So you can buy a $600 PC and it will run Crysis then????? I don't think so....tell me what spec of PC is required to run Crysis and at what cost...adn I reckon you will be closer to $2000 than the PS3's $600

the comments, LMAO. no need to say much more

1. Who says I was talking about the specific debate between the SNES and Genesis, I was merely using them to refer to the fourth generation as they were the two signiture consoles. The Amiga CDTV and CD-I were both more powerful than the SNES and still didn't cut it. The Sega CD and Sega 32X were also more powerful than the SNES as well. So that shoots your over eager counter argument dead, read the debate more carefully next time.

2. Nintendo has always made a profit off of what they've sold though, Sony hasn't. Sony loses money with each PS3 while Nintendo made money with each N64 and Gamecube sold. Despite any waining popularity Nintendo's marketing strategy of actually making a profit ensured success and I can garantee you Nintendo never reported a 2 Billion dollar loss. Also, as Sony is a company that can afford to break off and pursue its other markets outside of gaming due to its size, its a more viable option for them to give up than any company which has invested itself solely in gaming. Simply because Sony is big and arguably has money to throw around doesn't mean they will if its all for a failing effort. Also, stockholders can force Sony to fold, though Sony seems to be trying to counter this by having the executives buy it up cheaply as investors jump ship.

3. I think the only thing obvious is that you were so eager to run to Sony's defense that you didn't bother to actually read my reply in its fullest and now will be made a fool of by your lack of understanding. Oh well, nothing new when dealing with you eh? Sigh...

No but you can buy a Xbox for $400 which could just as easily run it. What a deal!

Actually, most (if not all good) PC games are built with scalability in mind. Consoles never evolve in terms of graphic or processing capability, so games are made to target a specific architecture.

PC games, by their inherently different usage and lack of a set standard, are made to accept a wide range of specifications. In the case of Crysis, they have stated that the game will support anywhere from PCs two years old to PCs 1.5 years in the future when it's released (sometime this year).

That means if your computer is two years old you can play Crysis, but without all the bells and whistles. 1.5 years from now, your gaming rig should be able to handle everything Crysis can throw at it with aplomb.

This practice is very common in the PC realm. I didn't play Doom3 when it first came out because id claimed that the Ultra detail mode required a computer more powerful than any available at the time, and I like to view the games with all the details maxxed out. Now that I recently upgraded my PC, I have installed Doom3, it runs fine in Ultra mode, but the only drawback is that now it's just too scary to play!

So in summary, you don't need a 2000$ rig to play Crysis. $600 will do the job; in fact, I'd bet a 600$rig will be able to run Crysis in something better than minimum resolution and detail.

Edit: Don't draw PCs into the console pricing realm; it's simply unfair to the PC, because there is absolutely NOTHING in your everyday PC (yes, this even means boutique vendors such as Alienware and Voodoo) explicitly made solely for gaming (physics boards notwithstanding, but even Crytek claimed their software physics model is better than the Aegia approach). The OS is not designed for gaming - it's designed for general-purpose multitasking; the CPU is not designed for gaming, neither is the memory architecture, and even GPUs are not solely designed with games in mind. The PC is ever-evolving, with ever-increasing competition within the "platform" itself (as opposed to consoles who duke it out with each other, the PC dukes it out with itself!) with no definite usage patterns apart from what everyman's usage patterns are.

It's also unfair to compare consoles to PCs because no matter what, eventually (and always within the lifetime of a console) the PC ends up doing things that consoles only hope to be able to muster. This is because like I originally stated, the PC is ever-evolving. The console will be the same thing from launch day to the end of its lifetime. Everything else (larger HDD, slimline versions, bigger memory cards) is just salad dressing, because in terms of processing capabilities it will never evolve. This has been historically true, and I don't see this changing anytime soon, and definitely not in this generation.

JHawkNH said: Kai Master said: Can we get a translation?  I can only read a few words of it, but I would like to know what the meaning is.

Season of the House for the consoles of living room on Christmas 

Wii: Such a shame, gathering dust…

 Xbox 360: Quiet farmhouse, at least one seeks buy you and have you! 

PS3: 10 Years! I will not last10 years!!

(Sorry without the ability to put accents on letters babblefish is somewhat useless to me)

You can't blame them for trying, if they can't compare the PS3 to a PC then they have no means of legitimizing its horrendous price. They've learned better than to compare the PS3 to its real competition so they're trying to find the next closest thing to make the PS3 look good. Its no different from how they will try to compare the PSP to the 360 to make the PSP's sales look good but not compare the PSP to its actual competition, the DS. Next thing you know they'll be comparing the PS3 to systems like the Pioneer Laseractive and 3DO to try and make it look good.

Sure the PS3 could be more powerful than Nintendo's next console, but there still won't be any games for the PS3, lol. The fact of the matter is Sony isn't doing what is normal in gaming, they've forced the price mark threshold even higher than the 360 in trying to wring what little extra potential they can out of the currently available technology. Nintendo was at least smart enough to recognize what people would be willing to pay (as in what people have always payed for consoles) and didn't buy into the economic inflation game. This same shit happened before with the High End Audio/Video consoles of the fourth and fifth generations: Remember Amiga CDTV? CD-I? Laseractive? 3DO? PIPPIN? You keep telling yourself better graphics make the system, it's all you have left.