Geldorn said:
I do have my facts straight. That PC misses Windows (which 99.9% of gamers use). A full Windows license will cost most people around $100. To top it of, it has no Blu-Ray drive. It therefore it lags in capability because it misses hardware. Just because you can download HD movies, of significantly lower quality than Blu-Ray movies, doesn't change any of that. Besides, the PS3 and Xbox 360 can also download HD movies last time I checked. See, I do know that PC is more powerful. That was not my point. Heck, I have (and am very happy with) a gaming PC myself. My point is that these comparisoms are always lopsided - Windows is suddenly free or 'not used', Blu-Ray becomes irrelevant 'because I can download' (like the consoles) and all consoles suddenly cost $500+ in order to win. The truth is that a complete $399 PC, with Blu-Ray drive and the Windows license, would not compete with the $399 PS3 in specs. Nor would a $299 PC with a valid Windows license be able to compete with the Xbox 360. And all this without mentioning that console games are (with one or two exceptions worlwide a year) plug and play over the course of the entire generation. Whereas for lots of people (witness all those tech-support forums) PC games are more like plug-and-pray, or just plainly need an upgrade every year or so to keep up with minimum specs. |
Couldn't people reuse their windows disks or use their current hard drives with Windows already on it? You could also perhaps find deals on it, such as if someone was a student as mentioned above.
Also, I'm not sure why you're pushing Blu-ray on the PC. It's pretty darn expensive considering that DVD readers and burners for around $20-30 (glanced quickly at newegg) and I'm not sure if it's even worth it yet for general PC use until Blu-ray drives get MUCH cheaper (though 25+ gigs of storage is certainly interesting). There's the whole point of listing a cheap PC build to counter people saying that gaming PC's cost $5,000 and you're fixated on a Blu-ray drive.







