[AshleyAshes]

I actually don't think that ADF has really looked a lot of the 'cross platform titles'. Particularly those designed with the console in mind first, the PC ports tend to be rather shoddy and seriously feel like like you're trapped with console commands. F.E.A.R 2 for PC is a prime example of this even if it's predicessor was primarily PC oriented, FEAR 2 was quite the opposite and you felt it when playing it on the PC.

Then there's also the cheaper 'value ports' of various titles. Crazy Taxi 3 and Outrun 2006 for example, these games are SO tied to their console sibbilings that on the PC their game clocks are tied to the framerate of the game. On a console, all games are clocked to run at 60fps. Know what happens when you run Crazy Taxi 3 or Outrun 2006 on a PC with a refresh rate other than 60hz? The entire game adjusts it's speed to match. At 85hz, these games run 41% faster than they should.

Flat out, a lot of 'multiplatform' games that are released to PC get pretty shitty PC ports.

[Stratadrake]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Crazy Taxi 3 and Outrun 2006 for example, these games are SO tied to their console sibbilings that on the PC their game clocks are tied to the framerate of the game.

I can think of many, many PC games that weren't designed with real-time synchronization in mind.

The 1993 CD-ROM title "MegaRace" for example, the tracks were FMV (gorgeous nonetheless) and it merely calibrated the framerate to your vehicle's speed, but it didn't calibrate your vehicle's speed to real time. Try running it on anything close to a modern PC and it runs at least ten times faster than it was intended to.

I also remember a lot of personal experience with certain late Sierra adventure titles where, although most parts of the game were calibrated to account for real time, certain parts still were relative to CPU speed, which could result in anything from being unable to solve a certain puzzle or area (Space Quest 4 comes to mind), to the game outright crashing when you step onto a certain pixel of ground or head onto a different screen.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by Stratadrake

I can think of many, many PC games that weren't designed with real-time synchronization in mind.

Take the old CD-ROM game MegaRace. The tracks were just FMV (gorgeous nonetheless), but it wasn't calibrated to a real-time clock. Try running that thing on a modern PC and it runs a good ten times faster than it's supposed to.

I also remember a lot of personal experience with certain late Sierra adventure titles where, although most parts of the game were calibrated for real time, certain parts were not, which could result in anything from being unable to solve a certain puzzle or area (Space Quest 4 comes to mind), to the game outright crashing when you step onto a certain pixel of ground or head onto a different screen.

Your examples are all old and they're about software expecting a specific CPU speed.

This is a matter of ports from console to PC expecting 60fps. It doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, if the desktop refresh rate is 60hz the games will run fine, reguardless of CPU speed, even if it's fast as crap. Instead the game's speed is tied to the rate the frames are rendered at. It's because on a console you can always assume 60hz but not on the PC and no one made the effort to account for variations on the PC.

[Stratadrake]

Yeah, old PC games and specific CPU speeds do go hand-in-hand.

Instead the game's speed is tied to the rate the frames are rendered at.

Gotcha. Details differ but in the end the game is calibrated relative to something other than a real-time clock/timer.

[NewfDraggie]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

I actually don't think that ADF has really looked a lot of the 'cross platform titles'. Particularly those designed with the console in mind first, the PC ports tend to be rather shoddy and seriously feel like like you're trapped with console commands. F.E.A.R 2 for PC is a prime example of this even if it's predicessor was primarily PC oriented, FEAR 2 was quite the opposite and you felt it when playing it on the PC.

F.E.A.R 2 is fine on PC for me, controls worked just like in F.E.A.R 1, almost exactly the same.

[AzurePhoenix]

Originally Posted by Stratadrake

I can think of many, many PC games that weren't designed with real-time synchronization in mind.

The 1993 CD-ROM title "MegaRace" for example, the tracks were FMV (gorgeous nonetheless) and it merely calibrated the framerate to your vehicle's speed, but it didn't calibrate your vehicle's speed to real time. Try running it on anything close to a modern PC and it runs at least ten times faster than it was intended to.

