PS3 to be Sony's Last Console!?

[Kyanbu The Legend]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/feb/28/playstation-3-lg-legal-dispute

IT seems LG manged to place an injection (banning a product) on the PS3 for 10 days covering all of europe. Sony had been accused of copy right infringement with a device releated to the PS3's Blu Ray playback feature.

So while Sony is trying to get the 10 day continent wide ban lifted. LG is trying to get it extended. If LG wins this case, Sony has to play LG for EVERY PS3 every made sold around the world to this day.

This WILL kill PS4, and there were rumors BEFORE this case stating that Sony may not make a PS4. Making PS3 the final system from the company.


If this really plays out to LG's favor then...

R.I.P PS4, dead before you left out the door.

[Marc v4.0]

Huh, this is interesting news

[Aldurin]

No please don't, I'm hoping the PS4 will be the one that has better capability than the PS3 and longer durability than the PS2.

[P-Sleazy]

back in 2007, sony was going on about how the PS3 would be the most powerful gaming machine for a decade and wouldn't have to come out wiht another one for atleast that time frame.

I really must say, its way too early to tell if the PS4 is dead or not. We must wait a decade!

[bluestarultor]

I really doubt that this will kill the PS4. Actually, something makes me have doubts that LG has a case. Blu-Ray is a non-proprietary format, made by several companies including both Sony and LG. What LG is probably trying to do is lash out against Sony for other things. Like, really? Playback? That thing that should be universal to all units?

Aside from that, Sony isn't just a console manufacturer. They do make other things (or rather, pretty much everything). They already bled hundreds of dollars every unit sold and still stayed in the black.

Basically, the PS4 will come eventually. And by all rights the 10-year lifespan of the PS3 is reasonable, given the Move has replaced the next full console generation. Technology will need another few years to really advance enough to justify a new console anyway. The PS3 is running on a literal supercomputer's CPU.

There's no reason to be calling it done for the PS line.

[Azisien]

Basically, the PS4 will come eventually. And by all rights the 10-year lifespan of the PS3 is reasonable, given the Move has replaced the next full console generation. Technology will need another few years to really advance enough to justify a new console anyway. The PS3 is running on a literal supercomputer's CPU.

A dark, dark next full console generation indeed! I wish the PS3 processor was a supercomputer, in that world maybe it would run better than a desktop processor bought like 2 years later!

Was it just Kyanbu saying this is it for the PS line or do articles actually legitimately speculate that Sony won't buy in to the console game again?

[Marc v4.0]

I wish the PS3 processor was a supercomputer, in that world maybe it would run better than a desktop processor bought like 2 years later!

lolsupercomputerps3lol

That shit is hilarious

Blu-ray as a whole might be open for everyone to make, but a specific part or component could be a different story depending. I also know nothing about that or how it would work, but one would think it wiser to be careful first.

[Kim]

Is the problem just the BluRay aspect of it?

[Azisien]

Even if it was just the Blu-Ray aspect, they'd probably lose a chunk of customers. I would probably be one of them. Most of my friends are on PC or Xbox, so the biggest pull for me and the PS3 was not only Blu-Ray functionality, but consistent firmware updates for said functionality.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

A dark, dark next full console generation indeed! I wish the PS3 processor was a supercomputer, in that world maybe it would run better than a desktop processor bought like 2 years later!

Was it just Kyanbu saying this is it for the PS line or do articles actually legitimately speculate that Sony won't buy in to the console game again?

It's based on the possible average sales number of the PS3 so far. And how much money every unit ever sold would come to nearly hundreds of millions of pounds/euro. Though it's mostly speculation and theory on rather or not such a lost would ax the PS4 before it even had a chance.

[Azisien]

Yes.

I was just wondering man!

[Kyanbu The Legend]

I was just wondering man!

Yeah didn't mean to freak anyone out. It was just spec since Sony might have to fork the PS3 profits. (well most of it).

[Doc ock rokc]

Again here is the point where we point out THEY DONT MAKE PROFITS ON THE PS3. THEY MAKE PROFITS ON THE GAMES! so even if LG wins this Its not really going to effect much.

[Marc v4.0]

Seriously underestimating the power of losing several hundreds of millions of currency. Losses of a lot less have folded entire divisions of companies before. SELLING AT A LOSS OMG becomes a huge fucking deal when you start pissing cash out a huge hole on top of that.

Oh, and again here is where I point out that SELLING FOR A LOSS IS A REALLY FUCKING STUPID IDEA WHEN YOU COULD OFFER A COMPETITIVE PRODUCT WITHOUT BLEEDING MONEY.

Seriously "Don't worry guys, they lose money every time they make and sell a PS3 so everything will be fine!" isn't a fucking argument.


edit: Everyone makes a profit on games.

[Bells]

Seriously underestimating the power of losing several hundreds of millions of currency. Losses of a lot less have folded entire divisions of companies before. SELLING AT A LOSS OMG becomes a huge fucking deal when you start pissing cash out a huge hole on top of that.

Oh, and again here is where I point out that SELLING FOR A LOSS IS A REALLY FUCKING STUPID IDEA WHEN YOU COULD OFFER A COMPETITIVE PRODUCT WITHOUT BLEEDING MONEY.

Seriously "Don't worry guys, they lose money every time they make and sell a PS3 so everything will be fine!" isn't a fucking argument.


edit: Everyone makes a profit on games.

Nintendo turns a profit on the Wii, the result is that their System is already dying out, while the PS3 still has room to grow and can survive it's 10 year life spam just fine... i don't know if the Xbox turns a profit, but i don't remember it doing so. Either way, The proudction of the 360 hardware is cheaper and it has Shortcomings in that department because of that

Also, Sony always looks to take an edge over the competition Bulking up more hardware, asking for a steeper price and compensating over time by cheapen the tech as it falls from "cutting edge" back to "Current". This is not just the Playstation division, that's pretty much their business model... and, weird as it might be... it works for them.

As for this whole Deal... no, not going to happen.

You see, this whole fight is not just about Bluray or even Sony Vs LG. Remember the whole HDDVD Vs Bluray thing of a few years back? The Bluray technology is actually a collaboration of many heavy hitter companies and industry leaders called BluRay Disc Association. And they KNOW the main driving force for the technology was the PS3. Sony took the frontline, so, A falling out with LG is not a big issue as long as the other companyes involved don't take sides.

And those companies include Apple, HP, Panasonic, Sharp, Samsung, Fox, Disney, Warner Bros, Dell... so a Dispute with LG? Maybe a Blow to internal politics in the Association, but they would never let Sony die out just to please LG... not good for business.

[Aldurin]

Sony makes up for profit loss on the console through licensing companies to make games for it.

[Marc v4.0]

From phone so keeping this brief.

For all the cutting edge, pushing the envelope, top of the line FLUFF they cram in to their systems at such a huge loss, they aren't winning the market, they aren't beating out the competition, fuck they aren't even leading the way in sales by any appreciable margin (if they are at all, last I checked they were not). At a certain point you have to wonder how much it is worth to have the best tech when it isn't actually getting you dick all.

[Solid Snake]

I was about to start the "LOL X-BOX FANBOY JUST TRYIN' TO START CONSOLE WARZ" shenanigans, but then I read the article.

Still, I always hate these kinds of topics because they inevitably derail at one point or another into fans of respective consoles incoherently bashing the others out of blind loyalty and whatnot.

About the only legal subject I can't really have an opinion on based on lack of knowledge is Intellectual Property Disputes, so I'll remain silent on the matter of whether the lawsuit has any legitimacy. Those who own PS3s already really shouldn't be worried -- this certainly won't have an short-term impact. It might actually hasten development and release of a PS4, at least insofar as it would be advantageous for Sony to release new hardware sooner than its usual decade-long approach assuming it's still going to be a force in the market.

But that's all purely speculative.

...Still, I don't quite buy Marc's doomsday scenario. 2010 was a great year for the PS3 and 2011 looks like its best year yet, with incredible exclusive content. Still, I could see this being a damning development for Sony precisely because 2011 was supposed to be a breakout year. At least a ten-day moratorium on sales in the EU, at a critical make-or-break moment smack dab in the middle of the PS3's production cycle and at the height of compelling software releases? Yeah, it could hurt.

[Azisien]

It's worth noting that Sony no longer takes a loss on every console sold. That ended probably close to a year ago now.

I mean, it was stupid of them to operate on a loss for MULTIPLE YEARS, but like, at least they're not still doing it.

I'd generalize the 'good year' sentiment to pretty much all of gaming though, not just the PS3. It's just gonna be a rockin' awesome year, period.

[Funka Genocide]

I'd be perfectly ok with seeing console gaming in general go down the crapper. Exclusive software sucks balls.

When you can piece together a great gaming computer for under 800 bucks I don't really see the point in buying a less functional and less powerful product for a significant percentage of that.

I mean, your average first world household all ready has a home computer, why the redundancy? Because of exclusive publishing deals and an uneducated consumer base. If you remove one side of that equation I think the other one is rendered moot.

[Kim]

Oh hey the console war. That didn't take long.

[Funka Genocide]

Heh, wow I totally didn't even realize I was doing that. Totally honest there. My bad.

I think its a pretty sound argument personally, but I can see how it comes off as total fanboy nonsense. Point taken.

My basic point is that, functionally speaking, a computer is a computer. I find the practice of purchasing more than one computer to perform the same function (in this case playing video games, I can understand having a laptop to travel with, a smart phone to use while you're driving and texting at the same time etc. etc.) to be a waste of resources. You could easily play metal gear solid on a PC or mac or what have you, its just arbitrary licenses that stop you from doing so. I don't like to be bullied into making purchases that aren't directly related to the things I want. (in this case, I want to fuck shit up covert style without having to purchase a PS3)

[rpgdemon]

The thing about consoles is the ease of use and convenience.

PC: "Yeah, you meet the specs, and your computer should be able to run this really easily. OH WAIT, sorry, the new version of your graphics card drivers just borked everything. Also, enjoy DRM up the wazoo."

It's not about the processing capabilities anymore, so much as how much less of a hassle it is to do things on a console. Plus, it's right there next to the TV with controllers hooked up, so you don't have to unplug/replug stuff, and you can play with multiple people without all hunching over a monitor, or having everyone purchase a copy and get a gaming ready PC.

Having a device dedicated to gaming means that it's a much more user friendly experience.

Edit: This is coming from someone who's been doing most of his gaming recently either on PC or DS, and who watches various movies/tv shows on Sunday nights with a bunch of friends, through a computer hooked up to the TV.

[Bells]

I'd be perfectly ok with seeing console gaming in general go down the crapper. Exclusive software sucks balls.

When you can piece together a great gaming computer for under 800 bucks I don't really see the point in buying a less functional and less powerful product for a significant percentage of that.

I mean, your average first world household all ready has a home computer, why the redundancy? Because of exclusive publishing deals and an uneducated consumer base. If you remove one side of that equation I think the other one is rendered moot.

It's about being practical.

You can buy a console that works as it should for 5-10 years on High-end quality and no other issues, or you can Buy a Pc that you will have to expend more the upgrade every few years to keep up with the same quality, all the while having to educate yourself and a large mass of people on Software configuration, Hardware configuration and other smaller topics... with a console, it's ready to go out of the box.

[Funka Genocide]

To be honest I don't really think that the main selling point for console gaming is ease of use anymore. Most adults under the age of 40 (and a lot over that age) are perfectly capable of using a personal computer without too much hassle. Hooking a computer to an HDTV is a simple process of running an HDMI cable, or even setting up a wireless video connection. Properly configured you can run multiple controllers through one home computer for in house multiplayer, this really wouldn't be an issue if such things were focused on by home computer manufacturers, as I stated previously a computer is a computer, there is nothing a console can do that another computer can't do, or vice versa theoretically.

In practice however, consoles are overly restrictive and lack utility due to their bare bones operating systems. There's really nothing that sets a console apart from a home pc other than exclusive software, and as technology becomes more and more accessible (both conceptually and economically) this will grow to be a singular distinction.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was no further playstation and instead Sony began offering some form of proprietary software that would allow access to exclusive content via your home computer, I really do see the console game system becoming redundant and ultimately obsolete within the next decade or so.

Of course the same could be said for other discrete media types such as audio and video discs. Once you can assume an appropriate consumer base there's really no need to continue to offer media products in a physical format when you can just stream lossless audio or video and download the media onto rewritable portable drives and solid state storage devices, would save a lot of resources as well.

[Solid Snake]

I really do see the console game system becoming redundant and ultimately obsolete within the next decade or so.

I respectfully disagree.

PCs can be phenomenal gaming platforms, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see PCs completely supplanting consoles in the market.
It's rather telling that even Microsoft really isn't considering going in this direction, when given the sheer number of people reliant on Windows OS, they'd probably benefit tremendously by converting console gamers to PC reliance.

