next gen console not powerfull enough for crysis , LOL

HangTime said:
What I'm saying is that it is unfair to talk about depreciation when you've already replaced some components in the meantime. It'd be like buying two cars, 2 years later do a complete overhaul of one of them (call it car B), add all the bells and whistles, better engine and all the trimmings bla bla bla. Then in the 5th year turn round and claim that car B has held it's value much better.
Click to expand...
Why is it unfair? It's not my fault that consoles only get updated every five or so years and depreciate so badly in value because of it. :confused: If they released a new console every six months you could sell one and buy the next one up for only a couple of quid more, the same thing I do with PC components as they begin to show their age.

The result? I get a whole new PC, lightyears ahead of my last one, for only £90 out of my own pocket.
 
Last edited:
Ulfhedjinn said:
Why is it unfair? It's not my fault that consoles only get updated every five or so years and depreciate so badly in value because of it. :confused:
Click to expand...

It's unfair because you can't talk about depreciation when it's not the same hardware you started with. Consoles don't depreciate badly because they are infrequently updated; in fact, some might claim the opposite - during the first year or two following release, consoles retain their value quite well relative to top of the range graphics cards. Intuitively one would expect a market which has infrequent tech updates to retain it's value reasonably well, given that the PC isn't a direct substitute.

Let me put it another way: you are talking about the value of the xbox dropping, over a period of nearly 5 years. Yet the PC hardware suffered less than 3 years of depreciation (less than 2 years, in the case of the gfx card). You simply can't justify that comparison because it's obvious that everything being equal, a tech item will drop in price more over a period of 5 years than a period of 3 years.
 
HangTime said:
It's unfair because you can't talk about depreciation when it's not the same hardware you started with. Consoles don't depreciate badly because they are infrequently updated; in fact, some might claim the opposite - during the first year or two following release, consoles retain their value quite well relative to top of the range graphics cards. Intuitively one would expect a market which has infrequent tech updates to retain it's value reasonably well, given that the PC isn't a direct substitute.

Let me put it another way: you are talking about the value of the xbox dropping, over a period of nearly 5 years. Yet the PC hardware suffered less than 3 years of depreciation (less than 2 years, in the case of the gfx card). You simply can't justify that comparison because it's obvious that everything being equal, a tech item will drop in price more over a period of 5 years than a period of 3 years.
Click to expand...
I am really not sure what you are trying to say here because the way I am reading this, you are basically completely agreeing with my point.

Due to being updated with much less frequency, consoles are worth a lot less by the time you have something to upgrade to. When one of my components is getting left behind a little, and because PC upgrades don't take five years to appear, I simply sell it and buy a replacement for a tiny bit more. I might have only kept it for say one or two years, but an upgrade might only cost me £50 more than what I sell the old component for and offer a huge performance increase.

IE. I just sold my old socket 754 motherboard, 3400+ CPU, and 2GB value RAM for £260 and bought a much better motherboard, an E6300 now at 3GHz, and 2GB DDR2 for £400. That means for £140 I have seen a massive increase in performance. When I sold my GTO² for £110 and upgraded to an X1800XT for £190, that costed me £80 for a stupidly massive performance increase.

You have to wait longer so you get less return, I call that depreciating more in value.

But you also seem to be saying "that's not fair, let's compare components five years apart." Why, I ask? PC components don't take five years to be updated.
 
Last edited:
Ulfhedjinn said:
Due to being updated with much less frequency, consoles are worth a lot less by the time you have something to upgrade to. When one of my components is getting left behind a little, and because PC upgrades don't take five years to appear, I simply sell it and buy a replacement for a tiny bit more.
Click to expand...

Yes, this bit I agree with. I can see that it's nice to be able to upgrade your PC when it's getting a bit slow. But at the very least you have to add up the cost of ALL PC upgrades performed during the lifespan of the console, you can't spend say 70 quid here, 120 quid there, 90 quid at the end and then say that the total upgrade cost is £90.

You have to wait longer so you get less return, I call that depreciating more in value.
Click to expand...

That I can't agree with - depreciation is dependent on time, and you can only directly compare depreciation on items purchased around the same time. In that case I may as well ignore it's age and say that the xbox360 is great because it has depreciated less than your (nearly 3 year) old rig did :)

But you also seem to be saying "that's not fair, let's compare components five years apart." Why, I ask? PC components don't take five years to be updated.
Click to expand...

