MikeB said:
A TV is a device people usually own regardless, owning a monitor in the bulk of situations only makes sense when you own a PC. IMO it´s a definite cost consideration to the advantage of consoles. There are many people who only own a PC for webbrowsing and email, these functions are technically possible to achieve well on a console like the PS3 connected to a HDTV. The PS3 is powerful enough to run Crysis like games, I think next year you will agree with this as well. As for providing a superior experience, many may not agree with you. The fuss of checking specs, upgrading hardware, TVs/HDTVs usually being bigger than the most common 17´inch monitors, having to use Windows on the PC, playing with friends using multiple PS3 Sixaxis controllers on the couch, etc. IMO it´s not as blank and white as you claim, some may well even prefer a Wii for gaming, maybe due to Mario or the Wii-mote. For others one specific exclusive game like Final Fantasy XIII may make the PS3 gaming experience superior as well. Back to the orignal point, it´s not impossible the PS3 will be a viable platform for a decade nomatter the latest and greatest GPU or CPU available for the PC. |
Why bring preference into this? That wasn't my argument.
I can build a PC for roughly $200 more than a PS3 that will mop the floor with the console in overall capabilities and specifications, both for gaming and general purpose uses. You can't even argue that.
Yes, down the road the PS3 may be capable of running Crysis-like games. The key difference is that my theoritical PC can run Crysis itself. On medium-to-high settings, to boot.
If you want to nit-pick, you can hook a PC to any HDTV. The same HDTV you would need to take advantage of many things you use on your PS3. It's a non-issue. After all, the PS3 is pretty much useless for anything other than gaming if you're using it on an SDTV.

Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/