I also remember a lot of personal experience with certain late Sierra adventure titles where, although most parts of the game were calibrated to account for real time, certain parts still were relative to CPU speed, which could result in anything from being unable to solve a certain puzzle or area (Space Quest 4 comes to mind), to the game outright crashing when you step onto a certain pixel of ground or head onto a different screen.

Dude, MegaRace was awesome.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

I actually don't think that ADF has really looked a lot of the 'cross platform titles'. Particularly those designed with the console in mind first, the PC ports tend to be rather shoddy and seriously feel like like you're trapped with console commands. F.E.A.R 2 for PC is a prime example of this even if it's predicessor was primarily PC oriented, FEAR 2 was quite the opposite and you felt it when playing it on the PC.

Then there's also the cheaper 'value ports' of various titles. Crazy Taxi 3 and Outrun 2006 for example, these games are SO tied to their console sibbilings that on the PC their game clocks are tied to the framerate of the game. On a console, all games are clocked to run at 60fps. Know what happens when you run Crazy Taxi 3 or Outrun 2006 on a PC with a refresh rate other than 60hz? The entire game adjusts it's speed to match. At 85hz, these games run 41% faster than they should.

Flat out, a lot of 'multiplatform' games that are released to PC get pretty shitty PC ports.

I think you are exaggerating quite a lot, there are some poor ports but they hardly represent the majority. Console orientation of ports is explainable in that a game that runs on consoles will be able to run on PC; were as the reverse causes issues. There are instances in the past were a PC to console port has resulted in the console version struggling significantly, consoles just don't have the resources a PC has. When designed to cater to console limitations however; it runs well on both systems.

When the game is built intelligently you can do a PC to console port and have it run well on both system. However most developers simply rely on the console to PC method, as it ensures good compatibility across all platforms. It's nothing personal, the console orientation of games is more of a convenience on the developers part rather than a statement of PCs importance.

When you look at game development these days you will note that developers are in fact using the intelligent methods. Increasingly today's game engines are PC native; these include MT Framework 2.0, Crystal tools and of course CryEngine 3. So there are cross platform developers who use PC as lead.

[Runefox]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Your examples are all old and they're about software expecting a specific CPU speed.

This is a matter of ports from console to PC expecting 60fps. It doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, if the desktop refresh rate is 60hz the games will run fine, reguardless of CPU speed, even if it's fast as crap. Instead the game's speed is tied to the rate the frames are rendered at. It's because on a console you can always assume 60hz but not on the PC and no one made the effort to account for variations on the PC.

Actually, if I remember correctly, Microsoft introduced a "bug" in Windows 2k/XP refresh rates wherein when the resolution is changed (say, for a game), the refresh rate would drop pretty reliably to 60Hz. This is still an issue; ATI's Catalyst Control Center still has an option to force a specific refresh rate while in-game. Of course, with LCD's, the only reason you'd want to force a refresh rate would be if an LCD supported 120Hz modes. The example of OutRun is just laziness though.

For the most part, newer games don't mind at all, and much-older games are based on CPU cycles (which is absurdly funny; the original Command & Conquer ran this way, and turning up the game speed setting to anything other than minimum was a quick (and hilarious) way to end the game, even on a Pentium II 350).

In addition, there's a rather large chunk of the world where TV's run at 50Hz - Thankfully, games are no longer slaved to that, and haven't been for some time (they actually used to just lower the clock speed of the processors for PAL territories for no discernible reason other than laziness and cost).

[Stratadrake]

Originally Posted by ADF

There are instances in the past were a PC to console port has resulted in the console version struggling significantly, consoles just don't have the resources a PC has.

The old 1999 RTS Warzone 2100 comes to mind when hearing that. I never saw the console version, but I did see plenty of feedback citing poor control layout (it's an RTS, after all) and one game-breaking bug on the next-to-final level.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by Stratadrake

The old 1999 RTS Warzone 2100 comes to mind when hearing that. I never saw the console version, but I did see plenty of feedback citing poor control layout (it's an RTS, after all) and one game-breaking bug on the next-to-final level.

