PS3 - price set

Tetsuo_Shima

In Cryo Sleep
An interesting point, KC, an interesting point. I would say the main way that it differs component wise is that the components are designed specifically for consoles and their applications. You wouldnt be sticking a Cell processor in your PC now, would you? :p In that same vein, the Cell processor is an extremely powerful bit of kit (comparable to, and probably more powerful than an Athlon FX), and for your 400 quid, you arent just getting the processor; you get the whole top-notch shabang. Quite handy really, because then it eliminates the need for upgrades entirely until the next console comes out ... in five years time :p

This has actually brought a question to the forefront of my mind. In PC games you tend to find that once a benchmark game comes out graphics wise, any subsequent games require a graphics/processor/memory upgrade to your PC before they can reach the next level. As opposed to console games where a benchmark game comes out (ill use Gran Turismo 3 for an example), and then a game superior in graphics and gameplay comes out (Gran Turismo 4 :)) and it runs just as smoothly as the older game did. In fact, in TimeSplitters case, the games both looked better and ran faster as the subsequent generations of the game came out (TS1, 2, 3) and yet the hardware was the same the whole time. Im wondering to myself, how do they do that? Must be some kind of marketing ploy.
 

Macca

Member
Just to state I wasn't trying to sound agressive or argumentitive in my last post just stating my opinion :).

I think the first "Machine" I ever played was the "Sega Mega drive" however just a short while after that I played "Furry of the furys" on the PC and loved it :D.

My dad was always quite into computers and I suppose that was why I started playing them. Don't get me wrong ive played consoles for quite a bit aswell, but I much prefer the online gaming now and multiplayer console games just don't do it for me.

You make a good point there about not having to upgrade parts on a console to play a new graphically enhanced game, However I think that if you do upgrade on a certain part e.g. a GX7800GT then you would get much much better quality and graphics and overall enjoyment out of it than, not having to upgrade it but it still running smoothly - albeit your having to pay for it- (However this point is probably negligable now with theXbox 360).

I mainly like the flexability with a PC. With a console you can play a game for a couple of hours, and then get bored of it and go do something else. Whereas a PC you can play a game for a couple hours, then go on to msn chat with some friends, go on to the internet look through forums, Do your homework on Word...

Although this essentially leads you to becoming lazy ---> less active ---> obbeise ----> a complete Geek ----> Dieing from playing Starcraft for over 24 hours without leaving the screen (true story) :p.
 

Tetsuo_Shima

In Cryo Sleep
Macca said:
Just to state I wasn't trying to sound agressive or argumentitive in my last post just stating my opinion :).

Dont worry, I knew you werent. :) I was just explaining my pedigree as a wholemeal console gamer.

Macca said:
I mainly like the flexability with a PC. With a console you can play a game for a couple of hours, and then get bored of it and go do something else. Whereas a PC you can play a game for a couple hours, then go on to msn chat with some friends, go on to the internet look through forums, Do your homework on Word...

Of course, the fact I have a console prevents me from turning on my PC :) Plus, its actually within arms reach of my 360 (with the new advent of a wirless controller:)) so I can probably multitask more capably than if you were running a game on the same PC :p
 
Top