What is? What the Console wars

[kurakarariser]

What is? What with the consoles
I hate 360 because it is made with the cheapest components at the cheapest labor possible with no regulations and the service is terrible.

Here are the facts. Now stop being a FAN-BOY QQing moron.

CDs used for an XBox 360 are HDDR which can only hold up to 6.5Giga Bites[Blue Ray disc hold up to 25Giga Bites(Rumor XBox 720 still not switching over to Blue Ray or using Blue tooth tech and will be cheaper then the 360)]

360: Used in the Xbox 360 video game console. Developed under the codename "C1," it is in many ways related to the R520 architecture and therefore very similar to an ATI Radeon X1900/X1950 Bit Video Card.

PS 3 has 256 MB of XDR DRAM main memory256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for the RSX an PC uses a 512 Bit (if you have a great PC)

XBox 360 console features 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700 MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4 GHz on a 128-bit bus(Runs on windows) 360 Processor is a Xenon(1.6 GHz) with a 256-bit bus.

PS3 uses the Cell microprocessor, which is made up of one 3.2 GHz PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element". PS3 Software 256 MB of system RAM is a limitation for this particular application and is considering attempting to retrofit more RAM.
Software includes: Fedora Core 5 Linux ppc64, MPICH2, OpenMP v 2.5, GNU Compiler Collection and CellSDK 1.1. As a more cost-effective alternative to conventional supercomputers, the U.S. military has purchased clusters of PS3 units for research purposes

That is why Mass Effect 2 on the 360 is two disc game[The Graphics on the 360 are not as good as PC an PlayStation 3(I thought we were passed multiple disc games I haven't seen one sense Metal Gear Solid 1 on PS1 and ME2 on 360 smaller space means small game)] and 1 Disc on PC an PlayStation 3.

So the cheaply built consoles are holding gaming back. You "FAN-BOYS" may call me a D-Bag but. I am just stating technical facts about the hard ware on all three major platforms.

Confused? Well i wont help you understand it.

[Allen]

I'm confused. Are you saying PS3 is better than the 360 or that PC is better than both? I'm assuming you mean PC is better than both.

From a hardware standpoint, you're just speaking the obvious. I"m sure majority of people who own consoles realize this. However, they're more straight forward for the average joe and easier to use being majority of kids (and those who are now adults) grew up now with a gaming console of some type so a controller is much more natural for them. There is a common misconception that consoles are more affordable and you need to spend 1000+ on a computer just to run the latest games, but anyone with knowledge of gaming computers knows that's not the truth. Anyways, there was actually an article about this about a month ago, see: Is PC Gaming Really More Expensive Than Consoles? - PC Feature at IGN It's not spot on but it kind of gets the point across in layman's terms.

People who game on consoles just have a different view of things. They just don't see computers as a physical gaming machine. I was the same way up until I was about 19 years old or so, I didn't really see computers for gaming past stuff like yahoo online pool and checking emails between family until a friend recommended me to try Starsiege: Tribes.

Before then the only other real game I played on a computer was in the mid 90's, I played NBA HangTime on our Pentium 133mhz with 16mb of ram running windows 95 and that was about it. It's just not as "fun" for some people to play a game on a computer even though it may be the superior gaming platform, it's an acquired taste really. It took me quite awhile to get into gaming on a computer and honestly, if it wasn't for Starsiege: Tribes being one of the best games I've ever played and become fully accustomed to using the mouse and keyboard for gaming, I probably wouldn't have continued playing games on PC's.

In the end, what does it matter? There's plenty of games for you to play on the PC. Sure you're not going to get all of them but there's just as many if not more PC exclusive titles as there are console ones. Sure we get some ported triple A titles, but what does it really matter? Developers have to make cash some how to keep the ball rolling, atleast they're acknowledging that tons of people game on the PC and are still making games for the PC. I'm sure if they didn't feel like they could make atleast a few bucks, they would just stop porting to PC altogether given the attitude as of the late with the "piracy" stuff. Anyways, old topic, old debate...just live your life and do what you love and stop worrying about others like/dislike

[kurakarariser]

ugh..I promised my self i would not answer the "I am Confused question" But, What the heck.

The PlayStation 3 is way better built then the XBox 360, an all the hardware in the Japanese Made PS3 is above the XBox 360. The only thing the 360 beats the PS3 in is beating cheaply built. Sony may not have the top of the line Processors an hard ware but, it is made with the most reliable parts you can find of 2007. Now that the PS4 is rumored to be released in 2013, it will most likely cost around $800 again but it will have the most reliable peaces.

The XBox 360 well compared to all the processors in the PS3 an purchasable for PC now. It is pure garbage, but that is what microsoft kinda wants Cheap for a average price so most people, who cannot purchase a $800 gaming platform can get a XBox for $400-$500 on release date(Rumor the new XBox 720 is going to release at $450 cheaper then the XBox 360)

The PC(Personal Computer) platform, If you have the money. Destroys the competition 3 years after the home consoles are released, but the major down side "Big spending for top of the line" unless if you can get the items at whole sale price(The prices you find on newegg.com are 30% above whole sale EX: AMD Radeon 6450 cost around $50 on newegg.com wal-mart.com it runs around $100. So if you get thing at wholesale it is cheaper...barely.

