supply, monitor, hard disk options.

Today, you roll into the shop and say you need a system and out you go! You can focus more on external amenities, like monitor size and keyboard layouts and stuff. I know many a 7-figure income households that just buy a system and don't waste time playing the specmanship game. They treat the PC as a disposable gaming console.

The one thing that *IS* important to all clientele is Applications and Compatibility, moving data from the old system to the new system. It's always something that seems to come up with talk of computers. But, today, it is not a problem. This is something consoles avoid all together. The question isn't raised at all. And that makes for a good user experience.

It is also one of the reasons why the iPod and iTunes has done so well. The same user interface has been in place since 2001, that's 10-years folks! It just works. Just like a console! The latest version of iTunes supports all the previous iPods from 2001 and onward.

A lot of the nitty-gritty details are hidden, relatively speaking, just like a console. Most other music players and management software has failed due to lack of consistency and instead having all sorts of byzantine sync procedures and dependencies and cluttered operation overall.

In my modern-day business I use a piece of graphics software from 1990 because it is simple, compatible, and it works. And it's beyond faaaassttt on today's hardware.

Though to be fair to the PC on the compatibility issue, we need to consider DOSBOX (and other virtualization). With things of this nature we can run games from older systems of the S-100 bus days in the mid-1970's through present. This isn't mainstream stuff folks, but the capability is indeed there!

---------- Post added at 06:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 AM ----------

Porting games from the PC to consoles, and from consoles to PC doesn't always work. Imagine playing orbiter on your Xbox.. It isn't going to be "right".

As far as console mentality destroying LAN gaming? Uhm, set up the party differently so it's not like console gaming. Surely that can be done. Don't support "console gaming mentality" devs on the PC platform.

 

[N_Molson]

Consoles can't run Orbiter and you can't use fun stuff like add-ons. That's enough for me.

 

[insanity]

If you don't have enough money, fair enough, but if you do, but you spend it on Xbox LIVE because PC upgrades are (Supposedly) too expensive, you're just being a hypocrite.

That is actually one of the most absurd things I have read here in a while. For many people, $15 a month is far less dear than $100 upfront. I know that when I was a poor college student, I didn't have a free $100 at any one time, but I could save $15 a month to play a couple games online. Sure, it works out worse for you in the long term, but it is the same logic behind a mortgage and in no way warrants being called a hypocrite.

That said, I've always found this to be an absurd argument. I love my PC, I purpose built it to play games, run complex stats software, and serve media. It is now starting to age a bit, and I am already starting to spec out a new one. I think flight sims, RPGs, and RTS games were meant for the PC.

However, I do a lot of my gaming on my xbox. I enjoy the fact that when I buy a game I know that it was built to match my hardware specs. I play a lot of FIFA, Forza, and GTA which are types of games I just like better on the console.

At the end of the day, it's really a matter of personal preference on the means in which one spends their disposable (or their parent's, as I suspect is the cast for many here) income. It by no means really rises to the level of importance to flame others for disagreeing with you.