its only epic win because they copy ideas off xerox, netscape and many more.

I cannot believe i come on here and see you fucking idiots arguing that PCs are better than console and that Microsoft is win/fail

Thrawn especially, shut the fuck up. Just don't fucking speak ever again. I really wish i could enforce that on you.

Everyone knows there are positives/negatives to consoles and PCs, they are made for different purposes. Don't compare them, and you look like a fucking retard when you talk about how "PCS ARE SO WIN, SO COOL. ETC ETC."

Goddammit when i see people acting like this after all the years of proof that both PCs and Consoles are viable platforms, and that Microsoft and Apple, etc, have all achieved great things, whether you like it or not, it makes me cry a little for your ignorance and patheticism.

If you cant see that consoles are reaching places that the PC will never ever reach, for various reasons, you are blind as ur father must have been to fuck your dumb fucking whore of a mother.

Microsoft is massive win in really pushing the envelope at E3 this year. This completely blows everything from last year out of the water. I CANNOT WAIT to see what Sony and Nintendo come up.

On an off note, Windows 7 is shaping up really well, this could be a win year for M$ all around.

http://e3.gamespot.com/press-conference/microsoft-e3/?tag=topslot;img;1

Please don't post predetermined discrimination on the board, your only perpetuating ignorance.

Everyone should be happy to see a company, no matter which one, innovating. If you can watch that video I just posted in entirety and not be severely impressed by at least 2 things, I'd say either you're braindead, or from the future.

Thanks,

- Unbiased

i lol'd.

i LOL'd

just the next step from the wii in my book.   Can't have the wii and PS3 hogging all the motion sensing.

You shouldn't, he is right (mostly), although the language is a bit harsh

PCs will reach everything a console can eventually, but since consoles are made just for gaming (and soon home cinema too probably) they will be able to do what PCs can't. It's a case of specialization. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

yes they added facebook, twitter, last fm(i was hoping it would have been pandora before they named last fm), and group voice chat. how will pc ever.... omg i cant stop from laughing

i do believe all of these thing are already on pc if i am not mistaken

project natal is the only thing of interest and every second of it was scripted to be absolutly flawless and give the best impression possible

CommanderAdama, despite the fact that I agree that consoles do indeed have a future, your patronizing attitude, insult slinging, and general flaming render your posts utterly useless for the purposes of persuasion. Please try using the forums in a way that doesn't belittle other users while portraying yourself as the epitome of internet idiocy.

Also, someone quoted me and argued that I was Microsoft bashing, and that the peripheral had huge possibilities. To clarify, I believe the 360 is an excellent system (GoW is one of my personal favorite shooters), but I doubt the company will recieve much support for the motion sensor other than games which, like the majority of those on the Wii, are irritatingly gimmicky. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I think that Microsoft is wasting their time.

here is something straight from wikipedia:

The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a machine designed for consumers to buy and use solely for playing video games from a personal computer, which has many other functions, or arcade machines, which are designed for businesses that buy and then charge others to play.

In common usage a "console" is a specialized electronic device that connects to a standard television set or composite video monitor.

Console/Core Unit: The core unit in a video game console is the hub where the television, video game controllers, and game program connect. It usually contains a CPU, RAM, and an audiovisual coprocessor. Core units are similar to towers of personal computers.

i dont know about you, but a console seems to be a computer, therefore it is limited to what PC's can do.

Honestly, consoles are limited about what they can do against PCs, but when it comes to gaming they blow PCs in quality/price relation. Get a PC with the same specs of a XBox360 and try to play Fallout 3 with it, it won't even run (or it will run with the lowests of the lowests settings). You get a console, you play 200-500$ once and you can play the latests games for years without having to put a ton of money on a PC or upgrade continously. That's the advantage of consoles for gaming against PCs.

Because at best you're running the console version at 1280x720 (unless Xbox360 does Fallout3 at 1080p, which I doubt), and even my monitor is higher-res than that.

As for the Microsoft motion sensing thing, I predict that by E3 2010 there will be fewer than five third-party games that take advantage of it.

Odd conclusion. You don't seem to know how computer hardware works.