I was thinking more along the lines of hardware resources than the practicability of certain genres.

PC hardware is ever evolving and it has significantly more memory than consoles. When you build a game in that environment and then try to transfer it to the 2005 hardware in consoles; it isn't surprising that problems are encountered. How are you supposed to take a game that was built for 2GB ram and fit it into 256mb? If you can divide the game into small chunks then maybe you can stream it, if not then you have a problem.

Console users answer to this is usually to point out the lack of a memory hogging OS and application, while relevant; it is not a cure all. If a game is designed in a way to use more memory than consoles can provide; then you are looking at performance problems or it not being portable at all.

If the console is lead then you can be sure it will work across all target platforms, it's what they call targeting the lowest common denominator hardware.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

There are instances in the past were a PC to console port has resulted in the console version struggling significantly, consoles just don't have the resources a PC has.

It would be more accurate to say that consoles don't have the resources that a PC -can- have. There are lots of people with PC's who are greatly outclassed by their consoles. Lots of people looking the hardware requirements on the side of the box and wondering if the game will actually be playable or if they'll have to crank down most of the effects to get a decent experience.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

How are you supposed to take a game that was built for 2GB ram and fit it into 256mb?

You'd be suprised. The specs of a PC and a console are entirely uncomparable. The operating system on a console is insanely effience because it runs much closer to the bone than a PC. Why? There's next to no hardware variation on a console.

PC's with their hardware abstraction layers and everything else are absurdly inefficent at anything, however a PC can be used for a wide range of tasks. Jack of all trades, master of none. A lot of that 2GB of ram is being used for inefficent bullshit.

Not that a PC couldn't be made as efficent as a console. You could very well code a game and port it to a PC, create your own limited operating system with straight up drivers for all the hardware and bam. It'll be fast as fuck and uncomparable to any other gaming PC. There's a catch however; You'd have to build the game for that exact PC, that exact hardware configuration. It won't run on a different motherboard or a different graphics card or anything like that. This of course is WHY we have to use inefficent PC operating systems, it's just to get it to work.

That's the reason why the Xbox1 with a 733mhz Mobile Celeron, a GeForce 3.5 class graphics card and 64mb of memory shared between EVERYTHING can vastly out class a PC of comparable specs.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

It would be more accurate to say that consoles don't have the resources that a PC -can- have. There are lots of people with PC's who are greatly outclassed by their consoles. Lots of people looking the hardware requirements on the side of the box and wondering if the game will actually be playable or if they'll have to crank down most of the effects to get a decent experience.

Preying on PCs variable nature to question its hardware advantages is a fall back argument too many people rely on...

A PC, regardless of whether it is a gaming PC or not, has significantly more memory than consoles. I have to question why some people's first instinct when someone is talking about PC hardware advantages is to point out PC hardware is variable. Considering we are talking about gaming on both systems; what PC system did you have in mind for comparison? An office computer?

I assure you, any 'gaming' PC built in the last few years is more than capable of outperforming both consoles.

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

You'd be suprised. The specs of a PC and a console are entirely uncomparable.

This had better not be one of those arguments that rely on magical optimization fairy's that make anything run on anything 'somehow'. That's usually the argument you get from most game forums, only substitute the fairy's with the unknown techniques of game developers.

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

The operating system on a console is insanely effience because it runs much closer to the bone than a PC. Why? There's next to no hardware variation on a console.

PC's with their hardware abstraction layers and everything else are absurdly inefficent at anything, however a PC can be used for a wide range of tasks. Jack of all trades, master of none. A lot of that 2GB of ram is being used for inefficent bullshit.

