Ya i would have to say console is better for gaming, but any real gamer console or not has a pc close by to give his games a lil somethin extra . and as for price thing at the rate these consoles r bein priced u can just as easily get a pc that is more then good enuff for ur gaming needs. people just prefer console now because they can use it more easily without feeling like a dummy. anyway console wins in my book jus for titles.
There's lot's of great titles out for consoles, i'll give you that, and more and more pc games are finding its way onto them as well, but there's one thing that bugs me... A LOT....
Recently microsoft released a game called "Shadowrun"... A Counterstrike wannabe, where pc gamers could game against console players, only little thing: The have made mouse movement slower, for the console user to be able to keep up....
And another thing: Imagine playing a game like WoW on a console... it's just not possible, to have that easy acces to all spell's and stuff, without a keyboard... And yes, you can get a keyboard for a konsole, but dosent that remove the whole purpose for a console??
Well, im rambling on here, så now i'll just go back to play some Crackdown on my Xbox360, and later on this evening, you can find me on my pc in Lotr Online... Man i like the option to choose! :P
Originally posted by Gameloading Originally posted by ladyattis If anyone is old enough to remember the competition between Atari and Commodore, can easily remember what Commodore's selling point was: versitility. On an Atari, you could...play games. On a Commodore, you could play games, program, use the latest spreadsheet software, the latest word processing software, and etc. Anyone here old enough to remember who won? Commodore of course! And it's win led the charge from consoles to PCs as being the household item for not only games, but software too. A console is a cold box, it gives you entertainment, but that's it. You can't code with it. You can't change out the hardware easily with it. You can't upgrade it. You can't use the nearly countless types of software for other activities with it (Can a console do CAD? Hmmmm???). That's why the console will never beat the workstation aka the PC, ever. And you can quote me on it. -- Brede
What are you talking about? The PC platform isn't dead, but the console market certainly stomped the PC market. It definitely is more succesfull in terms of gaming then the PC.
Now ofcourse the amount of units Commodore sold is very impressive. The people who bought the Commodore for gaming probably bought it because the Commodore was capable of showing better graphics. This is no longer the case in todays era. The playstation 3 and Xbox360 can easily compete with the high end computers, and the Wii brings you an experience no PC will be able to give you
Atari Won for the exact same reason Consoles still beat PC's.
1: Its cheaper 2: It has more, and better games.
Consoles are designed for gaming, Gaming is not the main function of any PC, and the evidence lies in front of you, the keyboard. It i clearly not designed with gaming in mind.
You can't upgrade a console because you don't have to. Upgrading is exactly what makes a PC far more expensive for gaming then a console will ever be. I will never find a pc for 600$ that has the features and power of a Playstation 3.
I really like to able to walk into a store, buy a game that plays great and looks great without having to worry if my PC has the graphic card required, If my PC has enough ram and if I'm updated to the latest drivers.
Here's a snippet from the wiki-article about the C64.
Agressive pricing of the C64 is considered to be a major catalyst in the video game crash of 1983. In 1983, Commodore offered a $100 rebate in the United States on the purchase of a C64 upon receipt of any video game console or computer. To take advantage of the $100 rebate, some mail-order dealers and retailers offered a Timex Sinclair 1000 for as little as $10 with purchase of a C64 so the consumer could send the computer to Commodore, collect the rebate, and pocket the difference.[14] Timex Corporation departed the marketplace within a year. The success of the VIC-20 and C64 also contributed significantly to the exit of Texas Instruments and other competitors from the field.
In 1984, Commodore released the Commodore Plus/4. The Plus/4 offered a higher-color display, a better implementation of BASIC (V3.5), and built-in software. However, Commodore committed what was perceived by critics and consumers as a major strategic error by making it incompatible with the C64. The Plus/4 lacked hardware sprite capability and had much poorer sound, thus seriously underperforming in two of the areas that had made the C64 a star.
Now, are you going to say they didn't win in 83/84? Because the last time I remembered, when I got my Tandy PC, it was because of the C64, there were rebates on all other computer/PC-like machines in that day, just to attempt to keep up. Also, raw sales doesn't imply success in my book, the people that made the C64 also made the Amiga (to the other poster as well), so they were very successful in their day. And don't pretend otherwise, cause I got a league of code monkeys in the UK that can prove otherwise.
Originally posted by ladyattis If anyone is old enough to remember the competition between Atari and Commodore, can easily remember what Commodore's selling point was: versitility. On an Atari, you could...play games. On a Commodore, you could play games, program, use the latest spreadsheet software, the latest word processing software, and etc.
Anyone here old enough to remember who won? Commodore of course! And it's win led the charge from consoles to PCs as being the household item for not only games, but software too. A console is a cold box, it gives you entertainment, but that's it. You can't code with it. You can't change out the hardware easily with it. You can't upgrade it. You can't use the nearly countless types of software for other activities with it (Can a console do CAD? Hmmmm???). That's why the console will never beat the workstation aka the PC, ever. And you can quote me on it.
