Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter

[DuckThor Evil]

Perhaps you've forgotten PS3 is 600 dollars,.

No I didn't it was you who forgot that X360 is not prised absurdly when you said

absurd prices of these consoles

I agree that the price of PS3 is wayyy too high, for a game console.

please be so kind as to point me in the direction of where you see an xbox 360 for 300 dollars..

I seem to remember N64 in it's hayday being no more than 300 dollars upon arrival

It's called X360 core unit, probably not too hard to find which costs 299$, I believe N64 was only 199$ when it came out, but that's long time ago, prices go up.

but if you want to keep up with the latest technology, obviously it's going to cost money, otherwise you get a continual stream of the same looking game, ie the case with EVERY console, until they're just plain obsolete.

Well you can connect these new consoles to a PC-monitor if necessary, besides TV is more than just a gaming related purchase. PC-owners probably buy flat screens too. I would say that console games do look much better at the end of the console's lifecycle, certainly they don't improve nearly as much as PC games in 5-6 years, but saying that they look the same is just not true, that also is besides the point when cost of gaming is the subject.

 

[TurnDragoZeroV2G]

And please be so kind as to point me in the direction of where you see an xbox 360 for 300 dollars. And even that's after a price drop after the induction of the PS3. I seem to remember it being higher. While you make a valid point regarding the price reduction in the costs of PC hardware, you neglected to mention the skyrocketing prices of consoles. I seem to remember N64 in it's hayday being no more than 300 dollars upon arrival.

Wait, what? What price drop, and why's it suddenly so hard to find a $300 360?

Seems like every three posts in this topic I'm going "Just what is he/she talking about?"

 

[Dresden]

I agree that the price of PS3 is wayyy too high, for a game console.


I was referring mainly to the PS3, the Xbox is only just starting to see the break of a reasonable price after the introduction of the PS3. I remember the price being higher.



It's called X360 core unit, probably not too hard to find which costs 299$, I believe N64 was only 199$ when it came out, but that's long time ago, prices go up.

Yes, technically you could go with the core unit, but it's to my understanding you would be missing out on a lot key features, therefore for the full Xbox 360 experience you'd need to purchase the whole shebang.


Well you can connect these new consoles to a PC-monitor if necessary, besides TV is more than just a gaming related purchase. PC-owners probably buy flat screens too. I would say that console games do look much better at the end of the console's lifecycle, certainly they don't improve nearly as much as PC games in 5-6 years, but saying that they look the same is just not true, that also is besides the point when cost of gaming is the subject.

Really? If that's the case, then that's not too shabby. BUT, with all my prior experiences with consoles connected to monitors, the experience usually resulted in dissatisfaction, seeing as the contrast ratio were always screwy and I generally got better results just hooking my console up to a television. And I don't watch television. Ever. So for me personally the television ISN'T for anything more than a game related experience, therefore it's hardly worth dropping a great deal of money for such a small cause.

 

[Dresden]

Seems like every three posts in this topic I'm going "Just what is he/she talking about?"

What is it exactly you're having difficulty grasping

 

[dobwal]

While you make a valid point regarding the price reduction in the costs of PC hardware, you neglected to mention the skyrocketing prices of consoles. I seem to remember N64 in it's hayday being no more than 300 dollars upon arrival. Plus everyone tends to forget top notch televisions are generally a must nowadays, otherwise you're sacrificing a great deal of visual quality, and those start at what.

When comparing PC gaming against console gaming I wouldn't describe prices for consoles as "skyrocketing". Nvidia and ATI released flag ship cards at $399.00 in 2002 (9700, Q3) and 2003 (5800, Q2). $599.00 has been the standard for flagship cards since the early 2005 (7800 GTX). Looking at consoles, the 360 price difference goes from a range of $0 to $100 over a 4 year span. Furthermore, the Wii's price difference over the GameCube is only 50$ over 4 years. Its only when you get to Sony do you have a large increase in price.

 

[SugarCoat]

When comparing PC gaming against console gaming I wouldn't describe prices for consoles as "skyrocketing". Nvidia and ATI released flag ship cards at $399.00 in 2002 (9700, Q3) and 2003 (5800, Q2). $599.00 has been the standard for flagship cards since the early 2005 (7800 GTX). Looking at consoles, the 360 price difference goes from a range of $0 to $100 over a 4 year span. Furthermore, the Wii's price difference over the GameCube is only 50$ over 4 years. Its only when you get to Sony do you have a large increase in price.

Prices on graphics cards, as long as they're is good supply and competition, tend to plumit. Look at the 7800GTX which went from $650 street to $500-$520 in literally a matter of months. The X1800XTs street price got crushed after the X1900XT which again was only a couple short months later. Consoles dont cut their costs until a year or more has past. I have no idea what you're arguing but i thought i would just point that out. Its not like graphics cards launch and sit at the same price until something new comes along, thats the beauty of add in board partners. They fight amongst themselves and the competition for our money, with consoles it all goes into one big pocket then into a bunch of smaller ones. I should also point out that the mid-range cards do the same thing, are far more affordable, and tend to produce comparable effects for the purchasers. Flagship is for those that have the cash to burn or really love their hardware. I dont think its too fair comparing a console to an enthusiast audience targeted product. Might as well use the AMD FX or Intel EE processor line.

 

[dobwal]

Prices on graphics cards, as long as they're is good supply and competition, tend to plumit. Look at the 7800GTX which went from $650 street to $500-$520 in literally a matter of months. The X1800XTs street price got crushed after the X1900XT which again was only a couple short months later. Consoles dont cut their costs until a year or more has past. I have no idea what you're arguing but i thought i would just point that out. Its not like graphics cards launch and sit at the same price until something new comes along, thats the beauty of add in board partners. They fight amongst themselves and the competition for our money, with consoles it all goes into one big pocket then into a bunch of smaller ones. I should also point out that the mid-range cards do the same thing, are far more affordable, and tend to produce comparable effects for the purchasers. Flagship is for those that have the cash to burn or really love their hardware. I dont think its too fair comparing a console to an enthusiast audience targeted product. Might as well use the AMD FX or Intel EE processor line.

I was describing the fact that both consoles and graphics cards have had similar price increases over time. Thus in contrasting the two, a "skyrocketing" description in terms of console's launch prices is unwarranted.

 

[nenarek]

The debate over the expense of console vs. pc gaming is pointless. PC will tend to have better hardware because there is a constant upgrade cycle. Consoles will always be cheaper.

If you don't think that console gaming is cheaper than pc gaming because you can buy a high end graphics card for the price of a console then try this exercise: Every five years spend $400.00 on a console and $400.00 to upgrade your PC. Which will have better hardware? The console. To maintain its hardware superiority the PC will need much more money for new parts.

There is nothing wrong with spending a lot of money on your PC to have the best looking graphics available but it is a flawed argument to say that PC gaming is more cost effective.

 

[pjbliverpool]

To be honest, I would rather pour a lot of money into the hardware that I will use for many more purposes than the console and then enjoy the far cheaper games and free on line.

The way I see it, starting from nothing I have a choice of either:

£1200 PC

or

£400 PC + £300 console + £40 yearly online fee + £10-£20 premium on every game I buy.

And given all the other things I use the PC for, I would rather pay a little more overall and have a slick powerhouse of a system than a Celeron powered "net PC".