Xbox 360 and PS3 Are Just Very Crap PCs

Oh I use tapatalk all the time when travelling.

I definitely lack finder dex on my phone :0


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now finally having not had websense over myself, watching it...

...it was about software and publishing and not hardware as popular thought:

Distribution options - No way xlive or psn can compete with things like steam or gog.
Drm - Some ranting done here, but noted that pc had always on.
Patching - Time spent patching vs steam (I think was the reference there).
Publisher shenanigans - milkage? 0 day passes?
Benefits - towards the user, no not hardware specs, what do you get from what you have bought.. the game.


I suppose the question then would be

1) Is there still an ease of use for the consoles. That's one of the reason I still use both of mine, well why I got them. (Part one I won TBH)

2) Which platform features more bullshit towards its customers. DRM, Patching, 0day pass etc etc.

3) Is there still exclusive benefits to either platform. This kinda comes back to no 1.

So nobody was trying to belittle, it imho comes down to 3 quite normal questions.
 
Last edited:
What defines a pc? The ability to upgrade? if so then the xbox is already half pc since you can upgrade the hard drive.
Well I'm not sure there is a strict definition of what is PC is or should be a few things would come to mind namely modularity and upgradeability. When you look at it from a technical standpoint there are a number of standards and architectures which need to be present for it to be called a PC by modern standards.

The ability to add and remove storage doesn't count since punch cards were a form of storage and the machines that used those would definitely not be called PCs. :)
 
Well I'm not sure there is a strict definition of what is PC is or should be a few things would come to mind namely modularity and upgradeability. When you look at it from a technical standpoint there are a number of standards and architectures which need to be present for it to be called a PC by modern standards.

The ability to add and remove storage doesn't count since punch cards were a form of storage and the machines that used those would definitely not be called PCs. :)

Omg, I can see it. Buying game X and it comes on 100 punch cards :eek:
 
Only reason I had a Wii, because my PS3 got stolen and borrowed my brothers Wii, then I got my 360 with the insurance money.
 
This topic has been debated and discussed to death, each side unshakable in their faith that their chosen platform is the best platform for gaming, but few take into consideration what is really important
People are different and so are their needs, everyone has their own way or choice in doing things, including gaming.

There are up sides and down sides to both categories of platforms, everyone here knows I play on both categories of platform and there are specific reasons for that.

Let's take a practical example like Ghost Recon Future Soldier, PS3 version vs PC Version
Ps3 Version, takes two minutes to install after inserting the disk (Some Game Data and Trophies etc)
After that the game starts (1080p Resolution and runs at 60 FPS)

PC Version, installs in 10 Minutes, requires me to update my GFX Drivers and has an issue starting up the first time due to Xfire being on.
After this the game launches at max resolution with max detail at my Laptops specified resolution
I spend 10 minutes tweaking graphics to turn off all the stuff that gives me a skull splitting headache and THEN I can start playing

For, me, with only 1 hour to play per day this has eaten away so much of that time that I can't help but feel that the console version is a better solution. This same situation happens quite often and can be much more complex, take BF3 Ps3 vs PC versions and consider what all of has to do to get the PC version installed and running in a stable manner.

SO time and ease of use is a major selling point for consoles.
Yes, LIVE and PSN can't compare to Steam, but when you have physical disk distribution of all the major titles on Steam on the console platform anyway, do you really miss it ? No Steam Updates for one thing, no messages telling you you have to redownload 5GB of Data to play the same game you were playing the night before (Game Cache Issues) etc

Barrier to entry is something else everyone needs to think about, when reading a viewpoint like the one quoted, stating that Consoles are really crap PC's you have to look at what the average home user will be spending to buy something better and keep it upgraded and on standard over 5 years.
The same GFX Card you bought 5 years back for your PC will not run a specific title, the same console you bought 5 years back will run the latest titles and will continue running them for the lifetime of the console system.
Cost of console versus mid range PC, 3k vs 5k +, the console will outlast the PC in terms of longevity every time.

