By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Farsala on 17 June 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
iron_megalith said:

Stop twisting things. I admit that PC really is better than console in terms of performance no doubt. However the cost and effort to build one is greater than simply just getting out there and buying a console. Not to mention the gains you would get in the long run granted you stick with your initial set-up are not really that great. The so called "lesser" console counterpart would not really be a game breaking experience.

Then you could go on and say it's overclockable. Etc etc. Overclocking will scare the shit out of the general consumer. Overclocking is for the enthusiasts. If you go on and fiddle with it with your bad luck/inexperience and break it, you're screwed.

The point is. It's expensive and inconvenient(or less convenient) and the difference isn't really THAT mind blowing.

I could list many more things that are convenient with console if gaming is the only thing in mind.  I do a lot of travels and I love bringing my PS3/360 whenever it's possible. You can't simply do that with a decent mid tower rig which weighs a whole lot. Unless you're willing to dismantle every damn parts and leave the casing behind.


Again, it's really only one or the other.  It's either more costly, more effort, or the graphical advantages are smaller... but still exist.

You can argue they aren't significant in the third case, but again the advantages still do exist.

In the end, Nivdia is right.

Come on mod, fix your quote trees :P.

 

OT: Yeah to those people that said they conveniently left out Nintendo. I am sure Nintendo would have been a big piece of the pie, assuming the PS portion includes PSP as well. Then Nintendo's portion would possibly be bigger then Xbox as it would include DS, 3DS, Wii.