| sc94597 said: 1. Actually many people bought PS3's solely as media devices. The combination of a (3D) Blu-Ray player, and third-party media apps made them very appealing to that audience. My point was, however, is that the cost of implementing something must be justified for any company which wants to be profitable. If these things cannot be justified they will not be implemented. By consequence, the decision to add these features increases the value of the platform, just as say a secondary feature like - backwards compatibility does. There is much more to the sales (and therefore its marginal value) of a platform than its games performance. Many people prefer platforms that have backwards compatibility and will only buy a platform that has backwards compatibility because they don't want multiple devices and for convenience (see your last category in the OP.) Many gamers choose to do more with their gaming hobby. Twich, Ustream, Youtube, and the plethora of social gaming proves this. A PC is the better option when it comes to social gaming, and usually for those who want to do intensive streaming is the only option. ALl of these things have costs involved and will increase the price of a system. And consequently, your assumption of "what is in the box" being "equal" doesn't hold (which my my main point here.) |
Ok, if i understand you correctly; your analysis of what s in the box seems to be based on how relevant those features are and whatever reason those features were put into the box.
That however, has nothing to do with the main point of this thread. Which is to measure the perfromance of a game across platforms/hardware.
Take note, I did not say how many apps you can use on the platforms, which one browses the web better, which one plays blu-rays better, which one is better at streaming or all the other stuff that may be tacked on to the overall use and performance of a platform.
I am solely referring to a game being played on a specific hardware/platform. Everything you are saying is true and if this were a discussion about the overarching worth or value of any specific platform then it would be in the right place. But right now your argumnets are just in the wrong place.
Put simply, this is about running the same game across different platforms/hardware. Nothing more nothing less.
Here's is a question, and one that I have asked as an example in this thread already. If I gave you a game (call of duty:AW) on PC and told you to find out two things; (1) Which sub $200 PC GPU runs it the best from every sub $200 GPU out there and (2) which sub $600 PC GPU runs it the best, What results would you end up with and how best would you arrive at those results?
What I am basically saying, is that the method you use to arrive at the solutions to the above problem, should also apply if anyone is comparing a game running on a PC to console. Unless of course you can tell me why anyone in their right mind will compare the same game running on a sub $150 GPU to a $500+ GPU.
And I don't thik anyone compares the PS4 to the PS3 to see which one will run the same game better. The value of the console (which one has more games for it and apps) yes those comparisons may be made. But that is not the point of this thread.
