after years of glorious PC gaming i bought a x360 in November (actually my fiancee bought me one)...and i have to agree: x360 is better than PC...at least in my case as i can play the x360 in my Home Theater with 5.1 sound and HD projector (100" screen).

More like 360 gaming = low budget pc gaming with cripled controls :D

The only thing consoles ever have at pc is the fact they can be operated by computer illiterate who only needs to know how to change input in TV.

3. PC games ARE cheaper now than before. The large majority of PC games nowadays don't even come out at $50, but are released for $40/$30/$20/$10. DMC4? $40. Crysis Warhead? $30. RA3: Uprising? $20. Audiosurf? $10. Hell, one of my most anticipated games this year, Zeno Clash,  is going to be only $20 at release and I was think it would be twice of that. Also, PC games drop their price like fast as hell + Steam, Impulse, Gamersgate give out nice deals every weekend.

5. PS3 was $600 at release, and at that time you could build a PC that would show graphics almost as good for the same price.
Xbox 360 was released at $400 for the premium (which has the HDD) + $50 every year for XBLG. Sorry, but the cost of consoles are much higher than last generation, while PC is much cheaper than 5 years ago.

6. PS360 games are now $10 more expensive than than last generation.

Which you can also do with the PC...

"Squilliam said:

For RTS, theres no contest although I would contest it has a lot to do with the fact that RTS games on the PC have gotten exceedingly and over complicated.

For FPS I would give the torch to the dual analogue setup or the Wiimote (Wii performance does let the console down here more than the interface)

I used to be an exclusive PC gamer, but once I got used to the different interface I found that I preferred the analogue sticks. I still have an up to date PC but that 8800gt in my PC is used to render those annoying Vgchartz flash advertisments more than games nowadays.

I feel the controllers are more realistic, and I like the tactile feedback I get from the controllers. I dislike the ultra-accuracy of the mouse because to me accuracy != fun, it feels like you're an 80 pound gymnast when games like Killzone 2 or Halo 3 can deliver what feels to me like a realistic response to your inputs. I especially hate the keyboard interface, but really I like everything on a PS3 or 360 controller more than the PC keyboard and mouse interface.

Furthermore I work on a PC every day almost and when I want to game, the last think I want to do is sit at another desk and play games! I want to relax, and you cannot do that with a PC. I even went as far as to upgrade my HTPC to use an Xbox 360 controller but the mouse or keyboard really don't work on a couch so I relented and played games on the consoles instead."

JaggedSac said:

This is my point.  Ultra-accuracy != good gameplay/fun.  I am quite adept at both control schemes and do not prefer one over the other.  I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in killing anything in either dual analog or keyboard mouse.  So what does it matter to me?  It doesn't.  I go where the fun is.

Oh and a very, very important plus for my console gaming needs: GAMEFLY

everybody seems to overlook the fact that playing an FPS with dual analogue is not a problem because the games are designed in such a manner, with a reduction in game speed, which gives a greater time for reaction.
For someone who grew up on UT and Q3 Arena, the kinda speed at which Halo MP runs seems absurd, and somewhat frustrating.

to be honest the list was biggest fans, not fanboys. very different, so you can take the ridiculers statement out your sig.

3. DMC4 was released on consoles much earlier and it is rare for ports of old games to go at full price. Crysis Warhead was a stand-alone expansion to Crysis, not a full game. RA3:U, an expansion pack. Audiosurf is a very small game, it's like buying an arcade game. You can only buy games like Audiosurf at that price, because it doesn't have to be sold at retail. If it did, it could never be sold at 10$ and still make a profit.

5. At release. 2006. 2,5 years ago, much has changed since, and consoles go down in price all the time. Your argument becomes irrelevant, because we are talking about prices as they are now, not as they were back then. Though you are correct about the XBL fees, which is one of the major reasons for why I have a PS3. I will never, ever pay to play online.

6. I don't remember the prices being different, but since I am in EU, my situation might be different. I don't know.

Fanboys typically are the biggest fans.

@Jagged, thanks!

@Shio, no offense im just saying the opposite of what was in SSJ12's signature.

FYI Shio this is what you could get with a $500 gaming PC August 2006

CPU: Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66Ghz dual core)
Motherboard: ECS RT410L/800-M 2.0 (2 DDR2 slots)
Memory: G.SKILL 1GB DDR2-667 (PC2-5400) dual-channel pair
Graphics: SAPPHIRE Radeon X850XT 256MB
Hard Drive: Samsung 250GB SATA
DVD Burner: BenQ Dual-Format, Dual-Layer Drive
Case: Broadway Com Corp 82-4HL Mid Tower w/500W Power Supply
$496.20

On top of that you need an OS, which is probably balanced by the case which usually doesn't need to be replaced.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/52269/500_gaming_pc.html?page=2&cat=15

We should talk sometime, FK.  The last gaming machine I built was much like the last one you built: quad core, 2 GB of ram, 8800GTS, 780i SLi motherboard, etc.  I'm typing this on it right now!!  And that's about all I do with it these days.  It still plays all the latest games (save for Crysis) without a hitch, but who cares these days?  It's still hard for me to say that, but-----

1.  I have a kid now.  I can't justify buying PC hardware anymore.

2.  I don't like RTS or MMOs. 

3.  The shooters are all on the consoles too. (Ok, Crysis was PC exclusive.)

4.  I have a 37" HDTV and surround sound now.  Who wants to be hunched over their computer monitor when you have that?

I know some people will say, "Dude, you are an idiot if you were upgrading that much.  If you know what you're doing, you don't have to do that!!!"  And to those people I say this:  the whole point of PC gaming is its versatility and its superior graphics.  If I'm going to spend the money on PC gaming, I refuse to play any game at less than max settings.  And to do that, you end up spending an insane amount of money on hardware.  It's just simple facts.  And the fact that these days it's pretty much all the same damn games as on the consoles just makes it harder to spend the money.  Sure, I could play the latest and greatest game on max settings on my PC, but to do it on THIS PC, I would probably have to get a new video card.  The latest and greatest shooter is also probably on the consoles for no extra money.  I just need the game.  No drivers, no 350 MB day one patches to deal with.  And I don't want to hear about day one patches on the consoles.  The bug fixes and patches on the consoles take less than ten seconds to download and install.  A driver update, patch download, and installation on the PC can delay your start time by an hour or more.  Who needs it anymore?

I'm fully on the console boat now after YEARS of exclusive PC gaming.  I haven't owned a console since the SNES up until I got my 360 a year ago.  I still love building PCs and I still play games on my PC here and there, but I just don't see the point of the PC getting my full gaming time anymore.  I think Battlefield: Heroes will be cool because it should run on my laptop.  That's the direction I think PC gaming will eventually go.  And I'm all for games that will run on my laptop.