You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Lol you just pwned yourself.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
Jesus christ, the gimmick argument again? You guys are pathetic, truly. I expected Methanes thread to raise the ire of fanbois because of the high Nintendo sales which is why I stood out of the thread this whole time, and, well....actually to be honest I did expect some of you to start grasping at straws once again, aka the gimmick argument. Odds are the PS3 will "win" this generation once again in the LONG run, but not without Nintendo accomplishing its goal, which it has been flawlessly so far, and has also been drawing people away from the 360 and PS3. Its going to come down between the Wii and the PS3, Microsoft has apparently ran out of ideas, and just pissed away every dime of profits the 360 has given them due to that billion dollar warranty thing, so I see them doing nothing but Milking Halo 3 for about a year and putting out nothing during that time.
This time I have my doubts.
Nintendo Wii, will be the winner of this generation.
The reasons:
-It is much cheaper
-Its customer base is much bigger (any age any sex)
-it is different, definetly not the conventional game console.
Wii is not a static console where u sit down on the sofa and play the latest state of the art graphic extravaganza.
Most of the games, you have to stand up and move with the joypad.
Not the most cutting edge of the games, but they work.
Wii is not the classic console which appeal normal console players, it is more like a softcore entertaining system for all the family, not just for the game nerd.
Also PS3 is too far behind with sales and the price is not going down enough.
When PS3 will have a price more affordable, I bet Microsoft will have launched the next generation of Xbox.
My personal opinion is that Sony misunderstood the console market, they packed the PS3 with expensive features that people basically don't really need, making it a bit too costly for the average gamer.
Buying a PS3 now is like buying a second PC, but with less games for it.
I for once have no intention to buy the PS3 even if it comes down in price.
I bought PS1 and PS2, but this time I ll pass on it.
I am seriously thinking of buying a Wii, a good alternative to my powerful PC which can play better games than the PS3 (and more).
That's a little unfair to the PS3. I think who wins this generation will largely depend on when you consider the "end" of this generation. I think ultimately the PS3 will outsell the Wii by a fairly large number for a couple reasons. 1) Eventually many gamers WILL want the hardware packaged in the PS3, and 2) the PS3 is going to last longer than the Wii.
I'm not saying #2 as a cheap shot on the Wii, it's just a probably what's going to happen. The PS3 is much more future-proof than the Wii, and I truly think that over time the lack of advanced hardware on the Wii is really going to hurt Nintendo. Right now many if not most of the 3rd party games coming out on the Wii are PS2 ports. Even with as many Wii's sold as there are, it still can't touch the 130 million PS2s sold (with an estimated 11 million more this year). The question is, will many 3rd party developers continue to make high quality games JUST for the Wii when the PS2 finally dies out? Honestly, I think the answer will eventually turn more and more towards "no." For the most part, developers like to show off. They aren't publishers who only care about money. They're guys who, for the most part, like more hard core games, and that's what they're going to want to make. They like being able to push graphics/audio/performance/features to the next gen when they can, and I think once they have to devote entire teams JUST to make a downgraded version of their games for the Wii, they're going to stop doing it. To a certain extend we're already seeing it. 3rd party has never been Nintendo's thing, and it's one of the main things that killed the GameCube. First party Nintendo titles can only carry a system so far, especially with Nintendo (as good as they are), because the come out so few and far between.
Granted, everything I said above could prove to be wrong, and developers could continue to support the Wii far into the future, but I really just don't see it happening. The Wii already has pretty crappy 3rd party support in a lot of ways, and I truly think it's only going to get worse as time goes on and it's hardware limitations make themselves better known. I'm open to be wrong though.
Also, as I said, you're being a little unfair to the PS3. If you read many of the interviews with Sony, they are specifically targeting the more hard core audience. The price drop also made a huge difference. Just dropping the system price from $600 to $500 boosted PS3 sales 135%. That's a pretty big jump. If they can keep those sales numbers, I think the PS3 has a pretty good future.