Not that a PC couldn't be made as efficent as a console. You could very well code a game and port it to a PC, create your own limited operating system with straight up drivers for all the hardware and bam. It'll be fast as fuck and uncomparable to any other gaming PC. There's a catch however; You'd have to build the game for that exact PC, that exact hardware configuration. It won't run on a different motherboard or a different graphics card or anything like that. This of course is WHY we have to use inefficent PC operating systems, it's just to get it to work.

That's the reason why the Xbox1 with a 733mhz Mobile Celeron, a GeForce 3.5 class graphics card and 64mb of memory shared between EVERYTHING can vastly out class a PC of comparable specs.

I am fully aware of the fixed hardware advantage of consoles enabling them to get several fold the performance out of hardware than PC can. However, as some console users seem to have trouble grasping, this performance advantage has its limits. There is a point were the sheer performance advantage of PC enables it to out perform consoles even with their fixed advantages, this happened with the introduction of the Geforce 8 series back in 2006.

It gets irritating at times that I encounter console users on some forums that believe the capabilities of consoles to be infinite, that you can optimize anything to run on a console 'somehow'. It is impossible to fit more than 256mb worth of information into 256mb of memory, it doesn't matter how powerful the rest of the system is or how fast the memory it, 256mb memory will only ever be able to store 256mb worth of information at any one time. That is the same of any component, you can push it as close to peak efficiency as possible; but everything has its limits.

If a game is built on PC from the ground up it has 2GB worth of memory to tap, it doesn't matter if it is the lowest end gaming PC these day's; 2GB is the standard for even none gaming PCs. When it comes to transferring a game like this over to consoles; they use their faster memory to swap information more often, enabling them to run in such a low amount. However if a game needs more than 256mb of ram at any one moment, then you have a problem. Consoles fixed nature is irrelevant, if something needs more than the consoles memory capacity then the only solution is to cut it down to fit.

That's why consoles got Far Cry Instincts instead of Far Cry, Far Cry was designed to use more memory than what consoles could provide. That is also why Crysis 2 is coming to consoles were as Crysis 1 cannot, Crysis 2 was designed to accommodate consoles memory limitations.

[webkilla]

i have only one thing to really say to ppl who claim that 'computer' gaming is in a sorry state

millions of WoW players cant really be wrong?

oh, and enjoy playing strategy games on consoles u.u


there are things that consoles are good at, but there are equally things that computers are good at. i wont bother listing what - because there are some things both of them can do as well.

thats another thing - the OP started out with saying that many of the best PC games these days are made for consoles, then ported to PC. he made it sound like a bad thing. I wonder how many games get the reverse treatment? Hmmm... what could this proove? nothing really - if anything, then it just shows that PCs as a platform is flexible in being able to do console style UIs, while i'm sure playing warcraft 3 on a console, if even possible, would be somewhat less of an experience, due to the lack of fast mouse-clicking action.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

I am fully aware of the fixed hardware advantage of consoles enabling them to get several fold the performance out of hardware than PC can. However, as some console users seem to have trouble grasping, this performance advantage has its limits. There is a point were the sheer performance advantage of PC enables it to out perform consoles even with their fixed advantages, this happened with the introduction of the Geforce 8 series back in 2006.

If you are willing to throw enough money at the PC, yes, you can make it about as fast as you want it to be. You are ignoring the issue cost effectiveness. Just how much 'gaming power' does $199 for an Xbox 360 get you in comparison to $199 to spend on a PC? Or $299 for an Xbox 360 Elite or PS3 Slim agianst $299 to spend on a gaming PC?

I will content that if you will spend the money, you can out class a console with a PC, however the console will still get you the most bang for your buck without a a doubt.

I can't help but notice however that you have ignored the issue of cost effectiveness on consumers.

Originally Posted by ADF

If a game is built on PC from the ground up it has 2GB worth of memory to tap, it doesn't matter if it is the lowest end gaming PC these day's; 2GB is the standard for even none gaming PCs. When it comes to transferring a game like this over to consoles; they use their faster memory to swap information more often, enabling them to run in such a low amount. However if a game needs more than 256mb of ram at any one moment, then you have a problem. Consoles fixed nature is irrelevant, if something needs more than the consoles memory capacity then the only solution is to cut it down to fit.