PC components don't take five years to be updated, but they don't come for free either. It's not like the PC is some rolling, automatic-upgrade system whereby you always have the latest tech. Over the lifespan of a console, people who want to stay near the bleeding edge of PC tech will cumulatively spend as much on upgrades as it would to buy the latest xbox every 4 years or so.
 
HangTime said:
Yes, this bit I agree with. I can see that it's nice to be able to upgrade your PC when it's getting a bit slow. But at the very least you have to add up the cost of ALL PC upgrades performed during the lifespan of the console, you can't spend say 70 quid here, 120 quid there, 90 quid at the end and then say that the total upgrade cost is £90.
Click to expand...
The total cost of upgrading my PC in the last five years is nowhere near the amount of an X360 and a HDTV, food for thought.

HangTime said:
That I can't agree with - depreciation is dependent on time, and you can only directly compare depreciation on items purchased around the same time. In that case I may as well ignore it's age and say that the xbox360 is great because it has depreciated less than your (nearly 3 year) old rig did :)
Click to expand...
If there are no upgrade options for five years, your hardware will depreciate more before you sell it on than my hardware will.

HangTime said:
PC components don't take five years to be updated, but they don't come for free either. It's not like the PC is some rolling, automatic-upgrade system whereby you always have the latest tech. Over the lifespan of a console, people who want to stay near the bleeding edge of PC tech will cumulatively spend as much on upgrades as it would to buy the latest xbox every 4 years or so.
Click to expand...
That depends on who you speak to, all of my upgrades are absolutely dirt cheap, and I have no special connections nor am I tax-exempt. Just OcUK and eBay for the most part.

The cumulative cost of my PC is less than that of an X360 and a HDTV, and the X360 is practically obsolete already and stuck that way until the owner blows a fortune on a PS3 or until the third incarnation of the Xbox is available. Whereas I can upgrade my PC for peanuts at will and always stay on top should I be so inclined. :)
 
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's unfair to include the whole cost of an HDTV as part of the cost of an XB360, because it gets you a nice telly as well. What about people who already own an HDTV, it's not as though they have to buy another one along with the console!

In terms of cost, going from an xbox to an XB360 costs around £300(?) over a 4 year period. OVer the same 4 year period, the cost of upgrading a pc to 'stay on top' will likely be at least as large.

I'm not denying that upgrading PCs is a good way to enjoy gaming, it's what I've done for past 9 years. It's just that I disagree with the notion that depreciation affects consoles much more than PC.
 
Same goes for a pc you don't upgrade your pc just for games do you, you then have a pc that can do lots of different things faster than your old model, i went from a single core cpu too a dual core conroe so now i have a decent gaming cpu but also the joy of multitasking speed works both ways.

It all comes down too if you want the best looking games all the time as the pc will allways win this battle due to being upgraded, if the price scares some people they don't and stick with consoles.

As Hangtime said it didn't cost me a stupid amount to upgrade due too selling my old stuff on, pc gaming is only expensive if you have to start from scratch and buy everything.

I doubt a 360 would lose that much money tbh, £270 now in 3 years i can only see them being reduced new too £150 maybe still not a huge loss if you have one from the start. This is pointless you are always going to get peeps that prefer pc gaming too consoles and vica versa each to there own imo.
 
Last edited:
HangTime said:
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's unfair to include the whole cost of an HDTV as part of the cost of an XB360, because it gets you a nice telly as well.
Click to expand...
According to some people in this thread you "must" buy a £2000 PC to run Crysis because it "must" run on Vista and in DirectX 10 mode with 100% eye candy, therefore I am saying that to use an X360 you "must" have a HDTV. Fair's fair.

As for the issue of a HDTV being multi-functional and allowing you to do things other than game, I ask you; Do you think my PC and monitor only allow me to game? :confused:

You're saying a lot of things are "unfair" and pointing out pros on the console side as if they don't apply to the PC.
 
Think you need to give up the fight Davey, unfortunately the kiddies would rather have a plain "Console vs PC" argument and not actually listen to any kind of sence or reason...even numbers.
 
consoles = casual gamers

pc = enthusiasts, hardcore gamers, fussy people

Dont get me wrong, i'd prefer a pc anyday over a console but with college, work and social life i cant keep up-to-date with all the hardware. Also when i do get a chance to play a game i dont want to have to download updates (fair play the 360 you do but its all background, dont get viruses, horrific loading times etc.