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Also, as I said, you're being a little unfair to the PS3. If you read many of the interviews with Sony, they are specifically targeting the more hard core audience. The price drop also made a huge difference. Just dropping the system price from $600 to $500 boosted PS3 sales 135%. That's a pretty big jump. If they can keep those sales numbers, I think the PS3 has a pretty good future.
If you read my post you ll noticed that I am saying exactly that (the red marked text).
And that's when Sony got it wrong.
Don't get me wrong the PS3 is a nice piece of Hardware, but I think it misses the masses appeal which Wii has.
As you said Sony admitted that the PS3 is designed for hardcore gamers, that's what I was saying all along.
You are looking at the PS3 with the gamer eye.
I am looking at it on a business point of view.
Nintendo has expressively aimed to non hardcore gamers, not only that, they actually tried to appeal section of the market previous untapped like girls, young clubbers, young kids, elders and family man.
They left the hardcore section to the 360 and PS3.
The PS3 might get some more customers from the 360, but the Wii is untoucheable because they have different market audience.
For some strange reason unbeknownst to me you actually care about the business of Nintendo and how well they are doing as a company. That has no place in the gaming world. I could not care less about how well a company does as long as I am being Entertained.
I care about the GAMES you care about money made that you will never see and will never be shared with you ever. I care about the games that SONY/Microsoft will share with gamers the world WIDE. I could not care less about WiiFit.
Microsoft is hovering around 7 billion lost for the Xbox franchise thus far. Do you hear anyone complaining that the Xbox isn't a source of profit for Microsoft? No.. because you know what.. Microsoft somewhere in its cold blackened heart actually cares about Entertaining GAMERS.
I find examples hard to come by these days of how Nintendo cares about the people that made their console so big in the first place.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
For some strange reason unbeknownst to me you actually care about the business of Nintendo and how well they are doing as a company. That has no place in the gaming world. I could not care less about how well a company does as long as I am being Entertained.
I care about the GAMES you care about money made that you will never see and will never be shared with you ever. I care about the games that SONY/Microsoft will share with gamers the world WIDE. I could not care less about WiiFit.
Microsoft is hovering around 7 billion lost for the Xbox franchise thus far. Do you hear anyone complaining that the Xbox isn't a source of profit for Microsoft? No.. because you know what.. Microsoft somewhere in its cold blackened heart actually cares about Entertaining GAMERS.
I find examples hard to come by these days of how Nintendo cares about the people that made their console so big in the first place.
I think you need a chill pill mate.
This post was about the "Console Sales in USA", you should know since you post it.
The thread wasn't about which Console is better, but which console was selling more with the discussion focusing on that, or am I wrong?
I tried to explain why the Wii is selling and the PS3 is not, perfectly in tune with this thread.
I don't even know why you even bother giving your personal opinion on which console you prefer, If you wanted to discuss that matter, you shouldn't have wrote the OP as you did, because to me that's not what the thread was about.
We all know that PS3 and 360 are the console for gamers, you haven't discovered the hot water.
I don't think there should be any reason to discuss that.
I thought that discussing the reason why the Wii is selling so much over the other 2 (like you suggested by your wall of data in your OP), was a more interesting debate.
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper. And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper. And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system.
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
Most people that would be interested in PC gaming probably already own a computer that is similar to this:
It costs 529 dollars from Bestbuy and isn't even near the best you can get. Add a Video Card to it and it is perfectly fine for gaming. Most gamers do not run top of the line systems in either Consoles or PC gaming. So graphically they are going to be about the same quality.
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core processor 4400+* for increased multitasking performance; improved security with Enhanced Virus Protection**; Cool'n'Quiet™ Technology to minimize heat and noise
2GB PC4200 DDR2 SDRAM for multitasking power; expandable to 4GB
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper. And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system.
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The libarary of a PC includes every PC game ever made and every console game up to ps2/GC/Xbox. Though, give that a year or two and you will have all those games working, the main problems is the emulators for the ps2/GC/xbox right now. So how is any console libarary bigger?
Why would you need a dual core when very few games even support that? 2 gigs of RAM doesn't cost too much maybe $80 and that wouldn't be the cheapest. Most any game will run very smooth with 1 gig.
You get what you pay for. People generally get into arcady games easier and that is pretty much all consoles offer except for RPG's.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
This post was about the "Console Sales in USA", you should know since you post it.
The thread wasn't about which Console is better, but which console was selling more with the discussion focusing on that, or am I wrong?
I tried to explain why the Wii is selling and the PS3 is not, perfectly in tune with this thread.
I don't even know why you even bother giving your personal opinion on which console you prefer, If you wanted to discuss that matter, you shouldn't have wrote the OP as you did, because to me that's not what the thread was about.
We all know that PS3 and 360 are the console for gamers, you haven't discovered the hot water.
I don't think there should be any reason to discuss that.
I thought that discussing the reason why the Wii is selling so much over the other 2 (like you suggested by your wall of data in your OP), was a more interesting debate.
Hmmm i totally misread your post then.. I apologize... I thought you were another douche bag who was saying that the Wii is better than other systems because it appeals to the masses...
When in my mind.. if you are on this board/forum.. you shouldn't give a rats grass what the masses think... That was what I was saying...
And actually for the record I do think that the Wii will win this generation... In terms of hardware sales... software I'm not so sure.... and in terms of fun (As a gamer) .. i dont know about that either.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper. And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system.
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Many RPG's are on their way to the next gen systems that are just an indepth as PC RPG's. Fallout 3? TES: Oblivion? Heck, even the famous Baldurs Gate has been released on consoles. There is a lot of interesting RPG stuff comming to consoles. RTS games? Yeah pretty much. FPS, I don't really agree with. It may be easier to aim, but moving around is a lot more easy with a gamepad.
If you think its worth paying 600 ~ 800$ more just to do that then be my guest, but since consoles have dominated ever since they were released, I'd say you're really in a minority. PC gaming is expensive, but the quality of the games and the amount of games does not live up to the costs.
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper. And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system.
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Many RPG's are on their way to the next gen systems that are just an indepth as PC RPG's. Fallout 3? TES: Oblivion? Heck, even the famous Baldurs Gate has been released on consoles. There is a lot of interesting RPG stuff comming to consoles. RTS games? Yeah pretty much. FPS, I don't really agree with. It may be easier to aim, but moving around is a lot more easy with a gamepad.
If you think its worth paying 600 ~ 800$ more just to do that then be my guest, but since consoles have dominated ever since they were released, I'd say you're really in a minority. PC gaming is expensive, but the quality of the games and the amount of games does not live up to the costs.
That is so not true. Games that are ported to consoles are dumbed down. Take FFXI for an example It is one of the most dumbed down MMO games of the whole genre so that it could be played on a Console. RTS games as well are dumbed down to be played on Consoles. RPGs as well. PC Gaming is not dying off.
*edit* The funny thing is that these same things were said at every new console launching. PS2 people claimed would kill off PC gaming. Nintendo 64, SNES, NES, ETc all were claimed they were going to kill off PC gaming. PC Gaming will be around a long time and it will always be doing well.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper. And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system.
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Many RPG's are on their way to the next gen systems that are just an indepth as PC RPG's. Fallout 3? TES: Oblivion? Heck, even the famous Baldurs Gate has been released on consoles. There is a lot of interesting RPG stuff comming to consoles. RTS games? Yeah pretty much. FPS, I don't really agree with. It may be easier to aim, but moving around is a lot more easy with a gamepad.
If you think its worth paying 600 ~ 800$ more just to do that then be my guest, but since consoles have dominated ever since they were released, I'd say you're really in a minority. PC gaming is expensive, but the quality of the games and the amount of games does not live up to the costs.
That is so not true. Games that are ported to consoles are dumbed down. Take FFXI for an example It is one of the most dumbed down MMO games of the whole genre so that it could be played on a Console. RTS games as well are dumbed down to be played on Consoles. RPGs as well. PC Gaming is not dying off.
*edit* The funny thing is that these same things were said at every new console launching. PS2 people claimed would kill off PC gaming. Nintendo 64, SNES, NES, ETc all were claimed they were going to kill off PC gaming. PC Gaming will be around a long time and it will always be doing well.