But really, consoles are streamlined for gaming purposes, and PCs aren't. The fact that I rely on my PC to handle my schoolwork and internet browsing ensures that it's built in a way that'd be cumbersome to gaming even if this was a desktop and not a laptop.

I use my PC to surf the web, via a Windows Operating system that seems quite prone to viruses, and historically that means it's been infected with viruses that take it down about once every eighteen months.
It's relatively easy to recover or save documents and MP3 files; it's never been as easy to recover saved games. The antiviral software I keep on my computer requires approximately a two-minute loading time: I can turn my console on and dive right into a game, and I can't do that with a PC. I've owned this PC less than three years and its formerly top-of-the-line video graphics card is already outdated and not appropriate to handle the newest releases: upgrading it manually would cost money and require technical knowhow that I sorely lack. Default mouse and keyboard controls are a pain for games outside of the strategy and simulation genres.

But yeah, the primary problem there is really that I associate my computer with work, I spend a disporportionate time on the computer doing work, and the thought of staring at the exact same screen and sitting at the exact same desk where I've been doing all my work to play a game is often unpleasant. Realistically, relying on a PC to handle a significant portion of my gaming needs would require a second computer, and that'd be way too expensive. I like the idea of having a device that is built explicitly for gaming, and thus I can turn it on and dive straight into the games, without having to navigate through Windows XP/Vista/7 or close AIM and MSN while doing so.

Insofar as that's all accurate, I don't think console gaming is just going to disappear into a void over the next decade.

[Marc v4.0]

Consoles don't need utility, because they have a computer for utility so arguing utility is also sort of moot. If you need something that can play your games, and that is all you need, for less then 500 bucks...

Welp.

On top of the fact that, no matter what, the percentage of people who know how to build and upkeep a solid gaming PC are actually in a minority compared to parents/young adults that just want a gaming system for the kid/themselves. Until that changes, you won't see console gaming go anywhere, and you sure as hell won't be seeing that change in a decade.

In some ways this echos the Old Fallout/New Fallout arguments...

edit: Ninjas! In the trees!

But doomsday scenario might have been a bit much. As far as that line of argument went, yeah, pushing out systems at a loss worked for both Sony and Microsoft as it gave them both a massive edge over Nintendo in those departments, even though Nintendo makes a profit off their systems AND still sell really well. Still, Nintendo isn't their biggest worry, and wasn't. They should be worrying about each other, and in those terms I think Microsoft handled Sony better then the other way around. There is a saying that Fanboyism is for people who can't get their parents to buy them all the consoles, and as someone who could walk out right now and own a PS3 in 20 minutes with not even a second glance at my bank account, I can't bring myself to give money to a company that I think took a good thing and stuffed it full of shit I will never use. If I won't use it, I would rather not pay for it.

[Funka Genocide]

I don't really see a lot of solid reasoning in either of those arguments. I think you can find some obvious parallels in the publishing industry to substantiate the likelihood of a purely digital media system. What you will likely see is a more homogeneous media environment than today, with standardized file formats and a variety of accessibility methods. Just looking at this from an evolving market standpoint.

Your consumer base is supported by a digital information infrastructure and possesses the necessary equipment to consume purely digital media. The added overhead of physically publishing in any format combined with the inconvenience inherent to the necessity to physically obtain something make digital publishing the obvious choice.

I am sure that software publishers will continue to publish exclusive products for exclusive platforms as long as that business model remains profitable, I just don't see it remaining so for very much longer. Once you remove the profitability of exclusive software, you remove the reason for the existence of console gaming. The fact of the matter is that you quite simply make home pcs more "user friendly" with some form of alternate OS boot or in-between software rather than marketing (at a loss, no less) specific hardware.

I'd sooner invest in emerging distribution methods than I would the next generation of gaming consoles. We all grew up with personal computers, we know how to use them and it won't be a matter of our children wanting "that fancy new game box." We know how a microprocessor works and we know what a computer is and can accomplish, slavish fanboyism aside I don't think the majority of educated adults in my generation really want to shell out money for a box that basically constitutes a less able and entirely too specialized redundancy.

The only thing that makes a console close to a viable purchase is the price. Considering the price of current generation gaming hardware and an adequately equipped home pc, we can see the price margin narrowing. Gaming consoles have increased in price while home pcs have decreased. Back when I had an NES I think it retailed for somewhere around 100 bucks, while a home pc was going for more like 2000 minimum. Nowadays a new ps3 will set you back 300 bucks while a decent home pc will cost you 600. The closer the price points become the less viable a console system business model becomes.

When you consider that this "value" is more than likely purchased in addition to a home computer, it's impact is severely lessened.

[Marc v4.0]

I don't think the majority of educated adults in my generation really want to shell out money for a box that basically constitutes a less able and entirely too specialized redundancy.

Which, if sales figures and demographic studies are correct, is the point where you are wrong. The fact that enough people, in your age group and more, shell out that money for those redundant game boxes should be proof enough. We aren't seeing a decline in console gaming here, as you would expect to see if the market had begun to change to fit your notions. We are seeing a still-rolling upsweep, in fact.

Unless you're doing some thing where you draw a line between educated and uneducated as PC buffs and people who buy consoles. I doubt it, but I can never be too paranoid careful.

edit: I can't seem to find where "There is a larger market for people who want a gaming console then there is for people who want to build their own rig" isn't a solid point.

Orange Juice by the carton is more popular then growing your own orange tree and squeezing it yourself, even if you get more benefit from fresh over processed concentrate.

[Bifrost]

DRM isn't going away, man. :| That shit pretty much kills my desire to really game on a PC, and I enjoy gaming on my computer.

And from a designer perspective, at least with consoles you don't need to deal with the shinanagins that pop up from the fact that PCs are, indeed, fairly customizable. So unless that's changed recently, I don't see it happening.

Also the Wii was fucking cheap at launch and wasn't sold at a loss, so your argument kind of fails there. *clearly doesn't game for pretties*

As a side note, I think that digital books are inferior in most senses that aren't price. I for one find them much harder to read, and there are some things you can do with paper that simply don't carry over well to digital format, like footnotes.

[Funka Genocide]

@Marc: Which is why I indicated a shift in the next decade or so. It won't necessarily be a matter of people getting any smarter, more price points on technology lowering and alternative distribution methods becoming more economically viable due to that. Most of us walk around with enough processing power to play at least a PS2 game in our pockets.

@bifrost: I don't really see how you can rail against drm while embracing console gaming, both techniques are methods of constraining the consumer base to a particular and controlled method of media consumption. Same dog, different trick.

Also, however much you fancy hardcover novels and the like, the industry is dying whether you like it or not.

Not really sure why these speculations require such a vehement rebuttal, but I mean hell if I'm the only person that sees the obvious I won't be too worried when my portfolio has a few more 0's on the end.

[Marc v4.0]

And from a designer perspective, at least with consoles you don't need to deal with the shinanagins that pop up from the fact that PCs are, indeed, fairly customizable. So unless that's changed recently, I don't see it happening.

New Vegas on my PC has no radio sound and a lot of the other sounds are funky because my particular hardware isn't fully supported yet.

No such problem on my X-Box. :/

edit: A thought, PCs are becoming cheaper as the technology becomes cheaper, consoles use a lot of the same technology and should begin to follow the same trends

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Gotta be honest, I'm really not sure where the idea you can't get an equivalent PC to a console without being hilariously overcharged comes from.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.612338

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102898&cm_re=HD_5770-_-14-102-898-_-Product

Combined these two run to $423, and unless I'm really wrong on how powerful the PS3 or 360 are, it blows them both out of the water.
Which isn't even mentioning that you're liable to buy a PC anyway. I don't want to overly generalize here but I'm guessing that if you're responding to this thread, you do indeed own a PC.



New Vegas on my PC has no radio sound and a lot of the other sounds are funky because my particular hardware isn't fully supported yet.

No such problem on my X-Box. :/


And hey, here sits my 360.
Which plays nothing anymore.
R.I.P, little buddy.

[Solid Snake]

Also, however much you fancy hardcover novels and the like, the industry is dying whether you like it or not.

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOO

Not my books

Man I don't care what newfangled technological gadgets y'all convince me to purchase, I ain't ever giving up on the sweet, sweet feel of pages in my hands.
Also let's face it, a bookshelf full of books looks like a thousand times more impressive than owning 1,000 on your precious little device.

Finally once an energy crisis inevitably destroys the utility of all electronic gadgets you will all be like "Oh no I have nothing to read!"
And I will be like "Hahahahahahaha."
And then I stroke my fingers lovingly over the covers of my paperbacks.

</Bibliophile>
Oh I may not be into the console wars but I am totally goin' to war with my real-life in-actual-existence non-digital books y'all

[Marc v4.0]

And hey, here sits my 360.
Which plays nothing anymore.

Oh, right, because that shit has never happened to my PC before for no reason.

I'm damn glad I didn't lose everything 3 times over because lol who fucking knows why

[Funka Genocide]

No I agree, I much prefer an actual book to reading off a screen, even a really nice screen. But you gotta' change with the times or some such thing.

@Marc: stop going to free porn sites without virus protection.

[Marc v4.0]

I don't think viruses did any of the shit that has happened to my computers in the past, otherwise they'd be walking into our houses and personally hammering out shit with a baseball bat by this point.

Anyway, consoles are batting much better right now for me then PCs. I had to have my X-Box fixed once because it was Gen1 and herped all over itself one day, and then replaced because it was 5 years old and decided it was time to move on.

All this is user milage, though, which is why I didn't bother to bring it up but LOLOHBOYPCSNEVERBREAKDOWN

[Funka Genocide]

Also Windows sucks dick. I'm just waiting for some kind of OS revolution where all past wrongs are righted and we cross the rainbow bridge into digital Valhalla.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Oh, right, because that shit has never happened to my PC before for no reason.

I'm damn glad I didn't lose everything 3 times over because lol who fucking knows why

Look, Marc. Maybe it's just 2 AM and I'm a bit crabby, but did you not just at 2:41 precisely decide to tell us that in your specific case, a thing happened?
A thing that admittedly I think, doesn't happen to most people?

Is it not then, somewhat unreasonable for you to call foul when I do the same?
I'm not sayin' the PC never breaks, it does. Shit happens. But it happens to every freaking piece of electronic equipment out there. Consoles and computers included.
The only difference being when something breaks on my PC, I can find out what it is specifically and either fix it myself or replace that specific part.
If it's with the Xbox though I'm pretty stumped on how to even get the damn thing open without breaking it.

[Solid Snake]

No I agree, I much prefer an actual book to reading off a screen, even a really nice screen. But you gotta' change with the times or some such thing.

No man, like, you know how you're all into the Console Wars in favor of your precious PC?

Like, that is exactly how I feel about books.

Kindle and Nook are Satanic instruments of destruction.

Also I used to work at a Barnes and Noble when I was in High School. I recently returned to said Barnes and Noble and a fifty-something year-old co-worker of mine, who was still there, was working at their "Nook" station. We had a pleasant conversation and then she attempted to sell me a Nook.
...I think the subsequent argument we got into marked the only time in recorded history that a fifty-something year old argued strenuously in favor of a new technology, while a twenty-something year old played the role of the jaded, angry caveman, railing against the changing times and the demise of books as representing the demise of All That Is Pure And Holy In The World.

EDIT: Also I'd just like to note that my earlier prediction that this thread would turn into a nonsensical Console War series of borderline incoherent moaning and groaning has proven entirely accurate.
I deserve a medal for figuring that one out.

[Funka Genocide]

Actually I don't really give a tin plated shit about consoles, I'm just stating concrete facts. A computer is a computer.

Trust me on this. Its a bunch of microscopic PN junctions printed onto a silicon wafer using a doping process likely involving arsenic and phosphorous.

I don't give a shit about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. I'm just stating my annoyance at the widespread acceptance of such a ridiculous marketing scheme. Software is software and hardware is hardware, if I really fucking wanted to I could play a PS3 game on my Mac. (and if I had an unlimited budget and access to some pretty specialized tools, of course.)

[Marc v4.0]

Look, Marc. Maybe it's just 2 AM and I'm a bit crabby, but did you not just at 2:41 precisely decide to tell us that in your specific case, a thing happened?
A thing that admittedly I think, doesn't happen to most people?

Is it not then, somewhat unreasonable for you to call foul when I do the same?
I'm not sayin' the PC never breaks, it does. Shit happens. But it happens to every freaking piece of electronic equipment out there. Consoles and computers included.
The only difference being when something breaks on my PC, I can find out what it is specifically and either fix it myself or replace that specific part.
If it's with the Xbox though I'm pretty stumped on how to even get the damn thing open without breaking it.

Seeing as how it is the same time here then I give you that cause fuck I missed it myself. The sound problem is a very widespread one, though, and was more an example of the quoted point then anything else.