Just a simple pick up and play thing. And for that simplicity im willing to let crysis go :)
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
According to some people in this thread you "must" buy a £2000 PC to run Crysis because it "must" run on Vista and in DirectX 10 mode with 100% eye candy, therefore I am saying that to use an X360 you "must" have a HDTV. Fair's fair.
Click to expand...

If people are saying you must spend £2000 to play Crysis, they are wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right, and it's still wrong to say that to play xb360 games everyone will need to spend over a grand.

As for the issue of a HDTV being multi-functional and allowing you to do things other than game, I ask you; Do you think my PC and monitor only allow me to game? :confused:
Click to expand...

Not at all, one of the reasons I haven't bought a console in over a decade is because of the versatility of the PC. I love being to play games, listen to music, watch video, browse the web, send emails, chat online and all the rest of it all on my pc, and despite the claims of some people, I can't see consoles getting near this any time soon.

You're saying a lot of things are "unfair" and pointing out pros on the console side as if they don't apply to the PC.
Click to expand...

I think we are approaching this from slightly different angles. I don't regard it as a war, PC vs Console where we've got to weigh up the pros and cons (which are obvious for all to see, and often come down to individual requirements/preferences in the end). When I'm talking about things being unfair, I'm referring to the comparions you are making about valuations/depreciation and such like, the same would apply if we were talking cars or mp3 players or mobile phones.

Moving back on topic, at the end of the day I doubt many console gamers are that bothered about Crysis. If they were serious about playing world class FPS under the best conditions, they'd be running high end PCs anyway. Most of the console gaming brigade will be more pickup-and-play types who will just get on and play what is available rather than crying over cross-platform (in)availability.
 
who cares about power, its all about gameplay.. pc has its share of good games does consoles. i wouldnt buy an fps for a console anyway if it was available for pc
 
Just a thought on all this PC v Console nonsense, how much shelf space is devoted to console games compared to PC games ? In your local videogame store !
 
The PC vs Console war is nonsense anyway. Generally as soon as these things start assumptions are made that people that own consoles dont have PC's or access to a PC that they can play games on, surf the web etc and then the whole PC can do more than a console can argument comes out. Then there is the thing about console users somehow being nothing more than casual gamers with no real interest in being "Hardcore" whatever that is nowdays. Its all rather predictable. For the record i rather like my PC's and my consoles.

I think it would be quite interesting to do a bit of a survey at some point to see the average age of the console "Doubters" and "Supporters" on these boards. I've always wondered if those in my age group especially have a bit of a soft spot for the consoles because that is what were brought up with along with the first raft of Home Computers. Gaming PCs didnt come along until fairly late on in my "gaming" life.

Im really rather fond of my choice as to which platform i think best suits a particular game (if its a multiplatform release). I also always think its worth pointing out that consoles have been around as a gaming platform for a lot longer than "gaming" PC's which are relatively new in the scheme of things. Not that any of this really matters as its playing the games that counts whatever the platform and lets not forget its meant to be fun.

To get back on topic, i think its a bit of a risk to target a game at such a high requirement level regardless if it can be run on the new consoles or not. Its pretty much commercial suicide if the game can only be run at a reasonable level on very few machines. Then again if the game scales quite well onto different hardware albeit with lowered details, there is no reason whatsoever that it couldnt make it onto the new consoles. That being said, its also nice to see people pushing the boundaries of what can be done with the technology.
 
Last edited:
i must be lucky.. i have a powerful pc in my room and a xbox360 in the living room(connected to a 37" hdtv) and you know what..i dont care which is better graphics wise etc. at the end of all the arguements it boils down to how much you love gaming (ok,in my opinion..dont argue yet!)
by "gaming" i mean this: how much variety do you want to experience??
i love my pc to bits..i can sit in my room and shut out the world,go online and slaughter a few enemies on red orchestra, get constantly teamkilled in bf2...all good fun( ok maybe not the tk'ing)
now,i have the xbox in the living room..grab a beer, relax on a nice comfy sofa and wind away the hours playing ghost recon, moto gp, and a few others i dont want to sit in front of a monitor doing...bliss :)
at the end of the day,we are all, to some extent, gamers..shouldnt we be revelling in the fact that were spoilt for choice? compared to many a year ago anyway? variety is the spice of life i say :)
ok, ive maybe strayed from the whole ops point but its a reminder to all those unwilling to broaden their thinking and just accept that theres something out there for everyone :)
ok..ive finished.
all the best (and happy gaming)
steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom