What does a $399 PC do that a PS3 cannot? Let's see:

1- Run a modern OS at a decent speed (no, Linux doesn't run at a decent speed on the PS3).
2- Be expansible, with lots of peripherals to choose from for all sorts of purposes. You can't even upgrade the memory on your PS3 (not that you need to, since it doesn't run modern programs decently anyway).
3- Record DVDs, play a lot of media formats not supported by the PS3.
4- Allow programs to use the graphics card (you can't access it from Linux, so forget about 3D acceleration).

Shall I continue?

This thread may be stupid as you said, but comparing a $399 PC to a PS3 while pretending it's a fair comparison is no less stupid (especially since the PS3 is sold at a loss at $399).

Even the first Gears of War has better graphics than MGS4.

The 40GB SKU sells for about the same as the production (parts/manufacturing) cost. That was as of Q1 this year. There haven't been any recent stories regarding the current estimated cost. I'm guessing they're taking a loss on every 80GB bundle being sold still. Unconfirmed.

Anyway, I'd rather have a $400 PS3 than a $400 PC which would require a lot of cost cutting and cannibalization for an all inclusive (fully functional) box. A decent PC box these days starts at about $1000 in my book and that's dirt cheap for what you get relative to several years ago.

The PS3 has been a better media player/center than the $1000 windows media center PC I bought and then immediately reconfigured to better suit my needs. Even though they output to the same display, and the media functions for the PC can be controlled by a standard remote control (after starting up and launching Media Center), it's still an inconvenience to use compared to the PS3. It was supposed to be a "living room media box" as opposed to just a desk PC.

PS3 goes: touch power, 20 second load up tops while inserting BR-D, instant play. Most media on the external drive shared between all my computers plays just as easily.

Anywho, the PC and PS3 don't compete since one does not replace the other. The 360 on the other hand is pretty redundant if you have a PC configured to outperform the $280 console. 360 controllers even work with Windows for games that take advantage of that option.

it depends what you run Crysis on, if you run it on low or medium, then MGS4 is probably at least as good. Oh High or Very High though, Crysis is better

Gears of War has AWESOME graphics, don't get me wrong, but when you really think about the game it's all dark colours like Grey, Black, Claret etc.

MGS4 beats Gears of War because the colours in the game are complex and have a large array of colours, plus it runs very smoothly, and also if you have noticed, alot more things are happening on MGS4, like there is Tanks, Peoples running, your camo changing, dust blowing, tree's swaying etc.

That's why people are comparing this game to Crysis.

Once I saw this thread I knew I would encounter a person claiming to run Crysis on high(depends on what we are referring to as high) on a $500 pc. All lies, do not believe them. LOL. Crysis is probably the most unoptimized game I have ever seen.

They're still losing money on the 40 GB, as you can read in their most recent financial reports (they're expecting to break even towards the end of the fiscal year). Do you really think a Blu-Ray drive, Cell CPU, GPU and all the other numerous components together could cost only $400?

You can get a decent (even good) computer for much less than $1000, unless you're being ripped off by whoever's selling it.

Do you get a BR drive with the PC for under $1000 though?

Only a Tri-SLI GTX 280 setup would make Crysis Cry :)

@ Davygee

 I know i can :D

(Workers Discounts, I'm a Computer Systems Engineer, Lol)