Again, varying experience, but everything that has ever gone wrong with my PCs would have cost MORE to fix then the price of a shiny new PC and the most I ever paid for a repair on my xbox was 45 bucks, and I got a year of Live free with that so I technically gained $5 net.

But I don't think this is getting anything anywhere

I really fucking wanted to I could play a PS3 game on my Mac. (and if I had an unlimited budget and access to some pretty specialized tools, of course.)

Once more I hold out that just because you can do it under special circumstances with specific tools, proper know-how and the right hardware doesn't make it more practical.

And pretty much fuck having to be forced into studying and researching just so I can build a rig to play Brown&Grim: The Shooter: 2

[Solid Snake]

Actually I don't really give a tin plated shit about consoles, I'm just stating concrete facts. A computer is a computer.

...Yes, that is accurate.
I still do think that there is an argument that could feasibly be made in support of the notion that it may actually be worth a little extra money to purchase a computer specifically designed to handle only and principally gaming.

...I mean it's nice, for example, that my iPhone can access the internet and do a bunch of things other than play music and answer calls, but really, I prefer to just use the iPhone to answer calls and play music, because as an all-purpose machine it's just inferior when it comes to typing messages on the internet or web browsing.

...Similarly, a PC can function as your all-purpose machine and do everything and anything, including running games. But in my personal experience my PC tends to handle web browsing and messaging and typing quite well, whereas it's floundered somewhat in running games efficiently.

And heck, it's true that I could buy another PC, as opposed to a PS3 or an X360, in order to exclusively run games. Maybe it'd even be $50-100 cheaper. But it's worth that extra money for me to just receive a machine that, straight out of packaging, is designed to run games and requires absolutely zero effort on my part in order to achieve that purpose. I don't have to worry about upgrading it for about a decade, I don't have to worry about the dozens upon dozens of different model options or controller options available, and for me that's important, because I'm a busy guy with all kinds of shit on my plate, and I don't really have the time to master how to install a new video card.

Of course that's just my subjective opinion, but the thing is, I think there are enough people out there with similar opinions that will ensure that consoles will remain very much a reality a decade from now. Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo will continue utilizing consoles as a way to streamline the gaming experience to those who are either too lazy or too busy to master the intricacies of setting up a superior gaming PC. And dummies like me who can afford to toss an extra $100 or so to avoid reliance on a gaming PC will do so, because I enjoy just plugging it up, turning it on and immediately being prompted to play the game, and having a cute little avatar and trophies on a designated gaming network.

Trust me on this. Its a bunch of microscopic PN junctions printed onto a silicon wafer using a doping process likely involving arsenic and phosphorous.

...Do you know what I think we should agree should never suffer the indignity of being transcribed into a bunch of microscopic PN junctions printed onto a silicon wafer using a doping process likely involving arsenic and phosphorous?

...Thousands of years of epic literature.
TAKE THAT NOOK AND KINDLE, I AM TAKIN' YOUR SORRY ASSES DOWN, DON'T YOU DARE MESS WITH THE LIKES OF SHAKESPEARE, TWAIN AND TOLSTOY

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Wow I didn't intend for this to devolve into a Console vs PC discussion. Anyway by Gen 9 Consoles will be no different from PCs since by this point they will basically be PCs with TV hook up.

What makes PCs so superior is because of customization options and the near constant nonstop upgrades. Consoles couldn't keep up because PC upgrades nearly every year sometimes every couple of months. BUT Pirating is sadly so VERY easy to do on PC games (no mods need half the time) that it's not a valuable market despite the power since your game will 80% of the time be pirated within a week. Plus you could get a gaming console for cheap ($199) were as a new gaming PC will net you $399 at the least plus an extra $100 every upgrade or so. (this trend seems to have slowed down as of late though)

[Funka Genocide]

Just consider this a hunch. I can understand being emotionally attached to something like Nintendo (I myself was a diehard Nintendo fanboy in my youth, I even owned a virtual boy. Yeah...) but I'm just looking at this thing realistically. I'm just a monkey with a multimeter though, not a market analyst. I don't have enough liquid capital to personally diversify my investments yet anyways, so maybe in 5 years I'll put my money where my mouth is and see what happens.

[bluestarultor]

Just throwing this out there, but on a technical note, a console can do a lot more with a lot less powerful hardware.

Why? Because it's a console. By definition, it's made to do one thing at a time and devote all its resources to that one thing. If you look at the PS3, you're basically looking at DOS with top-of-the-line hardware. Just mix in a simple GUI and networking (and there have been GUIs and browsers made for DOS) and off you go.

A PC, on the other hand, has evolved into a multitasking machine. It has to devote its resources to a bunch of different things. Quite frankly more than most people realize, even when it doesn't seem to be doing anything. To get the same power out of the same hardware, you'd need to pretty much shut down Windows.

That's not to say PCs don't have benefits; just that they can't do as much with the same hardware.

So, really, a console will be a viable option for a while specifically because it's made to do one thing and do it well.

[Funka Genocide]

I take it you've never used a customizable OS like one of the various Linux formats?

Regardless, it's not a matter of re-engineering what is currently available, but producing a more apt product for an evolving market.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If the solution to gaming is "Get everybody to use Linux" good luck with that one.

[Jagos]

Just consider this a hunch. I can understand being emotionally attached to something like Nintendo (I myself was a diehard Nintendo fanboy in my youth, I even owned a virtual boy. Yeah...) but I'm just looking at this thing realistically. I'm just a monkey with a multimeter though, not a market analyst.

You probably can analyze the market a lot better than they can...

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Just throwing this out there, but on a technical note, a console can do a lot more with a lot less powerful hardware.

Why? Because it's a console. By definition, it's made to do one thing at a time and devote all its resources to that one thing. If you look at the PS3, you're basically looking at DOS with top-of-the-line hardware. Just mix in a simple GUI and networking (and there have been GUIs and browsers made for DOS) and off you go.

A PC, on the other hand, has evolved into a multitasking machine. It has to devote its resources to a bunch of different things. Quite frankly more than most people realize, even when it doesn't seem to be doing anything. To get the same power out of the same hardware, you'd need to pretty much shut down Windows.

That's not to say PCs don't have benefits; just that they can't do as much with the same hardware.

So, really, a console will be a viable option for a while specifically because it's made to do one thing and do it well.


That's sorta true, but at the same time incredibly irrelevant. Yes, a Console does more with less. But very slightly, and it really just doesn't match up when you consider what you can get in terms of processing power for a PC.

[Eltargrim]

Emulated games take orders of magnitude more power on computers than the consoles they're designed for. The difference in efficiency allowed by consoles is very significant.

[bluestarultor]

I take it you've never used a customizable OS like one of the various Linux formats?

Regardless, it's not a matter of re-engineering what is currently available, but producing a more apt product for an evolving market.

Gotta agree with Barrel on this one.

Aside from that, I'm sure before Linux got locked out of the PS3 that popping in a game disc shut the installed OS down in favor of the game engine.



Really, though, while consoles have introduced basic multitasking, they're still built specifically to run games. Consoles will be attractive to developers for the foreseeable future simply because the hardware is known and everyone who buys the game will be able to play it. PCs are a ridiculously tricky business because of the need for basic requirements, reliance on drivers written by other people, issues where things not accounted for in a system configuration can completely screw the buyer over (such as my brother who bought Mass Effect PC, had all the needed specs, and couldn't play it because his video card wasn't specifically supported), and problems down the line where things you relied on no longer exist (as is the case with FF7 PC).

This is completely ignoring piracy. There are enough technical issues alone to discourage people from developing for PCs.




Edit:
Emulated games take orders of magnitude more power on computers than the consoles they're designed for. The difference in efficiency allowed by consoles is very significant.

^This. There's a really good PS2 emulator out there and even on modern machines, the games run at the speed of tar. We're talking about emulating a console from like a decade ago. That's why there will never be a decent emulator for a console in its own generation.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Emulated games take orders of magnitude more power on computers than the consoles they're designed for. The difference in efficiency allowed by consoles is very significant.


Typically speaking not really. A console locks its FPS in at 30 for most games, while PCs don't. As far as I'm aware, almost all games on consoles still run for 720p when PCs have been going 1080p for years upon years at this point.

You can point to things like Assassin's Creed or GTA IV, but that's really just bad optimization on the part of the developer more than anything else. Games like Bad Company 2, TF2 and C&C will run better on PCs.

[bluestarultor]

Typically speaking not really. A console locks its FPS in at 30 for most games, while PCs don't. As far as I'm aware, almost all games on consoles still run for 720p when PCs have been going 1080p for years upon years at this point.

You can point to things like Assassin's Creed or GTA IV, but that's really just bad optimization on the part of the developer more than anything else. Games like Bad Company 2, TF2 and C&C will run better on PCs.

FPS has nothing to do with it. It's the processing of the game as a whole. When you port games between PC and consoles, you have to make changes to account for the hardware and software.


EDIT: To put it this way, check the PS3's specs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3) and see how laughable it is in certain areas compared to PCs. RAM in particular is incredibly low, just to start you off.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

256MB and extra 256 dedicated to video? I shit that much RAM.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

FPS has nothing to do with it. It's the processing of the game as a whole. When you port games between PC and consoles, you have to make changes to account for the hardware and software.


EDIT: To put it this way, check the PS3's specs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3) and see how laughable it is in certain areas compared to PCs. RAM in particular is incredibly low, just to start you off.

The big deal in the PS3 is its processor. Compared to what was around at the time, it was a fucking beast.
The major gain consoles get is that they can get away with so little RAM, but that's not really a massive thing because RAM is just plainly cheap as all hell at this point. You can get 4 Gigs for 40 bucks, and Dual channeling that you're basically in the clear for years of future developments with that much.
What you really need to play games are the VGA and CPU. You can skimp on just about everything else and be set.

[pochercoaster]

Also Windows sucks dick. I'm just waiting for some kind of OS revolution where all past wrongs are righted and we cross the rainbow bridge into digital Valhalla.

You only say that cause you're using Vista which is a piece of shit and much worse than other Microsoft OS's (and also because you mourn the loss of your Mac). It can be tweaked to perform better but all software has to be tweaked at least somewhat to perform optimally. Even if you're using Linux, Blues' point still stands, at least with our current technology. I realize that we're discussing future technology however, and regarding that I don't have an opinion...

[Bifrost]

wow i really like how my developer standpoint was completely disregarded until someone else brought it up. really cool guys.

Yeah, Vista was amazingly shitty. Judging all of the Windows OSes by that is really fucking dumb.

And on DRM: at least with consoles I'm not limited to using the disk thrice before it stops working, or I'm not forced to put a password in for every time I need to install it. I'm just limited to using it in a console, which, given that they are dedicated to gaming without requiring me to do much more than plug it in, is not. That. Fucking. Bad.

Also with consoles I can still play my older games after I get an upgrade.

[Funka Genocide]

I've used more than just Vista, I incidentally happen to have it on my home pc (a fact none of you people would know had my girlfriend not just sold me out.)

I'm using XP right now, I've used different iterations of windows professionally for over a decade now. Windows sucks dick. Mac rules you. That is all.

Judging the value of my estimation of the worth of Microsoft based on my current home OS is really fucking dumb.

[Marc v4.0]

As long as I can get a console, out of the box, and connect right up with all my friends and play a game I am going to be rocking a console. So will they. Generally, I would consider it a selfish dick move to expect everyone else to upgrade and build to meet your idea of how shit should be done.

Even after I finish building my next PC.

[Funka Genocide]

Of course you are, right up until there are no more consoles and home pcs have a more varied interface to support the gaming market.

I really don't think this assumption has anything to do with my personal temperament. Eventually the market will operate under the assumption that the consumer has access to baseline technology. It happened with the radio, the television, the refrigerator, the automobile etc. etc.

You can assume that your customer base has a home computer, once you clear that conceptual hurdle this isn't exactly rocket surgery.

[Marc v4.0]

It just won't happen unless radical changes take place to PC hardware to normalize it across the board for simplicity, and that shit will take a lot longer then your decade timetable and fuck by the time it does I might not even give a shit because old guys don't play many video games.


Until you don't have to make upgrades every year to your PC to play the new games, the console that lasts at least 5 years without any hardware upgrades required and free software updates WILL be more popular and what sells.


Yeah, every year is a bit of a stretch but it is still a lot more then just every generation.

[bluestarultor]

The big deal in the PS3 is its processor. Compared to what was around at the time, it was a fucking beast.
The major gain consoles get is that they can get away with so little RAM, but that's not really a massive thing because RAM is just plainly cheap as all hell at this point. You can get 4 Gigs for 40 bucks, and Dual channeling that you're basically in the clear for years of future developments with that much.
What you really need to play games are the VGA and CPU. You can skimp on just about everything else and be set.

