Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

And my computer can do actual work along with games.

Sure, you have to upgrade a PC eventually. You also have to replace a console eventually. When done right, upgrading the PC is far, far cheaper. A couple hundred at MOST, compared to six or seven hundred for a brand new console. And how cheap computers are getting is improving every day, what with computer parts getting far cheaper while consoles are getting more expensive. If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

Woah woah, when was a new console $600-$700??

I'm pretty sure the highest the 360 EVER got was $399, and that was right around the time of its release. Not to mention now they are about $200 for one with a HDD.

I personally prefer my console for gaming now, but steam works pretty well too, and I can't play DoW2 on my 360.

Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

Karon wrote:Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

I'll post this again. The NeoGeo sold for like 700 dollars new.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Karon wrote:Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

I'll post this again. The NeoGeo sold for like 700 dollars new.

So maybe Melissia is like 50 years old?

Scratch that. Apparently all these years I've had the NeoGeo confused with something else @.@

I will always be a PC gamer by heart. But one thing a console does for me is exactly what he is saying. Forcing developers to dumb down so I don't have to invest $200-300 every year and half to play there awesome games. Its kinda nice being able to play Battlefield company 2 for $60 and not need to worry about my system requirements and such.

If I could afford a nice gaming system right now I would buy one in a heartbeat and chuck this PoS "Dell on board graphics" laptop into a industrial shredder. But I clearly don't have that option right now with my hunt finding a car.

I remember when Battlefield 1942 came out. It was essentially my first time I was forced to upgrade graphics cards. But tell me a game that's on current consoles that you can control a aircraft carrier, destroyer, submarine. All why other players are moving up midway with tanks, airplanes and other assorted roles? PC to me may be expensive but since its essentially a elite market you will generally get elite games becuase the developers have to put that extra innovation into there games to get the max out. Compared to consoles who spew out a new CoD with some bug fixes and still sells millions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Karon wrote:Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

I'll post this again. The NeoGeo sold for like 700 dollars new.

It debuted $649.99. However it had two controllers and two games with it, Magician Lord and Fatal Fury. So if you take that stuff out it was around $500.00 by normal prices. The silver edition of the Neo Geo was $399.99 and it came with only one controller and no games, so really the Neo Geo was not too overly priced.

Now the PS3 started at $599.00, but it had a Blu-Ray player which was a steal. The 360 was $399.99 and if you wanted to play HD movies you had to spend $199.99 for the HDDVD player, so in other words it was the same price as the PS3 but you had the choice of not buying the HD DVD player. In hindsight it was a probably a better deal for 360 buyers to not get the HD player and save their money for a Blu-Ray player later on.

Meh. Scythican answered for me. Some people here are living' in denial of just how expensive consoles have been and are going to continue to be.at a MERE 250 the wii was considered to have a price advantage. And it only was able to do that because it was using graphics that would have already been close to being outdated on previous system the Gamecube.

People keep saying I'm making gak up, but I would counter that they're living in denial.

The next generation of consoles isn't likely to be any cheaper on release than the current generation was when they were released (in fact, they're likely to be more expensive in my view), and they'll already have outdated graphics and processing capabilities upon release to boot.

And don't forget that console companies love using add-ons to try to extend the life of their products. Usually it doesn't get as ludicrous as the sega super-stack, but still.

I can certainly agree consoles aren't cheap, but come on. They're cheaper than most gaming PC's. The only way to make a gaming PC less or close to less is to order everything two years old, at discount, and put it together yourself, which I'm not really sure is worth the trouble

EDIT: Granted you also get the advantage of better settings and performance generally speaking. People get what they pay for. Consoles are the economic option for gamers who don't want to deal with the cost or trouble of a PC. Can't tell you how many games I've bought that weren't able to run on my computer even though I had the minimum settings (actually I can, 5...)

LordofHats wrote:I can certainly agree consoles aren't cheap, but come on. They're cheaper than most gaming PC's. The only way to make a gaming PC less or close to less is to order everything two years old, at discount, and put it together yourself, which I'm not really sure is worth the trouble

Which has been my point all along. You get what you pay for. PCs are more expensive, but they can look better. If you know what your are doing you can build a superior PC for about the same as a console. I don't know what I am doing. I like to buy a system and have it last for 5+ years with no modifications and have games that continue to get better looking. I can get that with a console, but not with a PC.