A PC is a 'form' of using computing hardware. For many years to come the capabilities of hardware is what limits you. A console is also a form of using hardware. That doesn't necessarily mean the same hardware that the PC uses. You must know the Cell processor the PS3 uses. It is not available in consumer PCs. So does that mean the Cell cpu can only do what Intel and AMD can do? No. It has different capabilities. Therefor, it will excel in certain applications in which the PC will only do average, and visa versa.

In no way does it mean that consoles can only be as good as PCs. That would be an odd conclusion. Usually the console performs better at gaming because it's made exclusively for that purpose. It doesn't need to share resources with the OS for instance. For this reason a console with certain pieces of hardware will in reality always perform better than a PC when playing games. But, a console will never be good at multitasking and performing 'work tasks' which the PC is good at. It all depends what you use it for. So in that regard you cannot say that the PC is better than a console or the other way around. It all depends on what you want to do. And on top of that, it depends on how the programmers make the games. A console port often runs like shit on a PC. Does that mean the PC is shit for gaming? No.

Consoles are a lot cheaper than PCs for the same amount of eye candy. Downside is you can only use it for games and multimedia. You cannot perform other tasks on it.

Try running Fallout 3 with a PC with the same hardware as the XBox360. You won't get the same graphics even at 1280x720.

The success of Project Natal will be very dependent on the games released for it. If the SDK is crap, or they can't get any developers then this item will not make it (obviously). Then there's the fact that their target demographic likely already owns a Wii...

It's a nice piece of technology, but I think it's a bit too late in the game to be successful... now, for the next generation of consoles, this is something to keep in mind.

A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a set of instructions.

as far as i am concerned a console manipulates data aswell, call it ignorance if you will.

i must say i do agree with you on this point.

looking at it from a cost point of view. your console may be cheeper as a original investment, but add in a few games (which you will have to buy to make any use of the console) going at around $100 a game (in my country anyway) and so if you buy 10 games you just spent the same as i spent on my computer which just happens to be a fair whack more powerful that what i last checked a xbox 360 could do. also when it comes time for an upgrade in hardware i pay a few hundred and put in a new piece of hardware. i then have complete backwards compatability with everything i had before. now when it comes time for an upgrade for you godly consoles you have to buy an entirley new console which may or may not be compatable with your old games. also you now have 2 consoles and 1 is completley superflous. if i upgrade my video card i can keep my old one and have it sitting there as a physics processor if i so wish. 

using price to say why consoles are better is a stupid way of looking at it. pcs may have a higher initial investiment but they can do much much more for that initial investment. and can do it without much further investment. consoles have to keep geting money thrown at them from the get go. and dont even start me on the whole "red ring of death" crap

If you want to game with your PC you have to buy games too. And don't start about pirating games, that is not an argument. You can also pirate games for the xbox, so you can take them all out of the equation. What remains is hardware. You still need a tv to go with the console, but since most people use that for movies also you can 'split the cost' of the tv itself. Sure, 10 games buys you a PC. Why don't you look at your own argument from both sides. 5 PC games buys you a console.

Yes, your PC is more powerful in terms of 'the numbers', but comparing imagery to imagery you get a whole lot more out of a console with performance number X than on a PC with performance number X. Fact is you can't buy a PC that gets you that kind of image quality for the money that a console costs. They do tend to sell the consoles for less than they cost but that's hardly the point from a consumers point of view. But the downside ofcourse is that that's about all you can do with a console.

Then you say you upgrade your PC for a few hundred dollars. That is also what an entirely new console costs, and then you get a whole new generation of console. Sure, a new high end one costs about 400$, but then again if you want the same performance on a PC you will likely spend more than 400$ (motherboard, cpu, ram, gpu). You can also sell your old console if you wish, to lessen the cost of the new one, or just keep it if you want to keep playing the old games.

Also, I don't know what you mean with "keep throwing money at them [consoles]". What money? You buy one and you can play as long as you want. I bet my old SNES still works if I could find it. Sure, if you want to play a new game you have to spend money, but how is that different from a PC?

I don't get the whole flame war thing. If you want to play games cheap and sit on your comfy couch to play games, get a console. If you want to have good graphics and also use the computer for other tasks, spend that bit of money more and get a PC. Everybody is happy. Why flame other people that prefer the other machine?