You didn't check the GPU against video cards, either, then. Put simply, you could buy better video in a PC for $50 on Newegg.

The Cell Processor is easily the biggest beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor) in there other than Blu-ray, but that literally is the only thing in there better than anything on the market for home PCs.

If you were to take all the pieces out of the console and use them in a Windows machine, even with a RAM upgrade, I'm pretty sure that this Inspiron 1501 I'm typing from could handle games better. Consoles don't just have less RAM. They have less of everything across the board. That's why the PS3 is such an immense beast based on such paltry specs. The thing is a hobo with a Rolex, but it doesn't need that much based on how it processes things.

[Funka Genocide]

I don't think you understand the concept of technological progression rates. Specifically the observable trend in microprocessor progression known as "Moore's Law." Given general estimates, sometime between 2015 and 2020 we will cease to see exponential growth in microprocessor development, hence my hypothesis.

But whatever, consoles are radical bro.

[Doc ock rokc]

Of course you are, right up until there are no more consoles and home pcs have a more varied interface to support the gaming market.

I really don't think this assumption has anything to do with my personal temperament. Eventually the market will operate under the assumption that the consumer has access to baseline technology. It happened with the radio, the television, the refrigerator, the automobile etc. etc.

You can assume that your customer base has a home computer, once you clear that conceptual hurdle this isn't exactly rocket surgery.

While its not rocket surgery to technologically minded people like You and me It is still quite advanced for civs or casuals.

While your kind of correct on the assumption there nearly everyone has access to a computer of some sort there is however a very fine line between a home computer and a Game computer. especially with what Devolopers consider for their lowest settings. the demands are High for non tech-savvy players.

BUT if there was more games like WoW or Battle Field heros that worked on the minimum level of tech at the time of their devolopment then I would agree with you.

Till then Consoles are the causal players key.

[Marc v4.0]

But whatever, consoles are radical bro.

~Classy~

While its not rocket surgery to technologically minded people like You and me It is still quite advanced for civs or casuals.

While your kind of correct on the assumption there nearly everyone has access to a computer of some sort there is however a very fine line between a home computer and a Game computer. especially with what Devolopers consider for their lowest settings. the demands are High for non tech-savvy players.

BUT if there was more games like WoW or Battle Field heros that worked on the minimum level of tech at the time of their devolopment then I would agree with you.

Till then Consoles are the causal players key.

Oh, excuse me, I'll just see myself out of this exclusive club here. I didn't mean to get dirt on the floor and I am sorry to have troubled you for these few scraps of food, gov. I won't bother you fine gentlemen none with my drivel and ignorance anymore. A thousand pardons.

[Funka Genocide]

ITT: common sense, market evolution and observable scientific trends all trumped by a boys love for his Playstation.

*sniffle*

[Doc ock rokc]

I don't think you understand the concept of technological progression rates. Specifically the observable trend in microprocessor progression known as "Moore's Law." Given general estimates, sometime between 2015 and 2020 we will cease to see exponential growth in microprocessor development, hence my hypothesis.
That just makes it MUCH worse as with this exponential growth in mircoprocessors follows the Exponential growth in OBSOLESCENCE. Which will discourage the casuals even more so then now!

[Kim]

And this is why there's a rule against console wars.

Because they all devolve into condescending fuckery.

Oh wait, that's how they start, too.

[Funka Genocide]

That just makes it MUCH worse as with this exponential growth in mircoprocessors follows the Exponential growth in OBSOLESCENCE. Which will discourage the casuals even more so then now!

I don't think you understand my point, within the next 10 years we're likely to see a cessation of exponential growth, meaning a plateau in processing power that will increase the longevity of processors and spread the obsolesence time frame out quite a bit.

Why do you people keep bringing up "console wars" into this? That's such a ridiculously hamfisted method and an obvious strawman argument. I'm stating things pretty concisely and not using emotion to convey my point. Dismissing it as some manner of console favoritism completely defeats the purpose of having a conversation on the matter, as does involving personal rhetoric.

That being said, I'm only making fun of you guys because you seem so angry.

[Doc ock rokc]

Oh, excuse me, I'll just see myself out of this exclusive club here. I didn't mean to get dirt on the floor and I am sorry to have troubled you for these few scraps of food, gov. I won't bother you fine gentlemen none with my drivel and ignorance anymore. A thousand pardons.
You know I don't mean it like that! I mean that Gaming computers are already a Demanding fast pace and expensive field. When "Moore's Law." thing comes about then its going to get Much MUCH MUCH more demanding fast pace and expensive. For relatively well off tech-savvy players and such it will be fine...but for newer or poorer players its going to be a nightmare to keep up and keep with the new games. Thats why consoles are more likened by the public. They stick to a advanced standard for 8 to 10 years (at the end of which it becomes obsolete) Gaming computers have a rather high entry wall that is constantly climbing. The consoles on the other hand have one that is quite low that keeps getting lower.

also Reading up mroe on the moore's law thing. The theory is already outdated. re-Estimations and new technologies pushed the Exponential falloff 2 decades past the estimated end by Moore. Intel agrees as of 2008. meaning that the Equalibrim of computers will be in another 30 years or so.

[Kim]

Dismissing it as some manner of console favoritism completely defeats the purpose of having a conversation on the matter, as does involving personal rhetoric.You mean the exact thing you're doing to others?

WHELP

"I'm not being a console war guy because ~I'M RIGHT~"

That being said, I'm only making fun of you guys because you seem so angry.

Admitted trolling, too!

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

~Classy~



Oh, excuse me, I'll just see myself out of this exclusive club here. I didn't mean to get dirt on the floor and I am sorry to have troubled you for these few scraps of food, gov. I won't bother you fine gentlemen none with my drivel and ignorance anymore. A thousand pardons.
I think what he means is exactly what you've been saying.
We're playing with PCs rather than consoles because we're in that market of people who are willing to put up with learning about stuff. It's not really a measure of intellect, just what direction we're minded toward.
I mean shit the only reason I know what I know is because I find learning about what's what fun.

NonCon isn't telling people how you think things are without regard for their personal feelings your entire M.O when it comes to other subjects?

[bluestarultor]

I don't think you understand my point, within the next 10 years we're likely to see a cessation of exponential growth, meaning a plateau in processing power that will increase the longevity of processors and spread the obsolesence time frame out quite a bit.

The thing is by extension, with processing power hitting a plateau, consoles will be able to do much more with the same technology.

At that point, consoles will be more powerful than ever in comparison.

I hate to belabor this, but, really, when you're devoting literally all resources to one task, you get a ton more out of them than when you're multitasking. The reason Windows has needed more and more RAM over the years is because more and more has been added to the OS and therefore you need more and more extra for other things. Consoles are just not like that. Trust me as a programmer, and not even talking about games, but literally any application, that an individual program does not take up that much in the line of resources. I've written everything from an alarm clock program to a program mimicking the function of a Pepsi machine and can attest to a major truth: resources-wise, your biggest hog is any kind of loop. Games are literally built inside a loop. Were it not for that, they wouldn't require squat.

When you take a game and make it your only task, you end up supporting the loop without outside interference and can make the loop actions more complex. If you're running an OS, you're running two loops. With a console, you lack the OS. The game sends its instructions directly to the hardware without a need for a middle-man.

That's about as plainly as I can explain it. A game console even in its current form has any OS you have in there step aside so the game can have full control under normal circumstances. It's like, simply put, running a PC game without Windows running, which on a PC is just not how it works.

[Kim]

Anyways, you're all wrong. In a decade, PCs and consoles will be merged into the same thing and competition will be along the lines of the iphone and android. Androids and iphones will be the new laptop. We may also have contact lenses with HUDs at this point, though they'll be simple, early model stuff.

[/serious]

[Solid Snake]

Anyways, you're all wrong. In a decade, PCs and consoles will be merged into the same thing and competition will be along the lines of the iphone and android. Androids and iphones will be the new laptop. We may also have contact lenses with HUDs at this point, though they'll be simple, early model stuff.

[/serious]

...If my iPhone is going to be my new laptop, they sure as hell better find a better way for me to type lengthy messages then those worthless piece of crap keypads my fingers can barely navigate with.

[/serious]

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

That's about as plainly as I can explain it. A game console even in its current form has any OS you have in there step aside so the game can have full control under normal circumstances. It's like, simply put, running a PC game without Windows running, which on a PC is just not how it works.

But why would you want that?

Yes, a Console does more for less. But by that you're going to get a PC anyway since by your own admission your console can't do anything else. You will spend at least 200 on a PC, so why not just toss the console price in there too and get one machine that does both?
I'm really not saying anyone has to or that I'm better than them or whatever, I just don't understand it.

[Doc ock rokc]

...If my iPhone is going to be my new laptop, they sure as hell better find a better way for me to type lengthy messages then those worthless piece of crap keypads my fingers can barely navigate with.

[/serious]

TAH DAH! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShapeWriter)

[Solid Snake]

But why would you want that?

Yes, a Console does more for less. But by that you're going to get a PC anyway since by your own admission your console can't do anything else. You will spend at least 200 on a PC, so why not just toss the console price in there too and get one machine that does both?

...Because I'd rather not rely upon the same machine to do work and play games?
...There's already enough functions that I'm asking my poor belabored PC to accomplish, I don't need to toss dozens upon dozens of additional games onto its hard drive too for good measure.

It's also nice to occasionally stare at a different screen, as opposed to if my PC was also my primary gaming apparatus, in which case I'd be like "Well! I just finished my term paper! Now I won't even move an inch to play some games!"

...Sure, the argument that I could simply rely on a second PC (as opposed to a console) for gaming has merit, but there's just no way that I'd want to rely on a single device (that would be susceptible to viruses and whatnot) for web browsing, term paper typing, researching, video watching, photo editing, online messaging, and all of my videogames.

Thinking about it from a sheer standpoint of accessories alone, keeping game controllers in the immediate vicinity of my keyboard, mouse, printer and scanner would be hugely distracting.

Of course there are a few strategy games reliant on a keyboard interface that I have to use a PC to enjoy, but given the choice, I'd almost always prefer to use my games with a console. Easy, breezy interface and startup, no OS or other applications running at the same time as my game, no virus concerns or AntiVirus software running in the background, and I can even have my PC open to GameFAQs (or simply be chatting with someone like Nik or NonCon) while simultaneously playing the game with my console and TV setup. (Unless there's a way to hook up a single PC so that it displays multiple screens...in my PC's case, I'd have to minimize the gaming screen to do anything else, and half the time that crashes the game.)

Also, the wide diversity of PC hardware seems to present a problem. In multiple circumstances, I've bought PC games where my computer's technically met the minimum (if not the recommended) specs, if only to learn that for some reason my video card or Pentium Processor wasn't compatible, or I needed to install some codec or something.

All of this is not to say that PCs are worse than consoles, or that a decade from now I'll definitely still be playing on a PS5 or an X1080. If the PC is going to become a viable option for me, though, things are going to have to drastically change in a way that certainly feels unfathomable now.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I really don't think this assumption has anything to do with my personal temperament. Eventually the market will operate under the assumption that the consumer has access to baseline technology. It happened with the radio, the television, the refrigerator, the automobile etc. etc.

It's real frustrating when I drive my car into the gas station and the gas pump is the wrong shape for my gas tank so I need to open up my car and change the gas tank input.
And when my tv only plays tv in Spanish because I don't have the correct English language files installed.

All the things you mention we get as black boxes, they work with everything, you don't need to take apart and fiddle with, upgrade and fix, patch and change things around to get them working. Home computing this is no the case.
If your average consumer had to install a 100 things on his tv and maybe take it apart and put some new parts in to watch a certain channel they are not going to watch that channel.
The only way your scenario is going to work is if you can enforce uniformity and central standards in the computing industry. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
You are also ignoring the many valid reasons people have given for preferring a console. I have multiple computers but I play games on console, I prefer it- I know about computers, I've worked in IT, but it['s jsut so much less hassle using console- for people who sre less knowledage than me it must be a nightmare. I prefer to have my work (which I do on my computer) seperated for my games (which I do on my console), if my fiddling around with games does damage to my console I don't really care (especially cause I use Linux which you are championing and its a massive pain to get most things to run as they are designed for windows), if it damages my computer major trouble. Everytime I play games I don't want to have to move all my computing setup over to my tv. If I'm going to a friends house I can take my console easy, taking computer is far more hassle.
There are reasons consoles far outstrip gaming pcs in sales. It not all fancy marketing and monopolies.

[bluestarultor]

But why would you want that?

Yes, a Console does more for less. But by that you're going to get a PC anyway since by your own admission your console can't do anything else. You will spend at least 200 on a PC, so why not just toss the console price in there too and get one machine that does both?
I'm really not saying anyone has to or that I'm better than them or whatever, I just don't understand it.