My only point is that a lot of that memory that a PC is using, a console does't need. A great deal of it is being used for the general purpose operating system and for the systems in that operating system that translate universal commands from the game into specific commands for the hardware.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

If you are willing to throw enough money at the PC, yes, you can make it about as fast as you want it to be. You are ignoring the issue cost effectiveness. Just how much 'gaming power' does $199 for an Xbox 360 get you in comparison to $199 to spend on a PC? Or $299 for an Xbox 360 Elite or PS3 Slim agianst $299 to spend on a gaming PC?

I will content that if you will spend the money, you can out class a console with a PC, however the console will still get you the most bang for your buck without a a doubt.

I can't help but notice however that you have ignored the issue of cost effectiveness on consumers.

First you criticised PC's variable nature, as if the existence of none gaming PC's is supposed to be relevant to a PC gamer; and now you are using the cost argument? It's all too familiar, should I be expecting a piracy reference next? These are all the typical arguments I would expect from someone working their way down a list to criticise PC.

Since you are giving me typical arguments I'll give you a typical answer. You get what you pay for; but the cost of PC gaming is often over exaggerated, especially today when PC gaming is cheaper than ever.

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

My only point is that a lot of that memory that a PC is using, a console does't need. A great deal of it is being used for the general purpose operating system and for the systems in that operating system that translate universal commands from the game into specific commands for the hardware.

Which is something I commented on earlier, as I said it is relevant; but not the end all argument for explaining this. Even if you take away the OS and all background applications; some games just take advantage of more memory than consoles can provide. Building with consoles as the lead as opposed to PC is a way of avoiding accidentally exceeding console capabilities, if something runs on consoles you know it will work on a gaming PC; were as the reverse is not always true.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

First you criticised PC's variable nature, as if the existence of none gaming PC's is supposed to be relevant to a PC gamer; and now you are using the cost argument?

So, are you saying that the issue of cost and cost effectiveness is irrelevent to the consumer?

Originally Posted by ADF

Since you are giving me typical arguments I'll give you a typical answer. You get what you pay for

But if the console can give more 'gaming power' in reguard to what it costs per unit, then arn't you getting MORE for what you pay for?

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

So, are you saying that the issue of cost and cost effectiveness is irrelevent to the consumer?

I'm saying I get the impression that you are bringing up different subjects so you can criticise PC, moving on to the next when one seems not so successful. I'd have to question what your motives are...

But in regard to your comment, cost effectiveness is subjective, not everyone thinks about it in the same way. For instance there is a line of thought that questions why pay £250 for a console to play £40 games; when they could upgrade their existing PC and add to functionality they already use, cheaper games at that. The response to this usually involves preferences such as sitting on the couch and certain game genres that work best on consoles. That's all subjective and down to personal taste, not really counter arguments.

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

But if the console can give more 'gaming power' in reguard to what it costs per unit, then arn't you getting MORE for what you pay for?

If they are entirely cost driven then perhaps a console is perfect for that person, but I actually care about what I am getting for my money; and I'm willing to pay more to get it. A console struggles to maintain promises of 720p in every game; were as it is entirely within my control to get 1080p in every game. I like to control my experience, something consoles do not offer.

Again it is dependant on the persons needs, you make it sound like consoles are the only valid option.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

But in regard to your comment, cost effectiveness is subjective, not everyone thinks about it in the same way. For instance there is a line of thought that questions why pay £250 for a console to play £40 games; when they could upgrade their existing PC and add to functionality they already use, cheaper games at that. The response to this usually involves preferences such as sitting on the couch and certain game genres that work best on consoles. That's all subjective and down to personal taste, not really counter arguments.

That's like $400 CAN. Meanwhile I paid $150 for my 360 when it was on sale. :P Maybe you just suck at shopping?