I have played Final Fantasy XI as well, and I don't see how it was dumbed down in any way or form. Sure, its controls take a litle while to get used to, but thats about it. I played red alert on the playstation one, and C&C 3 on the Xbox360, and I can assure you they are not dumbed down in any way or form. RPG's as well? Thats funny, because I never noticed any difference between TES4: Oblivion on the Xbox360 and the PC. I could customize the graphical settings a bit on the PC, but that all.
FF11 was made dumbed down in my opinion . Never liked its UI , always felt like it was meant for a console. Games these days dont have to be dumbed down for the consoles because consoles have turned into PCs pretty much
Games on consoles have to be made simpler in terms of controls because of the simpler input method
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Comments
You can have the most powerful pc in the world, but if the good games don't get released for it...you're kinda stuck.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Lol you just pwned yourself.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
This time I have my doubts.
Nintendo Wii, will be the winner of this generation.
The reasons:
-It is much cheaper
-Its customer base is much bigger (any age any sex)
-it is different, definetly not the conventional game console.
Wii is not a static console where u sit down on the sofa and play the latest state of the art graphic extravaganza.
Most of the games, you have to stand up and move with the joypad.
Not the most cutting edge of the games, but they work.
Wii is not the classic console which appeal normal console players, it is more like a softcore entertaining system for all the family, not just for the game nerd.
Also PS3 is too far behind with sales and the price is not going down enough.
When PS3 will have a price more affordable, I bet Microsoft will have launched the next generation of Xbox.
My personal opinion is that Sony misunderstood the console market, they packed the PS3 with expensive features that people basically don't really need, making it a bit too costly for the average gamer.
Buying a PS3 now is like buying a second PC, but with less games for it.
I for once have no intention to buy the PS3 even if it comes down in price.
I bought PS1 and PS2, but this time I ll pass on it.
I am seriously thinking of buying a Wii, a good alternative to my powerful PC which can play better games than the PS3 (and more).
That's a little unfair to the PS3. I think who wins this generation will largely depend on when you consider the "end" of this generation. I think ultimately the PS3 will outsell the Wii by a fairly large number for a couple reasons. 1) Eventually many gamers WILL want the hardware packaged in the PS3, and 2) the PS3 is going to last longer than the Wii.
I'm not saying #2 as a cheap shot on the Wii, it's just a probably what's going to happen. The PS3 is much more future-proof than the Wii, and I truly think that over time the lack of advanced hardware on the Wii is really going to hurt Nintendo. Right now many if not most of the 3rd party games coming out on the Wii are PS2 ports. Even with as many Wii's sold as there are, it still can't touch the 130 million PS2s sold (with an estimated 11 million more this year). The question is, will many 3rd party developers continue to make high quality games JUST for the Wii when the PS2 finally dies out? Honestly, I think the answer will eventually turn more and more towards "no." For the most part, developers like to show off. They aren't publishers who only care about money. They're guys who, for the most part, like more hard core games, and that's what they're going to want to make. They like being able to push graphics/audio/performance/features to the next gen when they can, and I think once they have to devote entire teams JUST to make a downgraded version of their games for the Wii, they're going to stop doing it. To a certain extend we're already seeing it. 3rd party has never been Nintendo's thing, and it's one of the main things that killed the GameCube. First party Nintendo titles can only carry a system so far, especially with Nintendo (as good as they are), because the come out so few and far between.
Granted, everything I said above could prove to be wrong, and developers could continue to support the Wii far into the future, but I really just don't see it happening. The Wii already has pretty crappy 3rd party support in a lot of ways, and I truly think it's only going to get worse as time goes on and it's hardware limitations make themselves better known. I'm open to be wrong though.
Also, as I said, you're being a little unfair to the PS3. If you read many of the interviews with Sony, they are specifically targeting the more hard core audience. The price drop also made a huge difference. Just dropping the system price from $600 to $500 boosted PS3 sales 135%. That's a pretty big jump. If they can keep those sales numbers, I think the PS3 has a pretty good future.