DRM, I can say form personal experience that although the consoles are not as limited by DRM as the PC platform at this stage, they will be in future, LIVE Purchased DLC requiring sign in is just the first steps to making this category of platform eventually conform to the world wide trend of screwing the end user.
That said though, I don't mind signing in once to be able to play ALL my DLC for every title I happen to be loading up, in stark contrast to this are games like Diablo 3, where you can't even play SP without an always on connection

Sometimes it feels that PC Developers and Publishers are purposefully making the playing experience unbearably difficult for PAYING customers.
I recall having to download a Crack EXE for Gears of War one on PC to get my retail version to run on Vista as the retail version had a limitation on it that did not allow installation on 64 Bit Vista at the time, I got so frustrated I went out and bought the game on Console, inserted the disk and played the game
Or a game like Bioshock that had to have a CPU Timer Service installed and run on the first AMD 64 Bit CPU's as the game would not start up unless it could read that both CPU's were running the same timing.
How many end users were faced with this issue and simply did not know how to solve it?
A lot, compared to how many end users could not figure out which side of the disk to load into the tray of their consoles, which was the only issue a user faced when attempting to play the console version of the same title

I therefore think that to debate this topic we need to look not only at which platform offers the best value for money, but also which one offers the easiest, least frustrating experience to end users.
Then factor in all the contributing factors from 3rd party Developers and Publishers and ONLY THEN decide which platform works best for us as individuals.
 
Last edited:
After that the game starts (1080p Resolution and runs at 60 FPS)
Sorry to break it to you but there are no AAA 3D games that I know of that run with those specs and Ghost Recon Future Soldier is no exception.

Global average FPS: 29.75
1024x600 resolution (600p) so more then 4x fewer pixels than 1080p which most PCs can reasonably manage.

Started reading the rest of your post but since even you mentioned, I've seen it all before. Just thought I would correct that rather stark error.
 
Thanks for an awesome response and well said, you have made some really good points imho.

To relate to the pc game experience, yesterday I got myself GTA 4 on the pc in the following steps:

1) Download 15 gigs via steam.
2) YAY, WTF @ secure rom installing and activating.
3) Launch game and then another online club to join I clicked play offline.
4) ERROR. Vista sp 1 required. OK go look for a fix.
5) Apply fix - set compatibility mode on.
6) Get in and... You need windows live. (I might be wrong here pretty sure you need this to be able to save).
7) OK another DRM after steam and after secure rom already on, Logging in windows live.
8) LOL you need to update, please quite game and restart. No messages whatsoever as to it is finished updating.
9) Launch game again, attempt 3. Get in and log in to windows live... again.
10) Play around with settings.
11) Replay intro as nothing was saved as I was not logged in or updated.

I then thought Jeez I see why people might complain about this procedure and then thought my x360 would have been:

1) Put in and install.
2) Play game.

This topic has been debated and discussed to death, each side unshakable in their faith that their chosen platform is the best platform for gaming, but few take into consideration what is really important
People are different and so are their needs, everyone has their own way or choice in doing things, including gaming.

There are up sides and down sides to both categories of platforms, everyone here knows I play on both categories of platform and there are specific reasons for that.

Let's take a practical example like Ghost Recon Future Soldier, PS3 version vs PC Version
Ps3 Version, takes two minutes to install after inserting the disk (Some Game Data and Trophies etc)
After that the game starts (1080p Resolution and runs at 60 FPS)

PC Version, installs in 10 Minutes, requires me to update my GFX Drivers and has an issue starting up the first time due to Xfire being on.
After this the game launches at max resolution with max detail at my Laptops specified resolution
I spend 10 minutes tweaking graphics to turn off all the stuff that gives me a skull splitting headache and THEN I can start playing

For, me, with only 1 hour to play per day this has eaten away so much of that time that I can't help but feel that the console version is a better solution. This same situation happens quite often and can be much more complex, take BF3 Ps3 vs PC versions and consider what all of has to do to get the PC version installed and running in a stable manner.

