Clearing up some misconceptions of PC vs. Console gaming.

That was because of the cell processor, which was very cheap at the time for its processing power. That isn't important to games as video ram, which the PS 3 only has 256MB of (and the Xbox doesn't have dedicated video ram, it has 512MB of everything ram which it uses primarily for graphics).

And apparently, the asymmetrical cores of the PS 3 cell processor made it very difficult to develop games for(hence why valve software refused initially to develop for it), but other software utilized much more efficiently. I'm not a software engineer so I don't know why or if this is true.

You know, I should have kept my spirited nature and said that. Instead of not saying anything. I figured I was picking enough battles. But I really wanted to say something along those lines.

I kind of figured it was the CPU, in this case. I mean, the lot of Play Station 3 level games only need one core nearing 3 G Hz, you'll want to have around 2.5+. And a decent graphics card, but nVidia usually costs a premium. I don't know of any games released at that time that would be Play Station 3 level, multiplatform, that would cost more than $600 to play. Actually, I don't know ANY video games released for the computer in 2006 that exceeded a $600 price tag to play. No PC game that year, and no Play Station 3 game at all. Of course, games like Crysis would come out that would try such a card even on lower settings. But it doesn't exist on the console. So there's a reason for that.

You might not be able to get a better nVidia card cheaper than with the Play Station 3, but I certainly bet you could with ATI! And there's always computer deals. That claim about the Ge Force 7800 being a whopping $300 alone seems a bit exaggerated. I didn't buy one, but I don't remember the prices being that high. And the Radeon X1600 could have probably handled any game on the market not only then, but in several years to come. Just like the Play Station 3 itself. And quickly came to just a little over $100 in 2006. It plays pretty much any Play Station 3 level game for the PC that I'm aware of.

So if you can get a Play Station 3 game worthy card for just over $100, and a processor with enough power for around $100, you can definitely make a computer that will perform in gaming on the level of the Play Station 3 for under $600.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

There's still that "PC gaming is expensive" mysticism? I'm honestly surprised. But then again it doesn't help that they only see the advertised package deals which are expensive.

Death is a companion. We should cherish Death as we cherish Life.

Including in this very thread complaining about it.

And being blamed of being a PC elitist just for trying to clear it up. Such as right here.

Kind of depressing, really. It's exactly why, in my opinion, threads like this need to exist.

edited 12th Feb '11 9:26:02 AM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

The package deals (i.e. "complete computer in a box") are the standard approach to milking money from suck— erm, customers, as we all must realize. More often than not, they include unnecessary bells and whistles (good luck finding a use for that dedicated firewire connector eating up a PCI slot), unjustified price increases (it's common practice out here in Russia to surcharge for bundled software - yep, the discs that you get for free with whatever hardware is in there) or plain old extortion (like a warranty plan - you don't pay extra, you get no warranty).

Videogames do not make you a worse person... Than you already are.

I built a gaming PC in March of 2006. I just checked the prices I paid from my New Egg invoice history (pretty cool that they keep that). The rig I put together back then was close to $1000 total. I paid $329 for a MSI Ge Force 7900GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR 3 PCI Express x16 and $200 for a 2.2ghz single core Athlon64. A lot can happen in 8 or 9 months in terms of hardware pricing, but I'm pretty sure a 7800GT card was still probably well over $200. I've been building P Cs for about 10 years now and I've generally kept track of the prices of things and I'm telling you there's no way you could've built a PC that was roughly equivalent to a PS 3 in terms of graphics processing power for $600 back then. Maybe you could for around $800 or $900 though, I'm not certain.

I also remember reading estimates about how much the various components of the PS 3 cost at launch. There was a big fuss about just how much money Sony was losing per unit sold back then so there were lots of educated estimates flying around the web (I think iSuppli did a fairly comprehensive parts breakdown). Even the more conservative estimates put the total cost of a PS 3 well over the $500 and $600 launch prices. This was partly due to the initial cost of the Blu-Ray drive, but the Cell and RSX were pretty pricey as well of course. The point is the PS 3 and the 360 were pretty powerful for their price points, and they still are really. Even to this day you'd be hard pressed to assemble a PC that is as graphically powerful as a PS 3 at $300. This is partially due to the Microsoft Tax, having to spend $100 for an OEM copy of Win XP Home doesn't leave you with much room for hardware.

Gaming companies producing consoles at costs greater than suggested market price is pretty typical by now. They're betting on software sales.

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

While this is true, hooking your PC to a TV is more inconvenient due to the fact that it is a computer. Consoles are generally used as purely media devices, while computers are also used for work/social networking/etc., activities which could be pretty uncomfortable in a 42'' widescreen TV. There might be further issues concerning positioning, but those are dependent on you house's layout and your preferences.

: DPI, you ignored DPI :(

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I am truly a terrible person.

That's funny Nonapod, I've heard the exact opposite from many other people.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

So would Minecraft be better on an XBOX 360 and it's ilk?

Troper Page

^I doubt it, for some reason.

It'd probably be an interesting coding experience for Notch/Mojang AB, but it would probably have to lose the Texture Pack feature and upcoming Mod API.

edited 14th Feb '11 8:42:30 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

Anyone here an expert on Java disassembly? Maybe we can find out.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Well, Java does claim to be everywhere, so it could be possible that you could port Minecraft and other Java games to the 360.

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

No, I was thinking of dissassembling it, reverse engineering it, and then porting it to XNA. I don't know of any easy way to run Java on an Xbox360.

Decompiling normal Java is pretty easy, but the problem is that Minecraft has been obfuscated so it can no longer be decompiled.

edited 14th Feb '11 9:21:58 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

TL,DR

"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death itself may die."