The thing is that this doesn't preclude having an OS on it. It just means that unlike a modern PC OS, the game takes full control of all resources, and would shut the OS down.

See, that's the difference. A console, when you pop in the game, gives full control to the game. Modern consoles all have some sort of OS on them, but said OS is not running while the game is. On a PC, the OS is running at the same time as the game is because PC games rely on the OS to provide their resources.

Basically it boils down to "Can you Alt+Tab this?" If not, you're running the game on a console. If you can, you're running the game through an OS.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

...Because I'd rather not rely upon the same machine to do work and play games?
...There's already enough functions that I'm asking my poor belabored PC to accomplish, I don't need to toss dozens upon dozens of additional games onto its hard drive too for good measure.
STOP PUTTING ELLIPSES AT THE START OF YOUR SENTENCES IN SUCH FREQUENCY DAMMIT

I'm sorry but that just plain doesn't make sense. Your computer isn't a living thing. It's not going to get upset and go on strike if you force it to do too much. If you don't have enough harddrive space, you probably would if you'd spent more on the PC rather than on a console.

It's also nice to occasionally stare at a different screen, as opposed to if my PC was also my primary gaming apparatus, in which case I'd be like "Well! I just finished my term paper! Now I won't even move an inch to play some games!"

"Well! I just finished my term paper, now I'll get up, turn on my TV and Console and do the same thing I've been doing but from a slightly different position."
That's just...really silly. Especially from where I'm sitting, because I keep everything in arms reach.

...Sure, the argument that I could simply rely on a second PC (as opposed to a console) for gaming has merit, but there's just no way that I'd want to rely on a single device (that would be susceptible to viruses and whatnot) for web browsing, term paper typing, researching, video watching, photo editing, online messaging, and all of my videogames.

Do you buy separate cars to drive to different stores? And, really. Consoles are just as likely to break as PCs, actually from my experience consoles are more susceptible to damage when both are treated properly. My PC has lasted twice as long as my original 360 did, even though I put them both through the same basic amount of stress and treated them with the same care.

Thinking about it from a sheer standpoint of accessories alone, keeping game controllers in the immediate vicinity of my keyboard, mouse, printer and scanner would be hugely distracting.
Keep the controllers in a drawer or directly next to the PC.
Or, hell, use the Keyboard and mouse.

Of course there are a few strategy games reliant on a keyboard interface that I have to use a PC to enjoy, but given the choice,

I'd almost always prefer to use my games with a console. Easy, breezy interface and startup, no OS or other applications running at the same time as my game, and I can even have my PC open to GameFAQs (or simply be chatting with someone like Nik or NonCon) while simultaneously playing the game with my console and TV setup. (Unless there's a way to hook up a single PC so that it displays multiple screens...in my PC's case, I'd have to minimize the gaming screen to do anything else, and half the time that crashes the game.)

Also, the wide diversity of PC hardware seems to present a problem. In multiple circumstances, I've bought PC games where my computer's technically met the minimum (if not the recommended) specs, if only to learn that for some reason my video card or Pentium Processor wasn't compatible, or I needed to install some codec or something.

I'm really sorry to be saying this but I sorta have to wonder just how old your components are at this point.
As far as I'm aware, hardware conflicts like these just don't really happen all that often these days. At the least, I've yet to run into a true game breaking issue as a result of a conflict between hardware and software.

Edit: To clarify, I'm positive this stuff will happen here or there even in the modern market of components. I'm just not sure that it's so prevalent that I can't just point at problems Consoles have and say "Well they break too."

The thing is that this doesn't preclude having an OS on it. It just means that unlike a modern PC OS, the game takes full control of all resources, and would shut the OS down.

See, that's the difference. A console, when you pop in the game, gives full control to the game. Modern consoles all have some sort of OS on them, but said OS is not running while the game is. On a PC, the OS is running at the same time as the game is because PC games rely on the OS to provide their resources.

Basically it boils down to "Can you Alt+Tab this?" If not, you're running the game on a console. If you can, you're running the game through an OS.

I don't really know about the PS3, but the 360 and Wii have nowhere near the capabilities of a Modern PC in or out of the game.
IT's an operating system, yeah. But what can you actually do with it?

[Solid Snake]

I'm sorry but that just plain doesn't make sense. Your computer isn't a living thing. It's not going to get upset and go on strike if you force it to do too much. If you don't have enough harddrive space, you probably would if you'd spent more on the PC rather than on a console.

...Of course, my computer is not a "living thing."
...You're misconstruing the nature of my argument.

...It's not the computer that I'm worried about offending. It's my own health and mental well-being that I'm interested in.
...It's simply unhealthy, and it feels unhealthy, to spend too many hours in a particular day sitting in a single place, staring at a single screen. Which I would be doing if I were to rely on the exact same device to handle my schoolwork, internet browsing, internet messaging, music, photography, television and gaming needs.

...Furthermore, it's just plain healthy to have a different space dedicated to working than one dedicated to relaxing. I don't want to deal with temptations while I'm supposed to be writing an important paper or studying for my test. That's why my working space is cordoned off in a separate area, where my printer and my PC and whatnot usually rest, alongside highlighters and pens and calendars and work stuff.

...I'd either have a console or a second PC, but I'd definitely make sure that there was an entirely different area of my apartment dedicated to gaming than to schoolwork and everything else. Is it slightly more expensive than having a single machine and a single area handling all my needs? I suppose. Certainly if I could only afford a single machine, I'd have to own a PC, because there's certain work-related tasks that absolutely have to get done, and a console's not built for that.

...But insofar as I can afford to do so, it makes perfect sense to have multiple machines, in multiple areas of the apartment, each dedicated to different tasks, and ensuring I have a basic degree of variety in my daily routines.


Do you buy separate cars to drive to different stores?

...This comparison is utterly irrelevant.
...But if I could reasonably afford multiple cars for different purposes? I might consider it. A sportscar is going to do things differently than an Jeep Wrangler, for example, and if you can afford them both there are specific benefits to owning each for specified purposes.

...So the more apt comparison is like, if consoles and PCs were different kinds of cars, gaming would be an off-road hobby, and consoles would be cars specifically designed primarily for off-road usage.

...Finally, my PC is less than three years old.

STOP PUTTING ELLIPSES AT THE START OF YOUR SENTENCES IN SUCH FREQUENCY DAMMIT

...
...Oh man, it is on.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

...Of course, my computer is not a "living thing."
...You're misconstruing the nature of my argument.
My mistake then.

...It's not the computer that I'm worried about offending. It's my own health and mental well-being that I'm interested in.
...It's simply unhealthy, and it feels unhealthy, to spend too many hours in a particular day sitting in a single place, staring at a single screen. Which I would be doing if I were to rely on the exact same device to handle my schoolwork, internet browsing, internet messaging, music, photography, television and gaming needs.
Seems like the same thing to me.
If you sit in front of the TV to play your games, or sit in front of the PC to play them, there's no difference. Short of the new motion controls.

...Furthermore, it's just plain healthy to have a different space dedicated to working than one dedicated to relaxing. I don't want to deal with temptations while I'm supposed to be writing an important paper or studying for my test. That's why my working space is cordoned off in a separate area, where my printer and my PC and whatnot usually rest, alongside highlighters and pens and calendars and work stuff.

I guess I just don't have that problem because I find a lot of the work I do fun in and of itself.
Except math, but I don't do that on the computer anyway.

...I'd either have a console or a second PC, but I'd definitely make sure that there was an entirely different area of my apartment dedicated to gaming than to schoolwork and everything else. Is it slightly more expensive than having a single machine and a single area handling all my needs? I suppose. Certainly if I could only afford a single machine, I'd have to own a PC, because there's certain work-related tasks that absolutely have to get done, and a console's not built for that.

...But insofar as I can afford to do so, it makes perfect sense to have multiple machines, in multiple areas of the apartment, each dedicated to different tasks, and ensuring I have a basic degree of variety in my daily routines.
I really don't think so. Or at the least I've never seen anything concrete to suggest that being in different areas like you're talking about makes working or relaxing better.


...This comparison is utterly irrelevant.
...But if I could reasonably afford multiple cars for different purposes? I might consider it. A sportscar is going to do things differently than an Jeep Wrangler, for example, and if you can afford them both there are specific benefits to owning each for specified purposes.

...So the more apt comparison is like, if consoles and PCs were different kinds of cars, gaming would be an off-road hobby, and consoles would be cars specifically designed primarily for off-road usage.
I guess that's an apt enough comparison, I just don't have the disposable income to justify a whole new machine or the Kinect or whatever the hell they're selling these days.


...Finally, my PC is less than three years old.

LIES

...
...Oh man, it is on.

I will make you suffer.
In ways you cannot imagine.

[Solid Snake]

I really don't think so. Or at the least I've never seen anything concrete to suggest that being in different areas like you're talking about makes working or relaxing better.

...Maybe it's just a law school thing, then?
Admittingly, I didn't feel quite as strongly on this matter back when I was coasting as an undergrad student.

But if I was seriously expected to play videogames within the immediate vicinity of my casebooks and reminders of said casebooks, I would probably scream in bloodcurdling terror.

...Seriously, it is nice to have a corner of this apartment where it's like, there are no reminders whatsoever of my obligations, and instead nothing but a couch and a television and a gaming console and it's like heaven.

And yeah, my computer was...February 2008.
...So, actually, just about exactly three years I guess.

[Krylo]

I really don't think so. Or at the least I've never seen anything concrete to suggest that being in different areas like you're talking about makes working or relaxing better.

Actually, this is why it's recommended that you not play video games/watch TV/read in bed, but rather do that elsewhere. Your mind and body gets into certain sets depending on your environment, and if you're doing mentally active things, or stressful things, in an area it makes it harder to fully relax.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

For the PC has the keyboard+Mouse control set up option argument. We can do the same for the Wii/PS3/360 since they are each compatible with all USB Mouses and Keyboards (with PS3 and 360 being compatible with even more USB stuff). It all comes to rather or not the devs will include that control option in there games.

But in the end, what REALLY matters is what Gaming Device be it PC, Wii, PS3, or 360 has the games you want as not everything is on PC.

My PC plays the Online games I want while my PS3 plays the home games I want (some of those games are better then the PC versions like Acceleration of Suguri: X Edition which got an UPGRADE when ported from PC to console only missing Online Play because Sony said "no, we don't want it to have online, fuck you guys").

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Actually, this is why it's recommended that you not play video games/watch TV/read in bed, but rather do that elsewhere. Your mind and body gets into certain sets depending on your environment, and if you're doing mentally active things, or stressful things, in an area it makes it harder to fully relax.

Are you saying I'm crazy?
I will cut you, IN MAANY PLAAACES!
Edit: Okay I saw the word mental and freaked out for a second there but it's all cool now.
still gonna cut you though

[Doc ock rokc]

OK OK LADIES LADIES SAVE IT FOR THE SHOW THE JELLO TUB IS ONLY HALF FULL
...Got your attention? good
Lets end this Massively derailed thread.

[Funka Genocide]

"I'm not being a console war guy because ~I'M RIGHT~"

See, now that wasn't so hard to paraphrase was it?

I was going to respond to Smarty in depth but I find your incessant typos infuriating and I really don't feel like rereading that.

Suffice it to say that I understand the reason for console success in the current market, I'm merely making a speculation based on observable trends that this will not continue into the distant future. Home computers will evolve more towards that "black box" mentality you cite as a key element to console success. Push a button, it turns on in "entertainment mode", you play your games and watch your movies without dealing with any excess background calculations.

It all seems pretty straightforward to me, but its a prediction so there's really no method of proving or disproving it until the future comes.

I never actually said that contemporary pc gaming was as user friendly as console gaming. I'm saying that it will be. (And could be right now were it not for the way the gaming software and home computer industries are set up.)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But if you're computer is like that then you are basically using a console! Monopoly wins! Whee!

Fat cat smoking!

[Solid Snake]

See, now that wasn't so hard to paraphrase was it?

I was going to respond to Smarty in depth but I find your incessant typos infuriating and I really don't feel like rereading that.

...Man, can you tone down the arrogance?
Just a tad?
I mean it's just becoming increasingly hard to actually want to engage in anything resembling a dialogue with you.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

It's real frustrating when I drive my car into the gas station and the gas pump is the wrong shape for my gas tank so I need to open up my car and change the gas tank input.
And when my tv only plays tv in Spanish because I don't have the correct English language files installed.

Really.
man you know what's really annoying?
When my Xbox won't take PS3 games.
Whats' up with that?

All the things you mention we get as black boxes, they work with everything, you don't need to take apart and fiddle with, upgrade and fix, patch and change things around to get them working. Home computing this is no the case.
If your average consumer had to install a 100 things on his tv and maybe take it apart and put some new parts in to watch a certain channel they are not going to watch that channel.

