cem_ea_id.IntrebuloN wrote:I dont see what y'all are arguing about.

Comparing PC games to Console games is comparing apples and oranges.

Consoles are for people to get some quick NSA gaming fun after school/work.

PC's are for hobbyists, or in other words, people that take their gaming seriously. It's a full time hobby, akin to golfing or skiing or travelling the world, but much less expensive.

Personally I can't help but being a little miffed that console players got BF:BC exclusively, but stuff happens.

But it's not a big deal, because I know that the next flagship BF title that comes out on PC will be an exclusive to PC. Why? Because even next gen consoles couldn't possibly handle the computing demands of that release.

To the guy that tried to say the PS3's Cell CPU didn't come from PC technology, do you even know who designed it and why?

It was designed by IBM and Toshiba for supercomputing. Sony only got involved because they were in the market for a CPU for PS3. These processors were around before the PS2 was released so I don't understand why you would try to give the impression it was designed by Sony exclusively for the PS3. The exact same architecture has been used in high end HDTV's for years. That's right, your console is using an HDTV processor that is very good for vector graphics processing and number crunching, but little else. Even the cheapest netbooks have processors that are easily 4-5 times as powerful.

I've seen how the latest games run at HD resolutions on PS3. The gameplay is not even close to as fluid as it would be on a PC. The hardware limits of current consoles have already been reached and I'm playing games at much higher resolutions then any console player and my machine isn't even breaking a sweat. 10x the performance at twice the cost, with the ability to do things with it besides gaming is a no brainer for me.

Consoles are toys, not serious computing machines and you are paying premium for the hardware involved. It will be another decade before consoles even come close to closing the technology gap PC's have on them.

To be honest, console's probably don't even WANT to match computer performance, because the price would be higher then a similarly appointed PC. There's a lot more people buying computers out there then consoles.

It cost Sony $800 per console to put the Cell processor in it. At that time I could build a gaming rig for that price that would play all the latest games at reasonable quality, certainly better quality then a PS3 could ever handle and at much higher frame rates.

I have nothing against consoles (or their fans). They simply aren't good enough for my gaming needs, and most likely never will be. And the cost of owning a console is simply too much. Pretty much everyone has a computer in their house. Even if you bought the bare basics, imagine tacking the 500-600 dollars you spent on your console onto the price you or your family spent on your family computer?

Considering that the average pre-built costs around 600-800 dollars, and the next gen consoles coming will probably cost in the 450-750 dollar range. Why would I spend 1050-1550 dollars on two seperate devices, where the performance of either one is only average for it's respective purpose, when I can spend the ENTIRE amount on a gaming computer and get a machine that performs far better at either task? Again, no brainer to me.

The console companies are gouging the hell out of you.

ps3.Grumdor wrote:DIE STUPID THREAD DIE!!!!

MAIN.VoraciousBear wrote:OK how about anyone who posts after me does NOT want the thread to die and is a * of all proportions.

xbox.k1ll8 saurav wrote:Really, PC games and console games are different. PC gamers are mostly hardcore that dedicate their time to their games, and console gamers just have fun with their friends. Sure, we all want 64 player matches, but then, DICE would have to remove Frostbite. Next gen games don't deserve to take a step back. And maybe if DICE can handle it, they can add 64 players to each match on the PC. PC gamers are just so conceded and think every PC FPS should have 64 player matches and extreme teamwork, to the point if one guy doesn't do his job, your team just loses. Be a little more open and just accept that hiding behind a wall with a shotgun while the entire 64 player enemy team is just barging in isn't all that great. DICE is most likely already working on trying to find out how to get the servers updated so they can support both Frostbite and the big player counts. If you don't want BC2, then don't buy it. BC is like a sub-series than a true sequel. I like console games for their mindless fun that it just takes away all the stress from you, but I agree that PC games are much more capable and will be fun when played to their fullest potential. Just relax. And I can't believe I just relived this thread.