Unread postby Wittgen » December 20th, 2011, 1:32 am
My point had nothing to do with cost. Or convenience. Arg's original comment was that he was was a console gamer because he didn't like having to upgrade. But that was a pretty silly statement. Oblivion came out five years ago. Console life cycles sat at around five years for quite a while. This new one is looking to last a little longer, but still. No matter how you game, you're going to have to upgrade hardware at some point to play new games. (well, new games that push graphics.)
For price, you can build a pretty damn great gaming desktop for the money you'd pay if you got a PS3 at launch. If you get a PS3 now, though, you're proably buying more graphical power than you can get from a PC.
It is, in many ways, more convenient to be a console gamer. But that convenience has nothing to do with how often you have to replace your hardware. It's all about plug and play. You pop the disk in your system and play, guranteed. No fiddling with drivers, consulting forums, and praying that you can get the game to work on your particular machine, something that can happen with PC games (though things can also go smooth on PC).
PCs do win convenience wise in terms of buying games though. Hooray for steam.
Arg, your point about PCs being more prone to breaking is baffling to me. I knew responsible, careful people who went through PS2s like tissue paper because damn that system was fragile. And have we forgotten the red ring of death phenomenon already? I owned a laptop that worked great for over five years without any need for repairs or more than basic, commonsense prevetative care software side. On the other hand, I could dust off my N64 and I am sure it would still work. Really, I think durability is a bit of a wash between the two.
Really, at the end of the day, both consoles and PCs are great for gaming. There are pros and cons and mostly importantly, exclusive titles on both sides. So why bash either side?