I'm just gonna be frank about this, you'd really have to be a dummy to not know how to put together a computer.
It's practically like fuckin' Legos these days. You just snap everything into place and away it goes.
I had more trouble assembling an Injection kit than my PC.

The only way your scenario is going to work is if you can enforce uniformity and central standards in the computing industry. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

How is that a requirement? Even the worst of the worst in tech savvyness can probably figure out how to put together a computer these days.
Hell, even if you can't they sell whole ones as a package.

You are also ignoring the many valid reasons people have given for preferring a console. I have multiple computers but I play games on console, I prefer it- I know about computers, I've worked in IT, but it['s jsut so much less hassle using console- for people who sre less knowledage than me it must be a nightmare. I prefer to have my work (which I do on my computer) seperated for my games (which I do on my console), if my fiddling around with games does damage to my console I don't really care (especially cause I use Linux which you are championing and its a massive pain to get most things to run as they are designed for windows), if it damages my computer major trouble.

There's nothing to address with those. It's nothing more than a matter of personal preference at that point.
When you debate the merits of one car against another do you drag the color of the car into it and try to somehow factually prove that a blue car is better?

Everytime I play games I don't want to have to move all my computing setup over to my tv.

I really just have no idea what you're trying to suggest here.

If I'm going to a friends house I can take my console easy, taking computer is far more hassle.

....HOW?!
You unplug the cables in your house, and then plug them back in over there.
I'm sorry but there just ain't a goddamn difference in this comparison.
There are reasons consoles far outstrip gaming pcs in sales. It not all fancy marketing and monopolies.
I have to wonder whether this is "Xbox>PS3>Wii>PC or whether you mean what you're saying and you're counting all Consoles together against PC.
If it's the latter that seems sorta wonky.

Also I might be hilariously wrong but I think the PC market underwent a 20% growth this year.
Valve alone, with its digital distribution system pulled in fuckin' amazing sales.

Edit: Sorry if I'm coming off as condescending/arrogant as well but a lot of this just seems plain silly.

[Solid Snake]

I'm just gonna be frank about this, you'd really have to be a dummy to not know how to put together a computer.
It's practically like fuckin' Legos these days. You just snap everything into place and away it goes.
I had more trouble assembling an Injection kit than my PC.

...This would be like me saying:
"I'm just gonna be frank about this, you'd really have to be a dummy to not know how to read and interpret a Torts case."

Like, yes, in your case, you may have plenty of experience working with or handling computers, and subsequently you may feel comfortable doing so? But lemme tell you something, as a Liberal Arts major who's a bit of a dork but not the least bit experienced with computer hardware, tearing apart my computer scares the crap out of me.

It'd scare me even if I was given detailed instructions to follow, even if I was told there was less than a 1% chance of me failing and breaking things, and even if I was told it was really super easy by someone with experience doing so or detailed knowledge of the parts and their purposes.

...I mean let me put it this way, I was scared shitless and required PS3 Sony technical support to get through replacing my PS3 hard drive on my own.

Yes, it is entirely true that people who are in fact literate with computers might find the prospects of replacing video cards or restoring hard drives entirely not-frightening, but by the same token, I'm not the slightest bit scared if someone tells me to name the elements of establishing negligence in a courtroom. I highly doubt your knowledge and skills are reflective of the general community's.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

...This would be like me saying:
"I'm just gonna be frank about this, you'd really have to be a dummy to not know how to read and interpret a Torts case."

Like, yes, in your case, you may have plenty of experience working with or handling computers, and subsequently you may feel comfortable doing so? But lemme tell you something, as a Liberal Arts major who's a bit of a dork but not the least bit experienced with computer hardware, tearing apart my computer scares the crap out of me.

It'd scare me even if I was given detailed instructions to follow, even if I was told there was less than a 1% chance of me failing and breaking things, and even if I was told it was really super easy by someone with experience doing so or detailed knowledge of the parts and their purposes.

...I mean let me put it this way, I was scared shitless and required PS3 Sony technical support to get through replacing my PS3 hard drive on my own.

Yes, it is entirely true that people who are in fact literate with computers might find the prospects of replacing video cards or restoring hard drives entirely not-frightening, but by the same token, I'm not the slightest bit scared if someone tells me to name the elements of establishing negligence in a courtroom. I highly doubt your knowledge and skills are reflective of the general community's.

I think the difference sort of comes in with the application. it can be intimidating, yeah. However I'm still fairly certain that anybody who can successfully assemble a lego or K'nex set can put together a computer. There's pictures and the A part goes in the A hole. All very nice and pretty.

It's less "Knowing how to interpret this thing" and more "Not being capable of reading this set of note cards about the thing"

Just to be clear: Do I now have a fair amount of knowledge in handling electronics? I'd like to think so. Did I the first time I assembled a computer? Hell no. I harrassed my friend and dad for advice, I was scared shitless I would fuck something up, and it took me a day to actually get started because I just plain didn't want to somehow ruin my shiny new computer before I even got to use it.
But once I got started, everything was simple, friendly, the books were helpful and throughout the build there was one problem, a connector had been broken during shipping, which was replaced just as easily as the rest of the computer was put together.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Really.
man you know what's really annoying?
When my Xbox won't take PS3 games.
Whats' up with that?
Hey look, I want to make uniform computer standards which will lead to the same thing coming onto PCs. Yay me?



I'm just gonna be frank about this, you'd really have to be a dummy to not know how to put together a computer.
It's practically like fuckin' Legos these days. You just snap everything into place and away it goes.
I had more trouble assembling an Injection kit than my PC.
Then you got to install drivers and depending what you are installing fiddle with the bios and the registry and you want us to run Linux so you got to learn all the terminal command s for whatever one you are using..
.... And congratulations you've just lost your market share. People don't know how computers work- it's a simple fact and it's true.
Even if they can put together a computer then they got to get games to run which is not always straightforward if they have say the wrong videocard.
Compare this to a console, plug in, turn on, put in game.



How is that a requirement? Even the worst of the worst in tech savvyness can probably figure out how to put together a computer these days.
Hell, even if you can't they sell whole ones as a package.
It's a requirement because if you watn PCs to match console games all new PCs should run all games. You can't have videocards that don't work with every game, or different drivers, or different operating systems. You are trying to say that PCs are comparable to consoles, they are not because consoles are standard and PCs are not- which for the average consumer is a massive negative.


There's nothing to address with those. It's nothing more than a matter of personal preference at that point.
When you debate the merits of one car against another do you drag the color of the car into it and try to somehow factually prove that a blue car is better?

I'm saying that if one car goes faster but the other car has better fuel economy we can't ignore that fact.




....HOW?!
You unplug the cables in your house, and then plug them back in over there.
I'm sorry but there just ain't a goddamn difference in this comparison. [/QUOTE]
Computers have fuck loads more cables than consoles. They have a lot more parts, a lot more bits. like seriously, you're beig ridiculous. Go get a setup computer, go get a setup console, tell me which is easier to move, both to unplug/replug ad to physically move.

I have to wonder whether this is "Xbox>PS3>Wii>PC or whether you mean what you're saying and you're counting all Consoles together against PC.
If it's the latter that seems sorta wonky.

Also I might be hilariously wrong but I think the PC market underwent a 20% growth this year.
Valve alone, with its digital distribution system pulled in fuckin' amazing sales.

I'm counting all consoles together because my point is that people prefer to play on consoles rahter than pc. Which console they are playing on does't matter. Even if you break down it down by console I'm positive that any of the major consoles outdoes the PC.

I don't even know why I'm having this argument. I was just making funny comments and then you guys are all like "Grrr smarty!" I don't even care! The most common game I play is the default chess game on my Redhat installation and it was probably coded in like the 90s!
Videogames are violent murder simulators!
They also make kids fat!

[Azisien]

I think the difference sort of comes in with the application. it can be intimidating, yeah. However I'm still fairly certain that anybody who can successfully assemble a lego or K'nex set can put together a computer. There's pictures and the A part goes in the A hole. All very nice and pretty.

It's less "Knowing how to interpret this thing" and more "Not being capable of reading this set of note cards about the thing"

Naaah you're oversimplifying to be honest here. Instructions are better then they used to be but if you're a total newbie and apparently prone to nervous breakdowns like our friend Snake, you'll be pretty lost and scared shitless.


Also what is this thread talking about? Has the console war finally migrated over to "Buy a PC because they rock, screw the other stuff?"

Well, I'm glad the PC is even getting any spotlight at all, frankly.

[Doc ock rokc]

...This would be like me saying:
"I'm just gonna be frank about this, you'd really have to be a dummy to not know how to read and interpret a Torts case."

Like, yes, in your case, you may have plenty of experience working with or handling computers, and subsequently you may feel comfortable doing so? But lemme tell you something, as a Liberal Arts major who's a bit of a dork but not the least bit experienced with computer hardware, tearing apart my computer scares the crap out of me.

It'd scare me even if I was given detailed instructions to follow, even if I was told there was less than a 1% chance of me failing and breaking things, and even if I was told it was really super easy by someone with experience doing so or detailed knowledge of the parts and their purposes.

...I mean let me put it this way, I was scared shitless and required PS3 Sony technical support to get through replacing my PS3 hard drive on my own.

Yes, it is entirely true that people who are in fact literate with computers might find the prospects of replacing video cards or restoring hard drives entirely not-frightening, but by the same token, I'm not the slightest bit scared if someone tells me to name the elements of establishing negligence in a courtroom. I highly doubt your knowledge and skills are reflective of the general community's.
Which was My case in point earlier (and was yelled at for it)
Some people don't have the skills to modify their computer. Hell 5 years ago I wouldn't even think of cracking my computer open. Now I am more knowledgeable in techy stuff but tinkering around or upgrading my computer is still a nerve racking experience to me (oddly not the way I react around others computers though) Computers are large investments. that take time money and skill to operate at a good level for a long time. Consoles are a Drastically better option with people lacking the time and skill aspect (and possibly money) its like using the google bar instead of typing the Web address in ourselves. sometimes its easier.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Then you got to install drivers and depending what you are installing fiddle with the bios and the registry

Look, Smarty. I'm sorry, but you don't! You just plain fuckin' don't have to do all of this.
You CAN, but you don't have to. I certainly didn't.
and you want us to run Linux so you got to learn all the terminal command s for whatever one you are using.
I ain't said a damn thing bout linux, man.
.... And congratulations you've just lost your market share. People don't know how computers work- it's a simple fact and it's true.
I'm not arguing that everyone can run linux operate bios or anything of the sort.
I'm not even really saying they have to, since like I said you can even buy something like a Dell.
What I'm trying to say is that regardless of what the lions share of the market may allegedly be choosing, it seems to me that the PC is still the better choice.
Even if they can put together a computer then they got to get games to run which is not always straightforward if they have say the wrong videocard.
Compare this to a console, plug in, turn on, put in game.

If you built a computer from scratch, yeah i guess. But you don't have to.
I don't even think Funka is arguing you have to build one from scratch.

It's a requirement because if you watn PCs to match console games all new PCs should run all games. You can't have videocards that don't work with every game, or different drivers, or different operating systems. You are trying to say that PCs are comparable to consoles, they are not because consoles are standard and PCs are not- which for the average consumer is a massive negative.


I'm saying that if one car goes faster but the other car has better fuel economy we can't ignore that fact.

and I'm saying that if one car is faster has better fuel economy and is amphibious it's still probably a better car than the gas guzzler that "just works".
Also that comparison was being drawn to that specific comment, in which you were calling up personal preference as something requiring some kinda factual response.
Here it goes though, I DISAGREE.



Computers have fuck loads more cables than consoles. They have a lot more parts, a lot more bits. like seriously, you're beig ridiculous. Go get a setup computer, go get a setup console, tell me which is easier to move, both to unplug/replug ad to physically move.

It's simpler, yeah. But noticeably? To any real fucking capacity that actually matters?
In a degree that makes one such a hassle that you wouldn't do it?

I'm counting all consoles together because my point is that people prefer to play on consoles rahter than pc. Which console they are playing on does't matter. Even if you break down it down by console I'm positive that any of the major consoles outdoes the PC.

Well okay then.
I don't really see what the popularity of the other side really has to do with what I'm saying though.
When they invent a machine to change the masses opinion into reality I guess we're set, but until then~
I don't even know why I'm having this argument. I was just making funny comments and then you guys are all like "Grrr smarty!" I don't even care! The most common game I play is the default chess game on my Redhat installation and it was probably coded in like the 90s!
Videogames are violent murder simulators!
They also make kids fat!

Oh wait shit you were joking all this time?
Well fuck sorry man I was confused. In my defense though I might have realized that if you were actually funny.