I know a PC can look better, but honestly if I didn't have the internet or cable TV and no access to any info on the latest thing, you could give me a NES and tell me it is the best looking gaming platform and I wouldn't know any better. I played Pong when it came out people. As long as the graphics show some improvement, I am pretty cool with the newest thing, even if it isn't the best looking on the market. That's art of the reason why the Wii is so appealing to old people. They played Pac-Man when it came out and pretty much stopped playing games for a couple decades. To them the Wii looks pretty damn good.

Honestly if you have a kid soon, try going without TV and the internet. Blow the dust off of your NES when the kid is 3-4 years old and he will think it is the greatest thing in the world...if he doesn't know any better. Damn, the Nostalgia just kicked in...NES games were a lot funner...

According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

30GB PS3? Do you mean 60 or 40? I've never heard of a 30GB one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

30GB PS3? Do you mean 60 or 40? I've never heard of a 30GB one.

They had a 20GB PS3 and it was $499.00, which was a steal since it had blu-ray still.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

30GB PS3? Do you mean 60 or 40? I've never heard of a 30GB one.

60.

Typing fail!

Don't feed Krimzon, every single one of his posts involve the words; poop, turd, anus, etc. He may be gone soon.

halonachos wrote:Don't feed Krimzon, every single one of his posts involve the words; poop, turd, anus, etc. He may be gone soon.

Should I just hit ignore?


EDIT: And he is out of here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is a chart showing prices for the current systems and their history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)


Strange if I were to buy a console now, the PS3 would finally be a good choice. For $50.00 more you get a Blu-ray player!

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

Who said that? Is that a thing Melissa made up?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

Who said that? Is that a thing Melissa made up?

Not this time.

Karon wrote:A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

Who said that? Is that a thing Melissa made up?

Not this time.

Karon wrote:A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

Thats not "some" then. Thats "karon"!

Yeah, just thought I'd be more general instead of calling someone out specifically...

Since you asked though, I saw no issue in elaborating.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, just thought I'd be more general instead of calling someone out specifically...

Since you asked though, I saw no issue in elaborating.

Implying it's not a specific case can give the impression that its a view shared by a number of people and serves to create a faux target for some to argue against. Just trying to avoid that.

I have never seen a 30GB PS3, I've seen a 20GB, 60GB, 40GB, 80GB, 120GB, and 320GB listed but not a 30GB.

The price for the 60GB was at about $600 when it first came out, and the backwards compatability was worth it to some.

Another quick snippet I found.

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) created a powerful supercomputer by connecting together 1,760 Sony PS3s which include 168 separate graphical processing units and 84 coordinating servers in an parallel array capable of performing 500 trillion floating-point operations per second (500 TFLOPS).[299] The Condor Cluster is the 33rd largest supercomputer in the world and will enable scientists to better identify objects flying in space

Sorry, I just added that part to make my post something more than making fun of Melissia. Didn't actually mean anything by it, lol.

halonachos wrote:Don't feed Krimzon, every single one of his posts involve the words; poop, turd, anus, etc. He may be gone soon.

Who's Krimzon?

Someone whose posts have been deleted.

Don't worry about it, milkdog!

Monster Rain wrote:Someone whose posts have been deleted.

Don't worry about it, milkdog!

Thanks for the info.

Lord Scythican wrote:Honestly if you have a kid soon, try going without TV and the internet. Blow the dust off of your NES when the kid is 3-4 years old and he will think it is the greatest thing in the world...if he doesn't know any better. Damn, the Nostalgia just kicked in...NES games were a lot funner...

Actually I do that with my nephews. The thing is, these older games were so much simpler.

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Honestly if you have a kid soon, try going without TV and the internet. Blow the dust off of your NES when the kid is 3-4 years old and he will think it is the greatest thing in the world...if he doesn't know any better. Damn, the Nostalgia just kicked in...NES games were a lot funner...

Actually I do that with my nephews. The thing is, these older games were so much simpler.

And a lot of the time, simple is better. Not all the time, but it is nice to play a easy to learn game every once in awhile.

Lord Scythican wrote:And a lot of the time, simple is better.

I have to agree with this, to an extent.

Most of these newer games I get now I play through once and trade in. On the other hand, I downloaded Galaga onto my Wii two years ago and will still break it out and play it for hours.