That $150 sure wouldn't bring my PC up to speed. Clawhammer Athlon 64 3200 CPU, AGP graphics card and DDR1 memory. It's an evolutionary dead end in terms of upgrades and it was a hell of a lot easier to get the 360. Four years of back titles to dip into at discounted prices.

I'd need a whole new motherboard, CPU, memory and graphics just to get something like Grand Theft Auto VI running on my PC. Actually it wouldn't even be 'my PC' anymore, would it? It'd be a new PC for all intents and purposes. But this $150 Xbox 360, I just pop the disc in and voila, welcome to Liberty City.

Consoles are highly cost effective. They are also simple and easy to operate. I never have to read the 'hardware requirements' on the side of the box. I just need to pick up a HDD for it this Christmas and other than that, my only concern is getting another Hori EX2 arcade stick.

I was a PC gamer for a long time, but I'm just sick of playing that asinine game of 'hardware upgrade leapfrog' to try and keep the PC sufficent for any new games. I'm quite releaved to have this white box that'll play every single game built for the white box. It just 'works' and I like that.

[Runefox]

Maybe you just suck at shopping?

No, actually - The EU in general gets raped by this kind of stuff.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

That's like $400 CAN. Meanwhile I paid $150 for my 360 when it was on sale. :P Maybe you just suck at shopping?

Xbox 360: £190
PS3: £250
Wii: £165

These are considered good prices here in the UK, remember that the US isn't the only country in the world...

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

That $150 sure wouldn't bring my PC up to speed. Clawhammer Athlon 64 3200 CPU, AGP graphics card and DDR1 memory. It's an evolutionary dead end in terms of upgrades and it was a hell of a lot easier to get the 360. Four years of back titles to dip into at discounted prices.

I'd need a whole new motherboard, CPU, memory and graphics just to get something like Grand Theft Auto VI running on my PC. Actually it wouldn't even be 'my PC' anymore, would it? It'd be a new PC for all intents and purposes. But this $150 Xbox 360, I just pop the disc in and voila, welcome to Liberty City.

Consoles are highly cost effective. They are also simple and easy to operate. I never have to read the 'hardware requirements' on the side of the box. I just need to pick up a HDD for it this Christmas and other than that, my only concern is getting another Hori EX2 arcade stick.

I was a PC gamer for a long time, but I'm just sick of playing that asinine game of 'hardware upgrade leapfrog' to try and keep the PC sufficent for any new games. I'm quite releaved to have this white box that'll play every single game built for the white box. It just 'works' and I like that.

So you are using your own personal circumstances as 'evidence' that the upgrade argument is completely invalid? You completely ignored every mention of the users needs being "subjective" and only seem to accept arguments were consoles are the only valid option.

To put it simply, you're clearly too console biased to consider anything that is not in favour of consoles. Making taking the time to explain certain things to you a waste of time, you had no intention of considering the PC perspective in the first place.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

remember that the US isn't the only country in the world...

'$400 CAN' 'Can' as in 'Canada'.

Originally Posted by ADF

So you are using your own personal circumstances as 'evidence' that the upgrade argument is completely invalid? You completely ignored every mention of the users needs being "subjective" and only seem to accept arguments were consoles are the only valid option.

My experience is that a console can get you up and gaming with the latest games for far less money than a 'gaming PC'. And you've agreed with me on this. Here is $299 for a PS3 Slim or an Xbox 360 Elite, and $299 will also get you bupkis towards a 'gaming PC'. PC gaming IS simply more expensive.

Originally Posted by ADF

To put it simply, you're clearly too console biased to consider anything that is not in favour of consoles. Making taking the time to explain certain things to you a waste of time, you had no intention of considering the PC perspective in the first place.

Yes, having been both a PC and console gamer, it makes me so biased! I didn't even get my first console untill 2007. I have a very good view of the 'PC perspective' for years and years.