ZING

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Look, Smarty. I'm sorry, but you don't! You just plain fuckin' don't have to do all of this.
You CAN, but you don't have to. I certainly didn't.
You do when for example some obscure bit of your hardware is not supported. I've spent a lot of time getting peoples computer to run games that there hardware doesn't support. I'm reasonably knowledagble about computers, I can do this stuff and its still difficult a lot of the time and it's annoying and a hassle. I just want to play my game. If I go to kick a ball around I don't have to ensure the field has the proper grass length and my ball has been inflated to the exacct right pressure and I've got the updated rules of kick-around. Games should be fun, not valleys of fun surrounded by massive mountainous valleys of fucking arounnd.
And for the majority of consumers its impossible. You are ignoring a MASSIVE MASSIVE hurdle.


I'm not even really saying they have to, since like I said you can even buy something like a Dell.
And what about when it doesn#t run every game.
You just consistently ignore the main selling advantage of consoles and then are like "Consoles are inferior lolz". This is completely disingenious.
People use consoles because they just work. That is their advantage and its a good one.
I know about comp-uters, I can get games to run on most any system but I prefer consoles because I can't be assed fucking aroud to get things installed.

If you built a computer from scratch, yeah i guess. But you don't have to.
I don't even think Funka is arguing you have to build one from scratch.

Unless you want to buy a new PC every 2 years or so yes you do- you certainly have to modify it otherwise you can't run the latest games.
Consoles have a much longer lifespan.



and I'm saying that if one car is faster has better fuel economy and is amphibious it's still probably a better car than the gas guzzler that "just works".
Also that comparison was being drawn to that specific comment, in which you were calling up personal preference as something requiring some kinda factual response.
Here it goes though, I DISAGREE.
But it's a personal preference that I can only apply with a console. With the console you have an option, with the PC you don't. How is more choice bad?





It's simpler, yeah. But noticeably? To any real fucking capacity that actually matters?
In a degree that makes one such a hassle that you wouldn't do it?

Well considering I can't take my PC anywhere because its simply too large but all my consoles with controllers and cords fit easily into my backpack then yes it does matter.



Well okay then.
I don't really see what the popularity of the other side really has to do with what I'm saying though.
When they invent a machine to change the masses opinion into reality I guess we're set, but until then~

Because maybe there are reasons people buy consoles? I'm pretty sure they didn't go "Well PC gaming is the superior option but I'm just going to buy consoles cause lolz"


Oh wait shit you were joking all this time?
Well fuck sorry man I was confused. In my defense though I might have realized that if you were actually funny.

ZING

Not the whole time, only intially when I was the de Belloc.

It's real nice how every advantage of the console is not really an advatage because its just preference or suited to idiots.

To become mainstream gaming platforms PCs need to be unified, they need to become more blackbox... oh wait, we already have that, it's called a console.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

You do when for example some obscure bit of your hardware is not supported. I've spent a lot of time getting peoples computer to run games that there hardware doesn't support. I'm reasonably knowledagble about computers, I can do this stuff and its still difficult a lot of the time and it's annoying and a hassle. I just want to play my game. If I go to kick a ball around I don't have to ensure the field has the proper grass length and my ball has been inflated to the exacct right pressure and I've got the updated rules of kick-around. Games should be fun, not valleys of fun surrounded by massive mountainous valleys of fucking arounnd.
And for the majority of consumers its impossible. You are ignoring a MASSIVE MASSIVE hurdle.

What obscure bit of your hardware? There are at the moment TWO major chipset producers for VGAs,(ATI and Nvidia) and just about every manufacturer uses them. Mirroring that there are TWO CPU Manufacturers (AMD and Intel) There's a lot of parts built by both, but even between the two companies they operate a very similar architecture. You just don't get the same obscurity or variety in the modern market. So if you DID have a problem, once again I say that it's not just a general "COMPUTERS BREAK EVERYWHERE" thing, just something that happens with all forms of electronics.
If you bought it recently you should get your money back for whatever it was.


And what about when it doesn#t run every game.
And what about when the console breaks?
You're speaking in these scenarios as if they only plague the PC.
You just consistently ignore the main selling advantage of consoles and then are like "Consoles are inferior lolz". This is completely disingenious.
People use consoles because they just work. That is their advantage and its a good one.
I know about comp-uters, I can get games to run on most any system but I prefer consoles because I can't be assed fucking aroud to get things installed.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just saying IT DOES NOT APPLY TO WHAT I AM SAYING.
I haven't contested it because YOU'RE RIGHT! ITS NOT SOMETHING I CAN ARGUE ABOUT.
Jesus fuck man.

Unless you want to buy a new PC every 2 years or so yes you do- you certainly have to modify it otherwise you can't run the latest games.
Consoles have a much longer lifespan.

Buy an upgraded VGA? Yah. Buy a whole new one? No.
At the start of the lifetime of this console generation PC parts were the more expensive, but with todays market if you had bought a PC for the launch price of the console you wanted I wager you could have with a single graphics card update stayed on the recommended purchases.
And since Playstation move and the Kinect are both more or less the .5 versions of their consoles, you'd have to spend that money anyway.


But it's a personal preference that I can only apply with a console. With the console you have an option, with the PC you don't. How is more choice bad?


What option, exactly?
I don't understand what you're trying to say but whatever option you get from consoles, you have a myriad more with PC selection. Even if you buy it pre-built, there's just a plain fuckton of stuff you can get.



Well considering I can't take my PC anywhere because its simply too large but all my consoles with controllers and cords fit easily into my backpack then yes it does matter.

Your spindly girly frame aside, yeah the PC is larger. But people are able to have LAN parties for a reason.



Because maybe there are reasons people buy consoles? I'm pretty sure they didn't go "Well PC gaming is the superior option but I'm just going to buy consoles cause lolz"


And again I'm not contesting their popularity or the intelligence of those that choose the PC, I am extolling its values.


Not the whole time, only intially when I was the de Belloc.
So, you're totally serious about this now?
Might need to take back what I said about you not being funny in that case.

It's real nice how every advantage of the console is not really an advatage because its just preference or suited to idiots.

It's really nice that every advantage of the PC is not really an advantage because you can fuck it up.
Also that no mater how many times I repeat it you don't get that I'm not contesting that point AT ALL.
I mean it's not like I'm not saying anything about it because it's some foregone conclusion that doesn't even need to be argued, I just don't fucking care.
It's not a point I can argue. Any more than I could argue if you ran up and said my car was the worst car because it was a different color than yours.
I could tell you right back "No YOUR car is terrible because of its color and mine is awesome." But at the end of the day that's something I think everyone can assume we thought anyway and I just don't want to waste the time.

To become mainstream gaming platforms PCs need to be unified, they need to become more blackbox... oh wait, we already have that, it's called a console.
They need to be standardized, yeah. but as I said they already pretty much are by this point. There is no crazy confusing amount of companies or conflicting Markets of architecture anymore. Everything is pretty straightforward and simplistic.

[bluestarultor]

Wow, guys.

.http://i53.tinypic.com/10n4xac.gif
me^............this thread^



Funka: PCs are in no way moving to the direction of consoles. I'll tell you why:

PC games rely directly on the OS to function.

That's it. Any game written for Windows 95 and beyond has done this. For that matter, most games written for Windows 3.1 and beyond have done this. There is no indication of this changing because the OS provides an important intermediary to the hardware. Otherwise you're back in the dark days of the early DOS era when the hardware had to be accessed directly. Trust me, having found a tutorial on how to do it, that stuff is a royal pain. When things like sound cards came into play, it involved writing stuff for every sound card, which is why you had to pick them during the setup in later DOS games.

Imagine having to deal with code for every sound card out on the market with how many there are now. The OS cuts all this out by providing a wide range of drivers for that wide range of hardware, and the game needs to ask the OS for that info.



When you have a console, on the other hand, the hardware is known. There's no dealing with a million sound cards because every console has the same sound device as the others of the same type. The very reason consoles are able to remain consoles and get the benefits they do is because there's no variation in configuration. You can do the direct access of the hardware once and be done with it.

Consoles, however, have reached a point where they're becoming more like computers. Specifically more like Win 3.1 and DOS. You have your OS laid over the base and when you pop in the game, the OS shuts down. This is very similar, from experience, to how Win 3.1 worked. I highly doubt they'll move past that, though, because moving further than that provides zero benefit for what consoles are designed to do.




Karesh: Smarty has a point. A console will always run the games made for it. A PC will often have hardware incompatibilities. This has NOTHING to do with things breaking and EVERYTHING to do with PCs being an impossibly complex series of machines using different hardware. This is a case where your foreign import car's radio won't work because there's a problem with the windshield wipers.

Maybe there are only a few leaders for CPUs and chipsets, but there are many more for video and sound cards, which can cause problems just as much.

Also, I suggest you cool it. Stand up, get a glass of water, and come back. This is not so important that you need to be that sharp.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Karesh: Smarty has a point. A console will always run the games made for it. A PC will often have hardware incompatibilities. This has NOTHING to do with things breaking and EVERYTHING to do with PCs being an impossibly complex series of machines using different hardware. This is a case where your foreign import car's radio won't work because there's a problem with the windshield wipers.

They...don't, though.
That's what I'm telling you. Flat out. Here and now, in the modern market, Hardware is extremely standardized. It's not a non-existence problem, but it isa case by case basis that is just as prevelent as the hardware failures in modern consoles.
If consoles were still built Nintendo tough, then yeah. You'd have a point. But with things like the failure rate of the 360 and Sony's huge debacle with its product protection and homebrew I fail to see this as a strong victory for the console.
Maybe there are only a few leaders for CPUs and chipsets, but there are many more for video and sound cards, which can cause problems just as much.

There's really not. In the case of sound cards, you don't actually need one unless you're working with music or something along those lines. And as I said in the case video cards it's just the two chipsets. It might seem weird, but that's what actually matters with the cards. The difference between manufactures is in the durability of their hardware, not the functionality of the software or compatibility with other products.
Also, I suggest you cool it. Stand up, get a glass of water, and come back. This is not so important that you need to be that sharp.

I think I'll do just that, since I'm getting really frustrated because it seems to me that what I'm saying just isn't registering.

[bluestarultor]

They...don't, though.
That's what I'm telling you. Flat out. Here and now, in the modern market, Hardware is extremely standardized. It's not a non-existence problem, but it isa case by case basis that is just as prevelent as the hardware failures in modern consoles.
If consoles were still built Nintendo tough, then yeah. You'd have a point. But with things like the failure rate of the 360 and Sony's huge debacle with its product protection and homebrew I fail to see this as a strong victory for the console.

Hardware standardization has nothing to do with its lifespan. These are completely different factors.

Second, hardware on PCs is NOT standardized. At all. PCs are what they are because they're modular, which means people have many different setups.

There's really not. In the case of sound cards, you don't actually need one unless you're working with music or something along those lines. And as I said in the case video cards it's just the two chipsets. It might seem weird, but that's what actually matters with the cards. The difference between manufactures is in the durability of their hardware, not the functionality of the software or compatibility with other products.

I think you're totally missing the point of sound cards (http://www.newegg.com/store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=57&Tpk=sound%20card) and video cards (http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=48&name=Desktop-Graphics-Video-Cards). Yes, many motherboards now have onboard sound and video. This is not necessarily part of the standard chipset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipset).

Also, it's the two chipset manufacturers. They each make different chipsets. One for every CPU or group of CPUs, if I recall correctly. Chipsets change with the times.

Also also, if you think all manufacturers make the same product that works the same way, you're sadly mistaken. Every company has proprietary technology behind their hardware because of patent law. They don't all make the same cards and some break more easily than others. Some break more easily than others because the technology is different. Why the heck did you think everything needed different drivers?



Karesh, I think you're mistaking "standardization" with "standards compliance." Standards compliance means that every piece of hardware has to perform a standard function. How it does it is completely up in the air.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Hardware standardization has nothing to do with its lifespan. These are completely different factors.
No but what you're saying is that a PC is more likely to fail because of the mixture of products, but they're not.
It's not a matter of lifespan, but ti is a matter of hardware failure in either case, and in that regard both are about the same.

Second, hardware on PCs is NOT standardized. At all. PCs are what they are because they're modular, which means people have many different setups.

They have different setups, but many of the individual products operate on similar standards.
There's a hell of a lot of Power supplies, but they all will come with the same basic set of cables because that's what everyone uses.


I think you're totally missing the point of sound cards (http://www.newegg.com/store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=57&Tpk=sound%20card) and video cards (http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=48&name=Desktop-Graphics-Video-Cards). Yes, many motherboards now have onboard sound and video. This is not necessarily part of the standard chipset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipset).
The point of it is that as far as I'm aware every motherboard you can get normally will have a sound card these days. I can't even find one on Newegg that doesn't. So they're not exactly something you need to be on the mad lookout for unless you really need one, in which case I'd imagine you would know enough about them to make an informed decision anyway.


