The one thing the PS3 and the Dreamcast have in common!

[MikeB]

rocketpig said:

MikeB said:

rocketpig said:
The high-end PS3 is $500. For roughly $100-150 more, I can put together a gaming PC that will annihilate the PS3 in every way, shape, and form. It will perform office tasks, run Photoshop, Illustrator, browse the internet, and do almost anything I might require of it. It will also run Crysis at medium-high settings, something the PS3 could only dream of doing. I know this because right now, I'm scouting out deals to build a new rig for gaming.

And don't bring up monitor and speakers. After all, without a television, the PS3 isn't much fucking good to anyone, is it?

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.

It can be agrued which features are more useful to consumers, does everyone really want to use Adobe Photoshop? I have an older copy of Adobe Photoshop on my PC and I am not planning on upgrading my PC for games, software or multimedia uses. Now I own a PS3, my PC will remain ´as is´ running XP (no desire to upgrade to Vista).

For entertainment a PS3 is very well specced, gaming, multimedia function and movies. Many people own a PC just for email and webbrowsing, functions which could be fully implemented on the PS3. The PS3 can technically run a game like Crysis, even an improved version taking advantage of the Cell or for instance better audio or more content using BluRay is possible (other areas like RAM usage may need sacrifices or workarounds). Just because Crysis doesn´t already run on the PS3 it doesn´t per se mean it´s not technically possible to run Crysis and vice versa for the games which are only available for the PS3.

Everyone I know own a monitor for their PCs. The PS3 is less of a fuss to use with a HDTV, it also easily fits most media cabinets. The PS3 isn´t reallty useless other than for gaming on a SDTV, at least on a PAL TV photo albums still look slick and the PS3 does a good job at outputting high quality music, webbrowing is a bit lacking in detail but still functional, etc.