Your only arguement is that you can upgrade a PC to get graphical results superior to a console, but you're paying 2-4 times what the console will cost to get that. As far as I'm concerned, the cost compared to the graphical improvement is not that signifigant.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

My experience is that a console can get you up and gaming with the latest games for far less money than a 'gaming PC'. And you've agreed with me on this. Here is $299 for a PS3 Slim or an Xbox 360 Elite, and $299 will also get you bupkis towards a 'gaming PC'. PC gaming IS simply more expensive.

You have been selective in what parts of my post you have chosen to recognise, looking at the parts that talk about console being good for the minimalistic/cost sensitive gamer; and then ignored the rest were I talked about the needs of the user being subjective. You have repeatedly rejected that a users needs are subjective, the impression I keep getting from you is you see consoles are being the only and superior choice, there cannot be a conversation on this subject because you have already decided which platform would win.

All you see is PC gaming is more expensive, you ignore what it offers over consoles simply because it doesn't interest you personally.

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Yes, having been both a PC and console gamer, it makes me so biased!

I didn't even get my first console untill 2007. I have a very good view of the 'PC perspective' for years and years.

Irrelevant.

I grew up on consoles and have owned every Playstation released. That said I wouldn't consider myself unbiased; so I am hardly going to give you that benefit. Anyone can be biased, even if they own all systems personal taste will always be a factor.

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Your only arguement is that you can upgrade a PC to get graphical results superior to a console, but you're paying 2-4 times what the console will cost to get that. As far as I'm concerned, the cost compared to the graphical improvement is not that signifigant.

So my mention of PC having a performance advantage is my entire argument is it? Excuse me if I have not gone through all the advantages of PC gaming, you don't seem like someone who would care to listen. In fact I believe it was you who made performance a issue by accusing all cross platform games of being poorly done. Most of my responses in this thread has essentially been reacting to you, so subjects you didn't decide to make an issue haven't been brought up.

I believe my original argument had nothing to do with the discussion we are having right now, you derailed the original discussion by bringing up different subjects (which I noted earlier); and it has steered further off track since. I think my original suspicion is correct, you didn't like where the thread was going so you have gone over a list of criticisms of PC gaming to change the subject I was discussing earlier.

I think any further attempts to explain anything to you would be a waste of time, you have already decided consoles > PC and are clearly not interested in changing that view.

My explanation for the original thread topic was posted earlier on, you know; the one that explains these supposedly superior consoles are unable to compared with PC in the (finger quote) "3rd party" exclusivity department. I know PC is doing better than consoles in that area, I also know Sony has made a $4.7 billion loss on the PS3; and Microsoft is preparing an update to attack 360s using unofficial hardware. Apparently they only want 360 users to use 1st party goods that cost more than double; yet do the same thing.

Being independent means PC's existence is not reliant on the financial success of the 1st party, it also means we haven't got someone to boss us around and rip us off when there is a free market with competition out there. This isn't to change your mind, I'm just providing examples of why I'm happy I'm a PC gamer; and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Giving up my freedoms is not worth a little convenience and a lower price tag, well; on the console itself at least.

I think I'm done here for now, at least this particular conversation with you.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

Microsoft is preparing an update to attack 360s using unofficial hardware. Apparently they only want 360 users to use 1st party goods that cost more than double; yet do the same thing.

I really hope you only mean custom replacements of hard drives in their 360 enclosures. :P

[Runefox]

Microsoft is preparing an update to attack 360s using unofficial hardware. Apparently they only want 360 users to use 1st party goods that cost more than double; yet do the same thing.

Actually, this is false; Microsoft's cracking down on "unauthorized" memory units is purely aimed towards units not created by Microsoft partners - In other words, things like the Datel memory card SD adapters for transferring savegames to/from the PC to hack achievements and other such things ("UFO glitch" in Call of Duty 4). Any vendor adhering to Microsoft's specifications will still work just fine (that should include Intec, Madcatz, Nyko and the rest of the standard fare third-party companies).

While I'm sure at least some of the motivation is to prevent these cheaper goods from being used in lieu of their own or license-built parts, I'm also sure it's an effort to crack down on cheating.