my $1000 dollar laptop is a vast improvement of the consoles. My desktop is just not even in the same category. My graphics card is something like 12-14 times more powerful than the xbox 360 i have and boy does it show.

Some developers like Dice, Id (Carmack, before he got yelled at and retracted it) Crytek and others have pulicly stated that consoles are holding game development back. Skyrim has a lot of obvious limitations imposed by them making it console first. The civil war battles are a complete joke. You get a maximum of 16 or so npcs at a time meanwhile my previous computer which is now 4 years old could play Mount and Blade Warband with over 200 combatants on screen and that was using texture mods as well.

PC sales have been going up like nuts lately because you can get a cheap desktop or a moderately priced laptop and play games and much graphics and use mods etc. And you can do this sitting on you couch in front of your HDTV.

They are, just not as much now. The PS2 will continue to be in production until demand for it completly dies. Originally it was supposed to stop after 10 yrs.

That said, this 10 yr thing seems to be Sony's trend with their consoles(but I donno if the PS3 will outlast its predecessor).

I'm not even slightly surprised at getting a reply like this on such a gamer orientated forum. However I don't believe that the PC market is so far ahead that even the majority of casual gamers (like myself) would switch from their consoles in order to maximise graphics. The console graphics are more than suitable and unless you have a very stubborn eye, the differences between high end PC's and consoles aren't that different. Not like the difference between the PS2 and PS3 anyway.

This is obviously shown in the fact that console developers aren't worried about customers switching to PC's and that PC developers are downgrading their games to appeal to the much larger console market.

That's because most multiplatform games are developed for the lowest common denominator and then ported to the PC. Once new consoles come out we will see more advanced games on consoles and PCs.

We're already in the longest wait between console cycles as it is. The time between the PS2 and Xbox 360 was 5 years. We're already in our sixth year for this generation of consoles, and with current PC developments it's moving a hell of a lot faster than it was years ago.
While I agree that console gaming is in no shape or form "bad", the graphics on my PC (which isn't even that high end to be honest) are literally twice as nice as the Xbox version I've seen.

To be honest, the difference between even a middle-of-the-road gaming PC and current-gen consoles is pretty large. I have an older gaming PC and an Xbox 360 connected to the same TV, and the difference in visual fidelity between the two in games that are able to take advantage of better hardware is qutie noticeable. In fact, when people come to my house that have never seen a gaming PC connected to a TV they pretty consistently emit some kind of a "holy crap!" noise when they see it for the first time...followed by something to the effect of, "I had no idea that PCs could do that..."

That said, for some people it just isn't worth the effort. I think that the capabilities of average hardware will always dictate the design targets for most games, whether that be a console or something else.

Like I said, i'm guarenteed to get responses like this on a mainly PC gaming forum, and to some extent I agree with your points of view. However I still think the point I make, from a marketing perspective is kinda' valid. Sony and Microsoft are in no rush to up their game to meet the market expectancy. It's only a small minority (PC Gamers) that notice uber high-end graphics available, and how short the consoles are at reaching that potential, otherwise the consumers don't really care.

Although I don't agree that a PC of the same price as a PS3 has the same graphical output. I'm sure i'd need to pay at least triple to get the same level of quality.y

You might be surprised. Granted, a halfway decent computer with no gaming hardware in it is going to cost you $300 - $400 (less if you buy one that's a couple of years old and used, more if you buy a "botique" machine), so that puts you over the $250 for a PS3 from the get-go if you want a new computer. Once you're there, though, it doesn't take much to surpass current-gen consoles. Video cards that can match those in current-gen consoles can be had for as low as $40. Video cards that blow current-gen consoles completely out of the water can be had for $70 - $100.

Factor in the fact that a computer can do a whole lot more than a console can as well as the fact that PC games can be found significantly cheaper than console games and I honestly don't think cost is a huge factor. To me the biggest barrier to entry is the effort involved in sourcing and setting up a gaming PC.

Any way, I wasn't trying to argue price or value originally, I was just responding to the sentiment that there's not much of a difference in graphical quality. I would argue that there is a pretty big difference in most cases when comparing a fairly recent gaming PC to a current-gen console.

Oh yeah, I'm by no means trying to argue that a PC isn't the best of the three. I agree that it can match the Ps3 graphically very easily (although I'm not sure it can for under ￡400, but I don't want to argue this) . All I was trying to justify is that the. Companies producing consoles have no reason to want to put out new consoles already due to the fact that they still own, between them, a large majority of the gaming market. The companies play off each other so we won't see one make a big move until a vast imrovement in tech gives it something other than simple graphical enhancements.

Damn iPhone typing made me submit this half done, sorry

It's not only about graphics, though. And just because something is good from a marketing persepctive, doesn't mean it's good for the customers or the industry.

