This is something I've wanted to write for a long time, but never bothered with.
When it comes to discussing games console/portable technology, why are gamers so eager to use completely useless comparisons? It's always been PC vs console but now with smartphones this shit is getting worse.
Dedicated games consoles are priced for a reason, many reasons. Usually they have different hardware targets and features and are thus priced appropiately. You also have a razor model which some employ, some don't. Others have unique hardware features as USPs that (shock!) actually cost money to implement. If the market conditions are unfavourable they adjust the price accordingly. If it costs too much to make the console they cannot offer it cheaply without committing to years of taking losses.
There is SO much wrong with Gamers arguments' that it beggars belief. I find it hard to believe that some cannot work out the simple principles of a math equation as to why a console is priced as it is - compared to what it offers vs its specs.
BUT MY PC TROUNCES THE SHIT OUT OF CURRENT GEN CONSOLES
The consoles you are comparing your (modern) PC too are 5-6 years old now, WTF is the point of this stupidity? If you were to buy a PC of the same spec as your modern PC back in 2006 how much would it cost you compared to how much the 360 did? The price of consoles in order of magnitude are usually at a minimum half as much as a mid-range PC. Consoles specs are frozen in time, new PCs are continuously improved so what the f*** is the point of comparing your ever evolving PC space with a frozen in time box?
If you compare a PC and a console which are exactly the same spec, the console wins because a PC has to do fifty milllion other things with complex operating systems and requirements. Consoles can do more with less compared to PC in gaming terms. So what if your PC has twice the RAM of a console? The console can do wonders with that RAM while your OS will use half your PC RAM. PCs usually cost a lot more than consoles, sure you may be willing to pay more and put up with the hurdles you may have to jump to with your custom PC - on console terms it's a completely different ball park. And many consumers are not willing to pay high prices for a luxury car for instance.
BUT MY SMARTPHONE HAS MORE RAM THAN CONSOLE X
Just fuuuuuuuuuuuck off with the smartphone comparisons. Dipshit, your phone is on contract over 5 years, to buy it outright costs £500, compared to what? A portable that costs £150? Your smartphone gets new updated editions every year forever, the portable is frozen in time tech delivered at a fraction of the price. Guess what, the dedicated portable gets better games than the casual shite you pick up on your overpriced and underused smartphone.
BUT THIS CONSOLES SPECS ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT WEAKSAUCE ARCHAIC POS
Ever heard the phrase like for like? You're supossed to use it when making accurate comparisons. Some newer consoles have unique hardware features as USPs that (shock!) actually cost money to implement. So do the math. If you have two companies with $300 to spend on each machine.
- Company A chooses to spend $100 of that on an elaborate touch screen controller
- Company B uses all $300 to use higher performance components with no other hardware USPs
It means company A has $200 to spend on it's specs vs $300 of the other company.
Which console will have better graphics? No shit. But gamers should recognise and understand the reasons why and compare like for like. You will hear years of bitching about graphics and yet no one will ever say: Yeah but does Console B come with a controller like that? Simple fact, something like that costs money, so the system has to be balanced to factor this in and deliver it at an affordable price.
Other factors? Well how is the economy doing? If consumer spending is down then a hardware maker may skew the console to be cheaper. How is the company doing? If it's MS and they can blow hundreds of millions and take a loss on hardware sure pat them on the back, not everyone can do that. Why can't you understand this?
Here is something to think about: Xbox and Gamecube sold similar numbers, Nintendo made a profit on each GC sold, Microsoft lost money on each box and Xbox lost Microsoft $4 billion . One console was subject to abject mockery throughout its life, the other is a regarded as a success. Given the cost of making a box, versus how much you can sell it for and the obvious, implicit implications for years to come, can your fragile mind not understand why a console doesn't feature expensive bleeding edge hardware?
That's daft.
One value point that you did not hit on is that when you buy a console you are locking in a guaranteed period of gaming on a certain level of tech (which only gets better as the generation goes on).
When you buy a mid-tier gaming PC, five years from now it's going to be a shabby. Whereas your console, with the same mid-tier tech will be pumping out the best games at the five year interval (assuming it's not a DOA) and in the interim, because of the defined standard, you can be assured of many gaming choices that will work on your system.
That's a huge value.
You don't have to play games on their max settings! In fact they can still look far better than their console versions on lower settings.
Wii U better be $250. I don't care that it's a last gen system with a fancy controller, I'm just a cheap arsehole. So it better be damn cheap.
Good point comrade. If it's anything over $200 we'll have to buy them in bulk to help take NIntendo down. Viva la revolution!
I see your point. But consider this.
In 20XX I buy a middle tier PC for $700. In 20X5 I am not playing games at their native resolution to survive.
In 20XX you buy a high end console for $400 (that has middle tier PC specs). In 20X5 you have had five years of a reliable source of games AND nwe games look better on your hardware than they did 5 years ago.
You are $300 ahead without investing in new hardware and graphics has improved.
But how does it compare to your smartphone, asshole? Hope this is sarcasm!
Say it with me:
It means company A has $200 to spend on it's specs vs $300 of the other company.
P.S
Wii U uses a modern architecture and components, check out my post in the Wii U thread. It will be able to outperform the best looking PS3/360 games if the same level of effort is made with it. Which no 3rd party will do. It has a GPGPU, DSP, Tesselation Unit, I/O processor which negates the need for a fourth core, better DX level equivalent with compute shaders, an out of order processor, 8 channels of sound, 3 times as much eDRAM as 360 for better IQ, AA and should have about 3 times as much RAM which means less to no texture compression and more detailed textures. All this means better graphics. You were wowed by MGS Zeros? If that is for PS3/360 and so is Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs then you have no problem with Wii U which can do those better. Not as good as PC or the new consoles launching late 2013 or early 2014 though.
But seriously these smartphone fuckers need to shut it. Their smartphones cost as much as a laptop for chrissakes, if it's not on contract and the games usually look like crap anyway bar the odd standout.
If you spend your $700 very well you will be paying games at their native resolution with superior graphics than are available on console. In five years time when consoles have still not caught up, but are closer, you will still be able to play the newest games with superior graphics than on console, albeit not to their full potential. The native resolution is irrelevent, though becuase you'll probably be using a monitor and a video card which have flexability, unlike a console and a television. Video card driver issues aside.
New games still look better than games from five years ago; if you play around with graphical settings there may be potential for a bigger improvement than you would have seen on your console.
You're still paying more money, but you're getting more, even in the long term.