-- Brede
What are you talking about? The PC platform isn't dead, but the console market certainly stomped the PC market. It definitely is more succesfull in terms of gaming then the PC.
Now ofcourse the amount of units Commodore sold is very impressive. The people who bought the Commodore for gaming probably bought it because the Commodore was capable of showing better graphics. This is no longer the case in todays era. The playstation 3 and Xbox360 can easily compete with the high end computers, and the Wii brings you an experience no PC will be able to give you
Atari Won for the exact same reason Consoles still beat PC's.
1: Its cheaper
2: It has more, and better games.
Consoles are designed for gaming, Gaming is not the main function of any PC, and the evidence lies in front of you, the keyboard. It i clearly not designed with gaming in mind.
You can't upgrade a console because you don't have to. Upgrading is exactly what makes a PC far more expensive for gaming then a console will ever be. I will never find a pc for 600$ that has the features and power of a Playstation 3.
I really like to able to walk into a store, buy a game that plays great and looks great without having to worry if my PC has the graphic card required, If my PC has enough ram and if I'm updated to the latest drivers.
Here's a snippet from the wiki-article about the C64.
Agressive pricing of the C64 is considered to be a major catalyst in the video game crash of 1983. In 1983, Commodore offered a $100 rebate in the United States on the purchase of a C64 upon receipt of any video game console or computer. To take advantage of the $100 rebate, some mail-order dealers and retailers offered a Timex Sinclair 1000 for as little as $10 with purchase of a C64 so the consumer could send the computer to Commodore, collect the rebate, and pocket the difference.[14] Timex Corporation departed the marketplace within a year. The success of the VIC-20 and C64 also contributed significantly to the exit of Texas Instruments and other competitors from the field.
In 1984, Commodore released the Commodore Plus/4. The Plus/4 offered a higher-color display, a better implementation of BASIC (V3.5), and built-in software. However, Commodore committed what was perceived by critics and consumers as a major strategic error by making it incompatible with the C64. The Plus/4 lacked hardware sprite capability and had much poorer sound, thus seriously underperforming in two of the areas that had made the C64 a star.
Now, are you going to say they didn't win in 83/84? Because the last time I remembered, when I got my Tandy PC, it was because of the C64, there were rebates on all other computer/PC-like machines in that day, just to attempt to keep up. Also, raw sales doesn't imply success in my book, the people that made the C64 also made the Amiga (to the other poster as well), so they were very successful in their day. And don't pretend otherwise, cause I got a league of code monkeys in the UK that can prove otherwise.
-- Brede
I never said that the Commodore was not the most succesfull home computer, but, as I clearly pointed out above, the Atari 2600 clearly beat the C64 in terms of units sold. And keep in mind that it was Nintendo with the Nintendo Entertainment system that saved the video game genre after the Video game crash of 1983 that lasted for 2 years. Thats right, a console saved video gaming, not a PC.
PC fanatics will always try to tell you otherwise, but the cold fact is that consoles have always been far more important in the gaming world. New consoles have always received a lot more attention from gaming then a new upgrade for a PC.
Comments
There's lot's of great titles out for consoles, i'll give you that, and more and more pc games are finding its way onto them as well, but there's one thing that bugs me... A LOT....
Recently microsoft released a game called "Shadowrun"... A Counterstrike wannabe, where pc gamers could game against console players, only little thing: The have made mouse movement slower, for the console user to be able to keep up....
And another thing: Imagine playing a game like WoW on a console... it's just not possible, to have that easy acces to all spell's and stuff, without a keyboard... And yes, you can get a keyboard for a konsole, but dosent that remove the whole purpose for a console??
Well, im rambling on here, så now i'll just go back to play some Crackdown on my Xbox360, and later on this evening, you can find me on my pc in Lotr Online... Man i like the option to choose! :P
See ya
And I'm sorry, the Commodore won?
According to this page:
http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html
The Commodore 64 sold 17 million units.
Compared to the Atari 2600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600
which sold 40 million units.
Now ofcourse the amount of units Commodore sold is very impressive. The people who bought the Commodore for gaming probably bought it because the Commodore was capable of showing better graphics. This is no longer the case in todays era. The playstation 3 and Xbox360 can easily compete with the high end computers, and the Wii brings you an experience no PC will be able to give you
Atari Won for the exact same reason Consoles still beat PC's.
1: Its cheaper
2: It has more, and better games.
Consoles are designed for gaming, Gaming is not the main function of any PC, and the evidence lies in front of you, the keyboard. It i clearly not designed with gaming in mind.
You can't upgrade a console because you don't have to. Upgrading is exactly what makes a PC far more expensive for gaming then a console will ever be. I will never find a pc for 600$ that has the features and power of a Playstation 3.