It seems to me that console gamers don't want new consoles because there's this idea that the current consoles will stop being supported and everyone will have to run out and buy the next console, but that is not the case at all. Some of the best PS2/SNES/etc games came out even after the next generation was announced/launched.

But the longer it takes for them to release the successor, the less you'll be able to hang on to your current console after the new one's released. That means less time waiting for price cuts, reviews, and new games before making the plunge.

It's only a small minority (PC Gamers) that care about uber high-end graphics, because some of them seem to think graphics can turn a bad game good. Normal gamers go console because they have the common sense to realise that it does'nt matter how good pixels on a screen look, as long as it plays okay, and that it's unnecessary to drop hundreds on a PC simply to get a fantasy world to like slightly more real. Modders are cool tho, I respect what they do.

Actually, they still are. I saw NBA 2k10 for Ps2 a week ago.

My PC cost less than ￡400, and it far outstrips the PS3 in every respect.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. They'd be "advancing" themselves out of market share for sure.

This is a whole lot of strawman here. No offense, but your sentiments about people that prefer gaming on the PC (most of us, anyway) are waaaaay out of left field. Not only do I like having control over my games and playing at higher detail levels (really, I do), but I like being able to choose control schemes, use mods, etc. There are a million reasons I prefer the PC to consoles that have nothing do to with graphics. Anyway, if graphics don't matter at all then why advance graphics tech ever? PS2 graphics should be fine, right? I think you're underestimating how much people care about how games look even on consoles.

I'm going to ignore the comment about making bad games good...that doesn't even make sense. Oh, and I'm a "normal" gamer, and I have consoles as well. I just prefer having the flexibility that PC gaming give me. Not everyone cares about the things I do enough to put forth the effort beyond buying a console, and that's fine. Why all the aggression, man? Why is it that some people get all bent out of shape when people talk about how newer gaming hardware compares to older gaming hardware...that's essentially what people are talking about when they compare current-gen consoles to current PC gaming hardware. Why take it personally? It's just a discussion of fact.

Why then do they keep whining that they're getting left behind as no new consoles are made?

I own a gaming Pc for a variety of reasons, and graphics is only a minor one. There's stuff like user control and modifications, framerate, stability and, with Bethesda's games, not having to play a buggy piece of crap that won't be fixed.

Looking over this thread I see more people pleased at the fact they won't be buying a new console anytime soon.


That's fair enough, those are good reasons. I have Oblivion/Morrowind on my laptop for your very last reason too. The people I am referring to are the PC'ers who will flame straight to hell anyone who disagrees with their view that spending large ammouts on a PC with the -single- purpose of making games look good is a sensible move. I don't care if they do it, that's up to them, but then they spam YT vids and forums of how 'consoles svck ass, shuda bought a PC, u console [censored], mine only cost ￡800 and it almost looks real.' This was the very reply I recieved on a YT vid some time ago when advising someone on wether to get Oblivion for 360/ps3. -These- are the people with no common sense.

I think the PS3 in terms of this console generation is actually really good, the only two problems that Sony has is Piracy and can't handle large memory games like Skyrim. 360 is the one that I'm worried about but even then Microsoft recovered a bit from their rocky start with all the RROD issues. Although the 360 does have issues with cinematic games like LA Noire that takes up 3 disks in comparasion to one for the PS3, same thing for ME2 instead it's 2 disks for 360 and I think it's one for the PS3.

Obviously both systems fail in comparasion to the PC's but then again PC gaming is getting destroyed slowly over time with it going to digital instead of Physical and ridiculous Online rules like Forced Steamworks just to play a game that you legitimately bought.

Point is if you buy a console $200 and also own a PC say $400, you may as well not get the console buy a $600 PC that can still perform all the stuff it would anyway and also play games at a higher level = win/win.

It's not even just about graphics as improved as the can be. For games like TES modding is a huge resource, they add so much more than flashy realistic graphics.

Loading times is another example of something that can also can be hugely improved.

Also once you have a PC it isn't then difficult to keep it at top performance once the initial outlay has been spent and when you take into acount the money you are saving on games. Here in England PC games tend to be ￡10 cheaper on average, then for every 10 games you are saving ￡100. ￡100 That you can invest back into your PC to keep it updated every few years. You aren't going to buy a new graphics card every year now are you, even if the gap between each is 3 years and going by an average of 10 games a year (entirely possible) that's ￡300 saved to spend on a new GPU or whatever is is you want.

Steam is the biggest negetive, it treats honest customers like criminals. It's the guilty until proven innocent mentality of the DRM I hate

10 years lifespan doesn't mean they can't release a PS4 in 2-3 years. If they don't and MS releases xbox720 (or whatever) then they will fall behind, a lot.

PS3 is already stuggling with games made for specifically it, such as Dark Souls.. They can't keep up the race without a new console. That's fact.