| ZenfoldorVGI said: @noname2200 |
Sorry, I missed this one the first time through. Not that I had time to respond...
E. Natal, and Sony's wand are going to fail, probably. That wasn't my point. My point is that the PC won't have those types of things. There are no first party companies who would be interested in introducing them, except maybe Microsoft, and they will never get the support they get on a console, due to userbase and inability to introduce at launch.
I know it wasn't your point; I brought them up as a joking aside. I repeat what I said earlier: even if the PC never gets motion controls, what makes you think that it will therefore automatically fail in the future? Remember that the goal of motion controls is to lower the barriers to entry and to reduce the fear factor most people have of the dual analogue controllers, not "more immersion" or any of the other reasons people like to falsely throw out there. This comes from no less an authority on the subject that Nintendo itself, which makes it hard to argue with!
Here's the thing though: damn near everyone in the Western world is already familiar with the PC's controls. There is much less fear over the (highly familiar) keyboard and mouse than there is over that bizzare crescent-thing with the buttons and sticks and colors. Motion controllers may eventually enter the PC market too (Microsoft is trying to make that happen). But their absence is much less fatal for PCs than it is on consoles. So assuming, arguendo, that PCs never get some form of motion controls, what evidence do you have to support the conclusion that this will really matter?
F. Those terms are, imo, buzzphrases, intended to add to the PC superiority list. It seems that some people(maybe not you) think the PC is SO superior, that it is laughable to compare it to a console. Truth is, the console is a great platform for most core gamers, and in fact, it's a question of taste, which platform is better, and the consoles do have quite a few superiorities over the PC, despite PC elitist rhetoric. Still, "best" is subjective.
I think you're selling the value of competition and the like short, but for the sake of discussion I'm willing to go with the sentiment here, if not the specifics.
G. The used market for PC games has been nearly killed due to DRM. you can still fish out a few, but again, I never pay more than 20 dollars for a game, and if I would need to, I rent them, infinately, for 12 dollars a month, via gamefly. It saves me tons of money, and its lack is NOT made up for by the whims of steam. This is an advantage of the console market, and you should all acknowledge it.
You're factually incorrect about DRM. Only a small handful of titles have that highly-restrictive DRM, and many of THOSE games have since removed it. Check the link I posted last time; that move was the impetus behind the article.
As for the rental market, yes, it's an advantage. I believe I said so last time, and if I didn't, I do so now.
Not to be petty, but I do have to once again say that you only brought up the "rental" as opposed to the "used" market in a later post. The two terms are NOT interchangeable.
H. The "myth" about PC gamings pricetag has a basis in fact, and trying to debunk it is boardering on spin. Just because you can buy the cheapest shit available and come out under 500 dollars in certain circumstances, doesn't give the PC a rental market, and it doesn't give the PC a viable used market.
I won't lie, Zenfolder: you're really beginning to frustrate me. I suspect that you're reading my posts, without actually reading them.
Let me say it YET AGAIN...My PC, WHICH COST MUCH LESS THAN $500, performs MUCH BETTER at running HD games than the HD consoles do.
I repeat, My PC, WHICH COST MUCH LESS THAN $500, performs MUCH BETTER at running HD games than the HD consoles do.
Once more, with feeling: My PC, WHICH COST MUCH LESS THAN $500, performs MUCH BETTER at running HD games than the HD consoles do.
This is not "the cheapest shit available." This is far from "the cheapest shit available." It's a great PC that still costs less than any HD console (outside of the Arcade - happy FinalFan? 
).
And for the record, not only are you STILL wrong about the PC not having a viable used gaming market (as I know BECAUSE I HAVE USED IT), but the price of entry for a PC has ZERO to do with a used or rental market. This paragraph is a classic example of a non-sequitir.
The PS360 will play any game released in the next 5 years, for the consoles with no upgrades.
...
.....
.......
.........
SO WILL MY PC!!!!!!!111one!! ARRRRRGH!!!
I. You wouln't pay less. The 360 is 199, about what you'd pay for Windows 7.
Yes, the bare-bones HD experience costs a bit less than a great gaming PC. This has already been conceded (although not at the time you made this post).
J. You CAN buy games used in very few instances, but you can also play with usermade content on LBP. Doesn't mean I can claim that consoles have user made content.
I don't understand what one has to do with the other.
You say there's no used gaming market for PCs. I tell you that there is, and that I can get any used PC game I want with little effort. That's the entire point of the used market, no? Getting you the product you want second-hand with minimal effort? How does pointing out that a few console games have a level editor (which is NOT the same as mods, by the by) change this?
L. Your anecdotes aren't evidence either. You can't have it both ways. Either a computer is cheap and you BUILD it, or it's expensive, and you have it built for you. How is this not true? Link me the prebuilt cheap computer that will play Conviction.
Again, you're not reading my responses. I'll repost it here this time, now with some bolding for emphasis:
I could tell you bits of my life story. Truth be told, I'm something of a technophobe. I have only a rudimentary understanding of electronic devices. When my computer at work quits on me, I immediately call IT and do nothing, out of fear of making things worse. Shoot, I'm so much of a technophobe that I only got my first cell phone a few months ago, and I still have no idea how to set up the message center thing. Before I went to college, I had to rely on friends and relatives to set up my games, and I often had to wait for them to return whenever I ran into even the simplest of problems. DOS scares me to this day. No, I am neither lying nor exaggerating about any of this.
I tell you all of this so you can understand what I mean when I say that I built my PC from scratch, on my own. It's ridiculously simple. I can walk you through it, if you want. If you can follow the instructions on a set of LEGOs, you can probably build your own PC, because both of them are literally the same thing: Thing A goes into Slot B. There is no magic behind it, no mysticism that requires consulting an oracle. Follow any of the simple instructions that you can find on the internet, and in ten minutes, you will have a new PC that's ready to go. Even installing the software is a matter of inserting a disc and following the prompts.
The days when PCs required a computer science degree just to pop open are long gone: they are simplified and streamlined to the point where even a luddite such as myself can build and operate them. There are still barriers, mind you, but thanks to the internet I haven't run into a single problem that couldn't be fixed within an hour. No, the real barriers behind modern PC gaming are twofold: fear and laziness. Many people are afraid of their computers, so they quit before they even try. Many people also lack the patience required to seek out and apply troubleshooting information. Were it not for these two things, modern PC gaming would be much more widely embraced.
Of course, just because they are few in number, it does not mean these barriers are minor. The thing is, both of these problems are ones of perception and commitment, rather than of skill. Zenfolder, I mean this seriously: if you want to learn the basics of your gaming PC, you can do so in little time and with little commitment. It is not difficult, so long as you can muster up the will to do so.
To sum it up, you're now arguing a moot point.
[quote]
