the-pi-guy said:
You aren't even in the same discussion as he is. |
Exactly. They aren't even talking about the same things and I don't understand where in my original post I could have led them to believe that what they are talking about has anything to do with what I am saying in this thread.
Whats funny is that its not that they are wrong, they are just completely off tangent.
Another way to look at it is this, if they got a PC, that cost $350-$400... everything tehy are saying still applies. There games will still be cheaper. No one is taking that from them.
All I have been trying to say is that when comparing the PERFORMANCE of the same game across diffeent platforms. If you are going to add the PC to the mix, then it has to be a PC that you can get for the exact same amount that you would have used to buy the console its being compared to. If all that is in question her is comapring the performance of the game, how does games being cheaper on PC or consoles having an optional service charge factor into any of this?
I have just beein saying that a games performance on $400 hardware has no business being compared to the same games performce of $1000+ hardware. Or even $600 hardware. Its just not the same thing. But they won't say a peep about that but rather drag us into how PCs pay for themselves and are more useful down the road. Just doesn't make sense to me.
I doubt anyone that buys a console is buying it to run word or other productivity apps. They buy it primarily to play games. Its a game machine. So if anyone wants to compare a PC to it, then it should be a PC game machine that can at least do everything that the console can do and that costs no more than the console. Or else what is the point of the comparison???? To show how much more you can get if you are willing to spend more on your gaming hardware????