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Also, as I said, you're being a little unfair to the PS3. If you read many of the interviews with Sony, they are specifically targeting the more hard core audience. The price drop also made a huge difference. Just dropping the system price from $600 to $500 boosted PS3 sales 135%. That's a pretty big jump. If they can keep those sales numbers, I think the PS3 has a pretty good future.
If you read my post you ll noticed that I am saying exactly that (the red marked text).
And that's when Sony got it wrong.
Don't get me wrong the PS3 is a nice piece of Hardware, but I think it misses the masses appeal which Wii has.
As you said Sony admitted that the PS3 is designed for hardcore gamers, that's what I was saying all along.
You are looking at the PS3 with the gamer eye.
I am looking at it on a business point of view.
Nintendo has expressively aimed to non hardcore gamers, not only that, they actually tried to appeal section of the market previous untapped like girls, young clubbers, young kids, elders and family man.
They left the hardcore section to the 360 and PS3.
The PS3 might get some more customers from the 360, but the Wii is untoucheable because they have different market audience.
For some strange reason unbeknownst to me you actually care about the business of Nintendo and how well they are doing as a company. That has no place in the gaming world. I could not care less about how well a company does as long as I am being Entertained.
I care about the GAMES you care about money made that you will never see and will never be shared with you ever. I care about the games that SONY/Microsoft will share with gamers the world WIDE. I could not care less about WiiFit.
Microsoft is hovering around 7 billion lost for the Xbox franchise thus far. Do you hear anyone complaining that the Xbox isn't a source of profit for Microsoft? No.. because you know what.. Microsoft somewhere in its cold blackened heart actually cares about Entertaining GAMERS.
I find examples hard to come by these days of how Nintendo cares about the people that made their console so big in the first place.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
For some strange reason unbeknownst to me you actually care about the business of Nintendo and how well they are doing as a company. That has no place in the gaming world. I could not care less about how well a company does as long as I am being Entertained.
I care about the GAMES you care about money made that you will never see and will never be shared with you ever. I care about the games that SONY/Microsoft will share with gamers the world WIDE. I could not care less about WiiFit.
Microsoft is hovering around 7 billion lost for the Xbox franchise thus far. Do you hear anyone complaining that the Xbox isn't a source of profit for Microsoft? No.. because you know what.. Microsoft somewhere in its cold blackened heart actually cares about Entertaining GAMERS.
I find examples hard to come by these days of how Nintendo cares about the people that made their console so big in the first place.
I think you need a chill pill mate.
This post was about the "Console Sales in USA", you should know since you post it.
The thread wasn't about which Console is better, but which console was selling more with the discussion focusing on that, or am I wrong?
I tried to explain why the Wii is selling and the PS3 is not, perfectly in tune with this thread.
I don't even know why you even bother giving your personal opinion on which console you prefer, If you wanted to discuss that matter, you shouldn't have wrote the OP as you did, because to me that's not what the thread was about.
We all know that PS3 and 360 are the console for gamers, you haven't discovered the hot water.
I don't think there should be any reason to discuss that.
I thought that discussing the reason why the Wii is selling so much over the other 2 (like you suggested by your wall of data in your OP), was a more interesting debate.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper.
And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system. 
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper.
And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system. 
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
Most people that would be interested in PC gaming probably already own a computer that is similar to this:
It costs 529 dollars from Bestbuy and isn't even near the best you can get. Add a Video Card to it and it is perfectly fine for gaming. Most gamers do not run top of the line systems in either Consoles or PC gaming. So graphically they are going to be about the same quality.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper.
And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system. 
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The libarary of a PC includes every PC game ever made and every console game up to ps2/GC/Xbox. Though, give that a year or two and you will have all those games working, the main problems is the emulators for the ps2/GC/xbox right now. So how is any console libarary bigger?
Why would you need a dual core when very few games even support that? 2 gigs of RAM doesn't cost too much maybe $80 and that wouldn't be the cheapest. Most any game will run very smooth with 1 gig.