SO time and ease of use is a major selling point for consoles.
Yes, LIVE and PSN can't compare to Steam, but when you have physical disk distribution of all the major titles on Steam on the console platform anyway, do you really miss it ? No Steam Updates for one thing, no messages telling you you have to redownload 5GB of Data to play the same game you were playing the night before (Game Cache Issues) etc

Barrier to entry is something else everyone needs to think about, when reading a viewpoint like the one quoted, stating that Consoles are really crap PC's you have to look at what the average home user will be spending to buy something better and keep it upgraded and on standard over 5 years.
The same GFX Card you bought 5 years back for your PC will not run a specific title, the same console you bought 5 years back will run the latest titles and will continue running them for the lifetime of the console system.
Cost of console versus mid range PC, 3k vs 5k +, the console will outlast the PC in terms of longevity every time.

DRM, I can say form personal experience that although the consoles are not as limited by DRM as the PC platform at this stage, they will be in future, LIVE Purchased DLC requiring sign in is just the first steps to making this category of platform eventually conform to the world wide trend of screwing the end user.
That said though, I don't mind signing in once to be able to play ALL my DLC for every title I happen to be loading up, in stark contrast to this are games like Diablo 3, where you can't even play SP without an always on connection

Sometimes it feels that PC Developers and Publishers are purposefully making the playing experience unbearably difficult for PAYING customers.
I recall having to download a Crack EXE for Gears of War one on PC to get my retail version to run on Vista as the retail version had a limitation on it that did not allow installation on 64 Bit Vista at the time, I got so frustrated I went out and bought the game on Console, inserted the disk and played the game
Or a game like Bioshock that had to have a CPU Timer Service installed and run on the first AMD 64 Bit CPU's as the game would not start up unless it could read that both CPU's were running the same timing.
How many end users were faced with this issue and simply did not know how to solve it?
A lot, compared to how many end users could not figure out which side of the disk to load into the tray of their consoles, which was the only issue a user faced when attempting to play the console version of the same title

I therefore think that to debate this topic we need to look not only at which platform offers the best value for money, but also which one offers the easiest, least frustrating experience to end users.
Then factor in all the contributing factors from 3rd party Developers and Publishers and ONLY THEN decide which platform works best for us as individuals.
 
Last edited:
Yes Monk, I meant that to illustrate the point that it would run at whatever resolution the game was designed to run on console
I don't think end users in general can really tell the difference between a game running at 30fps or 90fps on a console, and I don't think any of them actually care, as long as its playable

One thing I did not mention though, was RAGE, Megatexture on Ps3 was broken from the start and I have to admit to the PC version, despite any additional drivers or updates required probably giving players a less nauseating experience
 
I don't think end users in general can really tell the difference between a game running at 30fps or 90fps on a console, and I don't think any of them actually care, as long as its playable
15fps is playable if you're alright with it feeling like a turd. There is definitely a difference between 30fps and 60fps. Sure if ask a regular fool if there is a difference between 30 and 60 he would say there wasn't but then if you actually got him down to play a game running at 30 and then at 60 he would also tell you there is something different but he doesn't not what, it just 'feels' better.
 
15fps is playable if you're alright with it feeling like a turd. There is definitely a difference between 30fps and 60fps. Sure if ask a regular fool if there is a difference between 30 and 60 he would say there wasn't but then if you actually got him down to play a game running at 30 and then at 60 he would also tell you there is something different but he doesn't not what, it just 'feels' better.
15fps... lol , at 20~fps I'd stop as I wouldn't be able to tolerate it... a few games has been spoiled for me by having frequent frame drops below 30fps on consoles.
I still remember "breaking" my X360 with N3, too many models flying around completely freezing up for 10 seconds and then continuing at 1-10fps.

I've got a X360, PS3 and a PC, although I haven't touched the X360 in over a year and a half now.
 
Sorry to break it to you but there are no AAA 3D games that I know of that run with those specs and Ghost Recon Future Soldier is no exception.

Global average FPS: 29.75
1024x600 resolution (600p) so more then 4x fewer pixels than 1080p which most PCs can reasonably manage.

Started reading the rest of your post but since even you mentioned, I've seen it all before. Just thought I would correct that rather stark error.

Wipeout HD on PS3 runs 1080p at 60fps, if my memory serves me correctly. I know it's not exactly a AAA game but it's pretty close.
 
Last edited:
Not sure it's that close to a AAA title, maybe. Yes there are games that do 1080p@60fps but those are mostly either sprite based or have visuals which are really toned down, often found in Arcade/Downloadable titles.
 
Back
Top