I really like to able to walk into a store, buy a game that plays great and looks great without having to worry if my PC has the graphic card required, If my PC has enough ram and if I'm updated to the latest drivers.
Here's a snippet from the wiki-article about the C64.
Agressive pricing of the C64 is considered to be a major catalyst in the video game crash of 1983. In 1983, Commodore offered a $100 rebate in the United States on the purchase of a C64 upon receipt of any video game console or computer. To take advantage of the $100 rebate, some mail-order dealers and retailers offered a Timex Sinclair 1000 for as little as $10 with purchase of a C64 so the consumer could send the computer to Commodore, collect the rebate, and pocket the difference.[14] Timex Corporation departed the marketplace within a year. The success of the VIC-20 and C64 also contributed significantly to the exit of Texas Instruments and other competitors from the field.
In 1984, Commodore released the Commodore Plus/4. The Plus/4 offered a higher-color display, a better implementation of BASIC (V3.5), and built-in software. However, Commodore committed what was perceived by critics and consumers as a major strategic error by making it incompatible with the C64. The Plus/4 lacked hardware sprite capability and had much poorer sound, thus seriously underperforming in two of the areas that had made the C64 a star.
Now, are you going to say they didn't win in 83/84? Because the last time I remembered, when I got my Tandy PC, it was because of the C64, there were rebates on all other computer/PC-like machines in that day, just to attempt to keep up. Also, raw sales doesn't imply success in my book, the people that made the C64 also made the Amiga (to the other poster as well), so they were very successful in their day. And don't pretend otherwise, cause I got a league of code monkeys in the UK that can prove otherwise.
-- Brede
Knock the world right off its feet and straight onto its head.
And I'm sorry, the Commodore won?
According to this page:
http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html
The Commodore 64 sold 17 million units.
Compared to the Atari 2600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600
which sold 40 million units.
Now ofcourse the amount of units Commodore sold is very impressive. The people who bought the Commodore for gaming probably bought it because the Commodore was capable of showing better graphics. This is no longer the case in todays era. The playstation 3 and Xbox360 can easily compete with the high end computers, and the Wii brings you an experience no PC will be able to give you
Atari Won for the exact same reason Consoles still beat PC's.
1: Its cheaper
2: It has more, and better games.
Consoles are designed for gaming, Gaming is not the main function of any PC, and the evidence lies in front of you, the keyboard. It i clearly not designed with gaming in mind.
You can't upgrade a console because you don't have to. Upgrading is exactly what makes a PC far more expensive for gaming then a console will ever be. I will never find a pc for 600$ that has the features and power of a Playstation 3.
I really like to able to walk into a store, buy a game that plays great and looks great without having to worry if my PC has the graphic card required, If my PC has enough ram and if I'm updated to the latest drivers.
Here's a snippet from the wiki-article about the C64.
Agressive pricing of the C64 is considered to be a major catalyst in the video game crash of 1983. In 1983, Commodore offered a $100 rebate in the United States on the purchase of a C64 upon receipt of any video game console or computer. To take advantage of the $100 rebate, some mail-order dealers and retailers offered a Timex Sinclair 1000 for as little as $10 with purchase of a C64 so the consumer could send the computer to Commodore, collect the rebate, and pocket the difference.[14] Timex Corporation departed the marketplace within a year. The success of the VIC-20 and C64 also contributed significantly to the exit of Texas Instruments and other competitors from the field.
In 1984, Commodore released the Commodore Plus/4. The Plus/4 offered a higher-color display, a better implementation of BASIC (V3.5), and built-in software. However, Commodore committed what was perceived by critics and consumers as a major strategic error by making it incompatible with the C64. The Plus/4 lacked hardware sprite capability and had much poorer sound, thus seriously underperforming in two of the areas that had made the C64 a star.
Now, are you going to say they didn't win in 83/84? Because the last time I remembered, when I got my Tandy PC, it was because of the C64, there were rebates on all other computer/PC-like machines in that day, just to attempt to keep up. Also, raw sales doesn't imply success in my book, the people that made the C64 also made the Amiga (to the other poster as well), so they were very successful in their day. And don't pretend otherwise, cause I got a league of code monkeys in the UK that can prove otherwise.
-- Brede
I never said that the Commodore was not the most succesfull home computer, but, as I clearly pointed out above, the Atari 2600 clearly beat the C64 in terms of units sold. And keep in mind that it was Nintendo with the Nintendo Entertainment system that saved the video game genre after the Video game crash of 1983 that lasted for 2 years. Thats right, a console saved video gaming, not a PC.PC fanatics will always try to tell you otherwise, but the cold fact is that consoles have always been far more important in the gaming world. New consoles have always received a lot more attention from gaming then a new upgrade for a PC.