You get what you pay for. People generally get into arcady games easier and that is pretty much all consoles offer except for RPG's.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
When in my mind.. if you are on this board/forum.. you shouldn't give a rats grass what the masses think... That was what I was saying...
And actually for the record I do think that the Wii will win this generation... In terms of hardware sales... software I'm not so sure.... and in terms of fun (As a gamer) .. i dont know about that either.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper.
And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system. 
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Many RPG's are on their way to the next gen systems that are just an indepth as PC RPG's. Fallout 3? TES: Oblivion? Heck, even the famous Baldurs Gate has been released on consoles. There is a lot of interesting RPG stuff comming to consoles. RTS games? Yeah pretty much. FPS, I don't really agree with. It may be easier to aim, but moving around is a lot more easy with a gamepad.If you think its worth paying 600 ~ 800$ more just to do that then be my guest, but since consoles have dominated ever since they were released, I'd say you're really in a minority. PC gaming is expensive, but the quality of the games and the amount of games does not live up to the costs.
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper.
And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system. 
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Many RPG's are on their way to the next gen systems that are just an indepth as PC RPG's. Fallout 3? TES: Oblivion? Heck, even the famous Baldurs Gate has been released on consoles. There is a lot of interesting RPG stuff comming to consoles. RTS games? Yeah pretty much. FPS, I don't really agree with. It may be easier to aim, but moving around is a lot more easy with a gamepad.If you think its worth paying 600 ~ 800$ more just to do that then be my guest, but since consoles have dominated ever since they were released, I'd say you're really in a minority. PC gaming is expensive, but the quality of the games and the amount of games does not live up to the costs.
That is so not true. Games that are ported to consoles are dumbed down. Take FFXI for an example It is one of the most dumbed down MMO games of the whole genre so that it could be played on a Console. RTS games as well are dumbed down to be played on Consoles. RPGs as well. PC Gaming is not dying off.
*edit* The funny thing is that these same things were said at every new console launching. PS2 people claimed would kill off PC gaming. Nintendo 64, SNES, NES, ETc all were claimed they were going to kill off PC gaming. PC Gaming will be around a long time and it will always be doing well.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
And what you are saying is that PS3 have the best games in the world, so I should drop my PC?
PCs give you always a steady supply of games, so you will never get "stuck" because you've got choice.
Therefore a PC will always have an edge on console "PC clones" like PS3.
With console on the other hand, you will easily get stuck for exactly that reason........see PS3 for reference.
Console are only good because their exclusive games, but this exclusivity is going to be dropped very soon.
So if console wants to survive they need to do something completely different from a PC like Nintendo did with the Wii, or you need to make the console very cheap, like they were originally (compared to a PC).
You cannot sell a console which almost costs the same as a gaming PC like Sony did.
Console were a cheap alternative to gaming PCs, now they are slowly going to compete with PCs, and I think that's the wrong way to go.
Nintendo got it right, and I am happy for them.
I personally will choose the PC over the console if they costs the same, no doubt about that.
Honnestly, what do you expect? The playstation 3 has been released only recently. There are much, much more games released on consoles then on a PC. If you're thinking that a lot of console games are going to be released on the PC, then you are seriously mistaking. Consoles are not a cheap alternative to gaming pc's, "Gaming" pc's are an expensive alternative to game consoles, they always are, and always will be. Its been like this since the days of the NES and Snes. The playstation 3 is currently 500$. I'm not even going to try and look for a gaming PC for 500$ that can do the same things as a PS3. PC's are still expensive as hell. The only things a PC really excells at are RTS, FPS and MMO's. But with games like Half life and Unreal Tournament and C&C3 now also released on game consoles, in fact, UT3 is a timed exclusive on the PS3, one can only wonder how long PC's are able to maintain the upper hand in those genres.
See that was my point.
The sentence marked in red highlights what is going wrong with the PS3.
I do like Consoles, but not when they try to compete with PCs.
You said it, console were the most cheap alternative to gaming PCs, and that was the right approach.
With PS3 Sony went a bit too close to the PC market in particular price wise.
When the PS3 was released it was 800$ (in UK is still 900$), with 1100$ I can build an Uber gaming computer.