Also, it's the two chipset manufacturers. They each make different chipsets. One for every CPU or group of CPUs, if I recall correctly. Chipsets change with the times.
My bad, yes. It's the two chipset manufacturers. They make a great many chipsets and CPUs and they all do the same basic function. While you do need to buy an appropriate motherboard for your CPU, they label each and every one rather specifically with what it will work with.



Also also, if you think all manufacturers make the same product that works the same way, you're sadly mistaken. Every company has proprietary technology behind their hardware because of patent law. They don't all make the same cards and some break more easily than others. Some break more easily than others because the technology is different. Why the heck did you think everything needed different drivers?

No they don't make them the same but they make them in such a way that for the most part they're all going to work with the games that come out in todays market.
If you had a company that decided "WE SHALL BE DIFFERENT" and made a card that didn't work with anything else, who would buy it? This is precisely why the market is as it is. The companies that got their shit to work with the most other shit made more money. The overspecialized unique flowers didn't work, and they suffered for it.

[bluestarultor]

No but what you're saying is that a PC is more likely to fail because of the mixture of products, but they're not.
It's not a matter of lifespan, but ti is a matter of hardware failure in either case, and in that regard both are about the same.

They have different setups, but many of the individual products operate on similar standards.
There's a hell of a lot of Power supplies, but they all will come with the same basic set of cables because that's what everyone uses.

I think someone is missing something. Maybe it's me. I thought people were talking about failure to work for a particular game, but if I'm wrong, ignore that.

The point of it is that as far as I'm aware every motherboard you can get normally will have a sound card these days. I can't even find one on Newegg that doesn't. So they're not exactly something you need to be on the mad lookout for.


Not a sound "card," but more something added to the chipset. And not everyone uses the onboard sound and video. For many gamers, expansion cards are very much on the table due to increased quality.

My bad, yes. It's the two chipset manufacturers. You do have to buy a motherboard that accommodates your CPU. But this isn't a mad complex thing, it's linear progression of advancement.

But not everyone will have the same CPU. Some units from five years ago are still around. You can't make everyone change out their mobo over a game, so you have to juggle everything on the market.

No they don't make them the same but they make them in such a way that for the most part they're all going to work with the games that come out in todays market.
If you had a company that decided "WE SHALL BE DIFFERENT" and made a card that didn't work with anything else, who would buy it? This is precisely why the market is as it is. The companies that got their shit to work with the most other shit made more money. The overspecialized unique flowers didn't work, and they suffered for it.

No, they need to give the same result. How they get there is entirely up to them. Literally every last one of them DOES work differently, which is why you have drivers for every different model. Drivers are an intermediary between the software and the hardware. They make sense out of the data the hardware is providing. They're translators. To extend that analogy, if the game speaks English, all the cards speak Hebrew, or French, or whatever, and the translator just needs to translate that into English and everything should be fine. The problem is when maybe the translation isn't exactly what you're looking for. There are words in, say, Japanese with no real English equivalent. At that point you have to worry whether that one word translated differently is going to muck everything up.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Not a sound "card," but more something added to the chipset. And not everyone uses the onboard sound and video. For many gamers, expansion cards are very much on the table due to increased quality.

But the type of person who wants to go out and get a sound card is the same type who will understand what they're buying in the first place. So what's the issue?
They'll select the card that works for their system.



But not everyone will have the same CPU. Some units from five years ago are still around. You can't make everyone change out their mobo over a game, so you have to juggle everything on the market.

...I'm sorry, but so what?
They'll still work.

No, they need to give the same result. How they get there is entirely up to them. Literally every last one of them DOES work differently, which is why you have drivers for every different model. Drivers are an intermediary between the software and the hardware. They make sense out of the data the hardware is providing. They're translators. To extend that analogy, if the game speaks English, all the cards speak Hebrew, or French, or whatever, and the translator just needs to translate that into English and everything should be fine. The problem is when maybe the translation isn't exactly what you're looking for. There are words in, say, Japanese with no real English equivalent. At that point you have to worry whether that one word translated differently is going to muck everything up.

The driver I have right now is the Catalyst control system, my card is the Radeon HD 5770. When I picked up the driver from the ATI site it went
Product-> Graphics card
Series-> 5XXX HD
>System 64 bit

That was it.
The card is from sapphire, but the drivers are all from ATI.
And again I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying that for the laarge vast majority, they all (Barring case by case hardware failure which applies to consoles as much as PCs) will work.

[Jagos]

Just a small detail Karesh...

My laptop won't work with Magicka because it's an Intel integrated chip. The drivers won't even register and the makers of Magicka gave me a pretty curt "F' You, go buy a new laptop, newb" in response. The PC is far from standardized. I could swear this was about the PS3 being the last console of Sony's...

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Just a small detail Karesh...

My laptop won't work with Magicka because it's an Intel integrated chip. The drivers won't even register and the makers of Magicka gave me a pretty curt "F' You, go buy a new laptop, newb" in response. The PC is far from standardized. I could swear this was about the PS3 being the last console of Sony's...
It was, then it derailed into a console vs PC argument that keeps getting revived. So to save my thread I'm going to have to ask you guy to take this arguement into a thread of it's own.

http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=39695

[Kim]

Question: If we're going to eventually stop getting vast gains in computer technology, how will the current chip manufacturers stay afloat if they can't keep putting out newer and better things, and if they can't that way, won't they just default to selling their chips to companies building systems that they put out prebuilt, similar to smartphones and consoles, and as an extension won't the customizable computer market die out because nobody's making stuff for it anymore?

[Eltargrim]

They'll find new ways to innovate, either with smaller power consumption, more integrated components, or other stuff. The processing gains will stop accelerating, true, but there are other things to be worked on. People just need to stop focusing on Moore's Law all the time.

[Kim]

But why would average consumers want to invest in something that isn't actually faster?

[McTahr]

H'okay. Console wars? No. This thread is for Sony's (potential) last hurrah. Re-read the games subforum rules on hints on where console warring might be okay. (Hint: It's not here.)

[Funka Genocide]

...Man, can you tone down the arrogance?
Just a tad?
I mean it's just becoming increasingly hard to actually want to engage in anything resembling a dialogue with you.


Really it only upsets me because I know damn well Smarty can spell words good and he's just being a lazy dick.

I think if you want to "engage in anything resembling a dialogue" you probably need to actually consider what people are saying on an individual basis rather than lump all contrary arguments into some universally disregarded category.

In this thread, I was making some very general statements about the potential utility of a microprocessor, current marketing tactics for entertainment software and technological progression trends. What the majority of the readership got out of it was "LOL PC FANBOI GTFO!"

That's kind of like me saying black people have darker skin than white people and someone yelling out "LOL URARACIST!"

[Professor Smarmiarty]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/mar/01/sony-playstation-lg-patent-fight?INTCMP=SRCH
Update article going in some detail tohow the ban works and things.
Basically there is no EU copyright laws, they are still country by country and currentely the ban only applies in the Netherlands, which is where Sony ships things through. Due to how Dutch laws work LG can considerably disrupt Sony even before a case is proved (though with repurcussions to them if the suit proves frivolous). Sony can get around the ban if they ship through another country, ideally one with different laws, but they might have to secret squirrel it and try to hide the shipment from LG to prevent LG stopping them.
Total mission impossible stuff.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

So the current ban won't harm them much other then slow them down a bit then.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well yes they can ship them somewhere else but LG will try and shut them down their as well- though in other countries it seems like it more of a 10 day shut down (after which Sony can get them released with a security payment) rather than Netherlands where the stock can be held till LG decide to let them go/the case goes through court. And it will hurt changing their shipping lines cause they will be all set up to go through the netherlands which they can't at the moment.

[POS Industries]

Really it only upsets me because I know damn well Smarty can spell words good and he's just being a lazy dick.

I think if you want to "engage in anything resembling a dialogue" you probably need to actually consider what people are saying on an individual basis rather than lump all contrary arguments into some universally disregarded category.

In this thread, I was making some very general statements about the potential utility of a microprocessor, current marketing tactics for entertainment software and technological progression trends. What the majority of the readership got out of it was "LOL PC FANBOI GTFO!"

That's kind of like me saying black people have darker skin than white people and someone yelling out "LOL URARACIST!"
Okay, but:
H'okay. Console wars? No. This thread is for Sony's (potential) last hurrah. Re-read the games subforum rules on hints on where console warring might be okay. (Hint: It's not here.)
So I think this whole conversation has officially run its course.

[BloodyMage]

So the current ban won't harm them much other then slow them down a bit then.

Lol, I thought you were talking about people who got banned for talking about console wars for a moment, but I guess no one got banned for that.

I can't imagine the ban would really ever stop them. Sony do a lot more than just produce Playstation 3's. I'd imagine Sony is way more powerful then LG anyway so it's not really going to do any long time damage. Sort term it's just an annoying fly.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

LG is 67 on fortune 500, Sony is 69. By total revenue LG is 57 largest in world, Sony 75. LG is if anything larger than Sony.
Sony seems bigger because they more consumer orientated. But the guys who make the components to sell everyone else are always unexpectedly massive, and have lots of powerful buddies.

[BloodyMage]

It feels alike Sony has been around for ever, and I've only heard of LG in recent years, so I'd assume they have their fair share of powerful buddies too? Or is that just to do with Sony appearing to be around for longer because they're consumer orientated?

[Marc v4.0]

Sony was founded in 1946 and LG was 1947, but LG has an amount of pull that shadows Sony

[Bells]

The have overlapping sectors, but they are hardly direct competitors

[Azisien]

The have overlapping sectors, but they are hardly direct competitors

What? Ever go to a store and look at competing TV brands? Bluray players? Pc peripherals?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

A lot of LGs business is electronic components for other companies, including Sony. They also have a pretty large chemical division- well I see lots of LG chemicals around. Also mobile phones. Fuck they must make a lot of mobile phones

[Nikose Tyris]

LG makes -everything-. My entire household for a while was LG products- not on purpose or through brand loyalty, but because everything was the right price. [Washer, Fridge, One of my LCD monitors, my phone that I still use now, my air conditioner that I still use, a bunch of spare CD/DVD drives in the parts closet, and my vacuum cleaner]

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

The thing with LG is they sneak up on you a lot like that, you really won't realize a lot of the stuff they make till it's on the shelves with a logo in front of you.
Also just to say, it's likely nobody in this thread this thread owns anything from IBM, but they're number 15 if I remember right.

[Jagos]

What? Ever go to a store and look at competing TV brands? Bluray players? Pc peripherals?

LG's claim to fame is kitchen appliances.

Sony is mainly entertainment products. While LG is known for decent TVs, it isn't their forefront as Sony's is.

They are more indirect competitors than anything else.

Also just to say, it's likely nobody in this thread this thread owns anything from IBM, but they're number 15 if I remember right.

IBM = Lenovo

They're still making a lot of laptop chips.

[Azisien]

Yeah that's true Sony is great at making mediocre, overpriced TVs like no other.

[synkr0nized]

IBM = Lenovo

They're still making a lot of laptop chips.

Lenovo is a Chinese company that bought IBM's PC division years back, so it's not the same.


Also LG and Sony have competing products all over the place, as noted; that you are downplaying that in favour of putting LG in the appliance market and Sony in the TV/home entertainment market is shortsighted.

*e: But I don't follow market shares, so perhaps if you look at it in terms of sales and where they seem to be marketing the most maybe that's how it is.

[Jagos]

Lenovo is a Chinese company that bought IBM's PC division years back, so it's not the same.


Also LG and Sony have competing products all over the place, as noted; that you are downplaying that in favour of putting LG in the appliance market and Sony in the TV/home entertainment market is shortsighted.

*e: But I don't follow market shares, so perhaps if you look at it in terms of sales and where they seem to be marketing the most maybe that's how it is.
I forgot about that sale...

But LG's dominance is actually in the appliance arena. Yes, they have TVs, monitors, etc. but they have a different area of expertise than Sony, who has more in the entertainment arena than LG. Just a little odd that LG would go to stop their competition like this, but the web of patents is damn near a nuklear explosion waiting to happen.

[Bells]

I think, maybe the point here is that Sony tries to lead in that Department. They develop new tech and they bring it to the market. LG usually specializes it and bring it to the market, usually at a lower pricing point.

Now, there is a weird gap in Sony's lineup. Most of their top tier products are really some of the best in the market, but the entire lineup has a price tag above market. When you go Sony, you do get quality but you are certainly paying for the brand too.

With LG not so much, their price tag is usually lower, and their Quality is actually pretty good, But it really doesn't rival the leaders in each sectors

[Ravashak]

Sony won the short trial regarding the seizing of 300.000 PS3s here in the Netherlands, LG has to pay for said trial, and now both sides indicate a willingness to negotiate. If they fail to negotiate, the trial regarding breach of patent will be november 18th.