So is the PS3 better then the XBox 360 yes, but is it built better then the Nintendo Wii NOT BY A LONG SHOT.

My console ratings

PS3: 5 out of 5(high priced but worth every penny)
XBox 360: 2 out of 5(barely)
Wii: 4 out of 5(No games for hardcore gamers)
PC: 4.8 out of 5(can be expensive, but you get F2P games)

[Allen]

How can we not be confused? You start this thread like you're already in the middle of an argument. It's just a bunch of crap spewed out with no real point to an irrelevant argument. People have what they have, whoopi

[AznTechie]

Seems like you're just listing stuff (that's relevant, don't get me wrong), in hopes of people actually understanding what it means. You've got to realize that most people, even on gaming websites, are not exactly the most technologically literate people on the internets. Heck, one would even assume that you, the OP, don't actually understand what everything you just listed actually means to a tee, as it has happened many times before.

That aside,
I don't get the stereotype of PC gaming costing well in the thousands. Unless you're going to get the best possible system you can ever hope to build or something, the cost of a gaming PC comes around the same price as your regular, pre-built, mid-tower-sized, and moderately powered desktop with the current generation processor plus the gaming console if you count out the peripherals. Let's say you buy a desktop for your room for $500, tacking on a console would make the total price $800, which is well within budget for a moderately powerful gaming desktop that you would assemble yourself.

I understand that consoles are generally the better choice in terms of an entertainment device with the family or friends. The ability to plug in multiple controllers together to play a shooter or racing game or w/e with others is simply much more supported throughout the entirety of a console's game selection when compared to what the PC has to offer for the most part, and can double as a DVD player for movies and such as well. On the other side of the "coin," a PC lets you readily access the web for email, for entertainment in a variety of forms and through multiple mediums. It also lets you watch your movies, be it on the internet, downloaded, or on DVD/Bluray (provided your PC supports that sort of thing in the first place, of course), much like the console.

The fact of the matter is, is that you can do a lot more than just play games on a PC, and the extra shiny hardware you put into your gaming PC can benefit you in other areas as well. My GPU helps with some programs such as AutoCAD, for example; it's not necessarily as good as a dedicated workstation or "professional" GPU as those has specialized drivers and the like, but it does get by a lot better than some of my classmates that just run AutoCAD through their laptops or something. So ya, really depends on what you use your desktop for in the first place before the whole gaming PCs are way more expensive or whatever compared to consoles.

Hardware-wise, both consoles is showing strong signs of their limitations (the Wii was never that powerful anyways, and I think most people knew that from the start, so w/e). 512mb of buffer is not a sufficient amount for what modern games would want or need. Why'd you think Bad Company 2 had lower resolution textures than Modern Warfare 2, even on the same console? It's because of the buffer issue. Heck, why do you think every game of recent launch has mediocre textures and lighting? Or why do you think the FoV in modern shooters is so low? Or how about high-definition? Why do you think God of War 3 can support native 1080p resolutions, but has low resolution of textures regardless? The consoles are running on aged hardware, and their die shrinks over the years has never actually improved their performance to a truly significant amount.

And on the subject of consoles "holding gaming back," that really depends. Technologically, yes, but even then it really depends. The vast majority of people are still running integrated chipsets as a graphics solution. Even when you target a gaming-centric community, most people are not using very powerful systems. Though it may be inaccurate, let's use Steam as the example and basis for this assumption: the most popular GPU determined by the monthly survey is the (DX10) 9800GT of 2008, at about 4%. Ignoring the "other" section (which would be any specific GPU used by less than 0.5% of the userbase, the majority of which I would assume to be various different integrated solutions of low end cards), the amount of people with a GPU as powerful or better than the 9800GT only comes at about 40%. The simple fact is that majority of PC owners won't be able to experience the latest and greatest games on the PC either, at least not with all the bells and whistles. Take the Witcher 2 for example. It has over a million sales worldwide since launch and since then has garnered mostly positive reviews; but how many more, you reckon, did not buy the game because they know their system just won't handle it? The problem with making visually stunning games on the PC that pushes the boundaries of what can be achieved in visuals is usually at the expense of a large playerbase compared to an equally exciting game that taxes the machine a little less.

Past that, however, how does consoles hold gaming back? The simple answer is that it doesn't. The consoles does not hold back innovation in gameplay. It does not hold back the narrative and story. It doesn't hold back the presentation (though that's kind of debatable). It doesn't hold back the boundaries of what makes a game "fun." Demon's Souls is an incredibly good game exclusive to consoles that really only suffers in the technological department. Games such as Dragon Age and Mass Effect has been praised for being excellent narratives. Does them being on the console make them any less fun outside of perhaps technological limitations of the units themselves? Of course not. Magicka is a particular mention as it's an incredibly innovative game, albeit an PC-exclusive, but it's not a particularly pretty game compared to what could be achieved. Yet it sold incredibly well as an indie game and garnered incredibly good reviews.

Having said all that, the new generation of consoles is in the horizon, with the die shrinks of the current generation of GPUs taking place. Like with any new console of the past decade, none of the earlier works for any of the consoles will be particularly as pretty as what can be achieved on the PC. Give it a year or so, though you might see the gap close a bit before something crazy happens what's possible in die manufacturing.

[wintergreen]

PS3 was built mostly better but the bottlenecks crush it =/