I use a PC only myself, I really don't have the time or wish to get a console, but why would I disapprove of others doing that?

The reason why I flame the 360 is because it is a POS quality wise(It's gotten better, but it took them years to do it and, well, the damage has already been done to its rep).  MS cheaped out on its manufacturing to beat Sony to the market. (Which was pointless, since the PS3 was delayed)  More ironic is the fact the Wii is beating both of them.  If MS's next console is plagued by the 360's problems, then I will write them off as a decent console maker.  I'm very close to writing Sony off as well, since the PS3's title base is annoyingly thin.  So, I'm left with my trusty PS2 and PC for gaming.

It also doesn't help that because both consoles are internet capable, their games are starting to suffer from the PC game's 'release now, patch later' problems.  Great fun, that.

I also don't like this new tactic of exclusive DLC for cross platform titles.  If you're going to do that, keep the freaking title exclusive as well!  MS/Bethesda/Rockstar I'm gazing at you!  Most likely Sony will start this crap as well.  Way to split the community.

/ pardon the rant

Last time I checked games costed money on PC too. So that argument is fail argument. And as twifightDG said, a couple of hundreds dollar upgrade is a new console. But we can make a test: pick a 500$ PC released in 2005 and let's see how well it will run Crysis 2 when it's released. No matter how much money you throwed at a PC in 2005, you are going to have to get a new one to play that game (or over the years you would have spent a lot of money to replace the whole PC, because 5-6 years is like a whole new world for a PC).

And don't even start on the "install, patches, update drivers, compatibilities issues" and all that crap that plagues PC gaming. And that's also important for developers: a console while limited, is easier to develop because is one set of unified hardware, not a full range of every weird and strange combination you can think of.

I love playing some games in my PC, but sadly consoles beat it in a lot of places.

Well I completely agree with these two points. Patches seem to be the excuse for not QA testing your product, and just slam the game out the door as quickly as possible to make a buck. The paying customer is the losing party here.

Also DLC annoys me. They are ofcourse hoping you buy a Wii/X360/PS3 so you can play their exclusive content, but I think a lot of gamers end up buying nothing. Which is a lose/lose situation. Also DLC tends to become the carrot on a stick for a lot of games.. "well we couldn't put the feature we promised in the retail game, but pay another $20 later this year and you can use it"

Now i can understand a xbox vs ps vs wii or a windows vs osx vs linux debate, but a computer vs console.

They are two totally different hardware platforms made for different purposes in life.

A console will always out perform a computer in game playing because it is made to do so. They will have the most games, faster graphics (for chip type) and arguably the better gaming experience.

A computer will always be more flexible than a console. Hardware upgrades, applications, productivity. Its a really handy tool, which can play games.

You guys are just banging your head up against the wall with an argument which has been going on for the last 20 years and no doubt for years to come.

Umm, thats about the lifespan of a console these days too, especially since they just started taking PC hardware and dropping it into consoles.

Only difference is you CAN upgrade a PC, whereas you have to buy a whole new console.  And controllers.  And new guitar hero guitar.  etc.

To me anything M$ is a failure... the only exception is probably msn messenger, cause there isn't any better software probably xp

you know what sucks with every console? i can't plug in my logitech g5 laser mouse

am i supposed to play a shooter with a controller? never ever!

Lol I think the 360 has a USb plug in? but there isn't a OS to take software that is probably why you still have to use controller, what is wrong with controller? Pecfect Dark is fine with controller and fine with other shooters that is out there...

To be honest, I think they should re-start making GH3 for pc, I finally have the pc and money to get it, and guess what, no stores even have it..!!!!Though I don't mind the new one, kinda reminds of rock band... but with GH on it

this is BOUND TO FAIL. voice recognition has been around for 20 years and it still sucks. facial recognition is still basic and has FEW uses. and as for the body capture its just the sony eye toy just slightly upgraded. i can't see any real games making any use of these device what so ever.

the wii aimed at casual gamers, people who don't need an xbox or playstation. the wii hardware isn't perfect but i bet its still going to work miles better than ms attempt