The 360 is what is acceptable for a top of the range console, the PS3 overdid it quite a bit.
As I said, when PS3 will be affordable to the average player, I predict that Microsoft will launch the new console, which won't be much more expansive than the 360 (at least that's what I guess if lessons will be learnt from Sony semi-debacle).
Game console should be just that, cheap machine used to play games, not overpriced multimedia crap without good games like the PS3.
I can't comment on the prices in the UK, since the UK economy is different, but in the rest of the world, Playstation 3 is 600$ for the 80 gb, 500$ for the 60gb, and in Europe, the console is 600$ for the 60gb that includes 2 games + 1 extra controller, making a total of 170$. So the price difference between a PS3 and a computer is still very big. too big in my opinion.
Key phrase there is in your opinion. In my opinion the Computer is worth way more then a PS3. You have access to better games imo, better graphics, better choice. But we won't ever agree on this because once again everyone compares the price of a Full Gaming PC, when all you need is a Gaming Graphics card in your regular home PC (which the vast majority of people own already) My mother in Law is 68 years old and she owns a PC with a Dual Core Pentium Processor and 2 gigs of Ram. All I would need to add to that PC is a 150-400 dollar Graphics card and I can play pretty much any game that I would want to. So in that Aspect the PC is cheaper.
And don't give me some crap about keeping up with the graphics and having to upgrade all of the time, because the same is true for Consoles. Console gamers just don't have any choice on when they can upgrade their system. 
Ofcourse its my opinion, this whole thread is about opinions. Let me assure you that the vast majority of families does NOT own a dual core pentium processor with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm a gamer and pretty much a pc fanatic, and even I don't own a system like that, and I bought this pc just over 1 year ago for 1200$ in a normal store. Console gamers don't have to upgrade in a long, long time. According to Sony, we're currently using only 20% of the Playstation 3's power.
but aside from that, the library on a console is just bigger, it only takes some time. I believe Sony alone is shipping 500 different games in this year alone for its products, and the PC is not one of them.
IT is also your opinion that the line up is better. I personally can't stand most of the games that are on consoles. I play Sports games on a Console and that is about it. RPGs are too simplistic on a Console, so are RTS games. FPS are about equal in quality but it is much better to aim with a mouse and keyboard then with a gamepad.
Many RPG's are on their way to the next gen systems that are just an indepth as PC RPG's. Fallout 3? TES: Oblivion? Heck, even the famous Baldurs Gate has been released on consoles. There is a lot of interesting RPG stuff comming to consoles. RTS games? Yeah pretty much. FPS, I don't really agree with. It may be easier to aim, but moving around is a lot more easy with a gamepad.If you think its worth paying 600 ~ 800$ more just to do that then be my guest, but since consoles have dominated ever since they were released, I'd say you're really in a minority. PC gaming is expensive, but the quality of the games and the amount of games does not live up to the costs.
That is so not true. Games that are ported to consoles are dumbed down. Take FFXI for an example It is one of the most dumbed down MMO games of the whole genre so that it could be played on a Console. RTS games as well are dumbed down to be played on Consoles. RPGs as well. PC Gaming is not dying off.
*edit* The funny thing is that these same things were said at every new console launching. PS2 people claimed would kill off PC gaming. Nintendo 64, SNES, NES, ETc all were claimed they were going to kill off PC gaming. PC Gaming will be around a long time and it will always be doing well.
I have played Final Fantasy XI as well, and I don't see how it was dumbed down in any way or form. Sure, its controls take a litle while to get used to, but thats about it. I played red alert on the playstation one, and C&C 3 on the Xbox360, and I can assure you they are not dumbed down in any way or form. RPG's as well? Thats funny, because I never noticed any difference between TES4: Oblivion on the Xbox360 and the PC. I could customize the graphical settings a bit on the PC, but that all.FF11 was made dumbed down in my opinion . Never liked its UI , always felt like it was meant for a console.
Games these days dont have to be dumbed down for the consoles because consoles have turned into PCs pretty much
Games on consoles have to be made simpler in terms of controls because of the simpler input method
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>