CONSOLE WARS!!!

[Amnesiasoft]

My favorite console ever would have to be the SNES

well yeah the Genesis was pretty much the golden era of gaming.

Fixed.

[e946]

My favorite console ever would have to be the SNES

well yeah the Genesis was pretty much the golden era of gaming.

Fixed.

The Genesis WAS around during the awesomeness that was the SNES, so that statement is correct.

[Amnesiasoft]

My favorite console ever would have to be the SNES

well yeah the Genesis was pretty much the golden era of gaming.

Fixed.

The Genesis WAS around during the awesomeness that was the SNES, so that statement is correct.

But it came first

[bigglesworth]

If so, which era are we in now? Silver? Bronze? Iron?

Was the Playstation silver? The PS2 Bronze? The 360 Iron?

[Maseiken]

No.

[Xbehave]

the Wii is new, innovative and fun, but they're aren't many games
the ps3 is a hardware god (on some tasks it offers overs the best pound/processing power ratio around) but the games are just more of the same
the xbox 360 has the best games sales, but most of them are just PC games (or the same as PC games)

nintendo will win some market share back, but they have nowhere to go after the WII, at most i can see a tweaked wii (improved wiimote, headphones in it for FPS, inbuilt cameras, xbox live lever multiplayer)
ps3 will lose some (although tbf if they marketed the linux angle abit more, they could really make a killing, i mean they have a TIVO box, a basic home pc and a games console in 1)
Microsoft will gain some market share as some gamers are lazy (xbox live is no steam + internet, but its easier to buy an xbox 360 than to build a system of equivalent spec) although i do think they are hurting vista (which only becomes better than XP on powerful pcs) adoption in doing so.

so it really depends how you fight the war!

[Maseiken]

I'm not sure about having "Nowhere to go" after the Wii.

You could just as easily have said they had Nopwhere to go after the GC.

[JayDee]

nintendo will win some market share back, but they have nowhere to go after the WII, at most i can see a tweaked wii (improved wiimote, headphones in it for FPS, inbuilt cameras, xbox live lever multiplayer)

Really? I must have missed the part where the Wii and DS stopped being licenses to print money.

[OOPMan]

Just try it, find a friend who has it and try it, will that kill you? It's not gimmicky dangit!

I have tried it. It is gimmicky. Just like the DS.

You obviously haven't played Panzer Tactics DS, or you'd know that a statement like that is old bollocks.

[Endless Mike]

Just because the DS has lots of available features doesn't mean they're all used in every game. The touch screen is most common, but not all games make extensive use of it. Once it got past its initial learning curve, lots and lots of great games have come out.

[Midnight]

I'm so sick of that "but..."

What? Are you scared some frat boy's going to come over to your house and mock your Genitalia?! Because, frankly, let's face it, fear of the Wii is a guy thing, you think it's "Kiddy" and there's no tuff games on it. First off
Metroid Prime 3,
Far Cry,
Metal Slug.

If these games are not "Tuff", nothing is.

the problem with that is metroid prime 3 isn't exactly super-hardcore. it's in space. there's no blood. a solid half of it is a puzzle game.

far cry sucked, so it can't be on anyone's list..

according to "metal slug (series)" on wikipedia, the only metal slug game that's been released is an anthology, of games that started out released on other consoles.

RE4 was also a port of the GC version--but nobody called GC kiddy so you can't pull that into play.





...i'm ok with the wii, though. one of my friends is selling his 360 to me for <250 though, so in the end that's a much better deal.

[Xbehave]

Really? I must have missed the part where the Wii and DS stopped being licenses to print money.

the ds is different, its a handheld they can just keep making it lighter, faster, thiner, until they have theyre next big idea (maybe wiimote stuff in it)
but when the next gen comes, xbox and ps can do just improve they're graphics, but nobody will be impressed by a wii with better graphics.

[Maseiken]

*coff" Right, because if all three companies don't release Ultimate super-funky-tastic-new-wave-techno-neaxt-gen-evolution-Play-mo-boxes at the same time they'll implode.


Nintendo need neither Improve on the Wii, nor coincide new releases with any other company.


Also, again, you could have said the same thing about the GC.

[Jakarias]

The figures speak volumes. Over half of all gaming hardware sales (I don't think this includes PC by the way) are Nintendo products. People like this stuff!

Y'know it makes sense doesn't it? They've spent years innovating controllers and games and gameplay in the industry and it is quite surprising that something like the Wii/DS didn't come along sooner! I mean it's great marketing sense. Keep the price down, appeal to established fans and at the same time reel in those casual gamers and those who don't even consider themselves to like videogames usually.

As for Nintendo having nowhere else to go? Look at the competition for Christ's sake! Sony's only direction seems to be stepping up the specs and upping the price. At this rate, Sony will price many people out and their only other option is to do what they always do and rip off Nintendo ideas.

Microsoft has potential because of it 'winning' the online gaming market over and everything but again, the differences between Xbox and Xbox 360 are like the differences between two adjacent monkeys on those homo sapien diagrams. It'll keep getting better but nothing will make you jump out of your skin.

To say that Nintendo has run out of ideas and direction is just unfounded. They have continually lead the way in terms of innovation and show no signs of slowing down.

I reckon that the Wii could hold its own against the PS4 if it wanted to but that IS exaggerating a bit on my part.

[Xbehave]

Sure the wii would be able to hold its own but marketers would label it old unless they keep up with releases. Although they currently write it off as not having good spec and its still doing great! plus with the next gen release MS and Sony will get as close to Wii without actually copying it.
the Wii is not like the GC or N64 it sells itself on being original and fun, but you can only be original for so long. you can mention the GC as much as you want but the same could be said for the n64 when nintendo were a big player, but then got thier asses handed to them in the next gen. they had 4 players on the GC (which is one reason the N64 was the console to play with your mates) but then MS copied the controller and the 4 players and nintendo stoped being a big player (it was always ps2 vs xbox nobody even mentioned GC)

"The figures speak volumes." the same could be claimed for xbox360 which is selling more games suggesting that wiis are getting bought but being left in the corner while xbox360s are being played more!

i have to give the xbox360 something this one stands up right and crashes while playing games meaning that its getting closer to a windows box all the time!

[lorenith]

but when the next gen comes, xbox and ps can do just improve they're graphics

Yeah, because better graphics make the game.

I think the idea behind better graphics every gen has pretty much run it's course. Sure they can be pushed farther I guess, but it's getting to the point where one won't be able to tell anyway.

I can't realistically vote on the current generation, but I think if I could buy two consoles it'd be a Nintendo first, because it has enough games that interest me, and then a PS3, cause eventually I think it'll have some games that are fun, even if they don't tend to spark any feelings of excitement for me.


That said, I love my DS, and wish I could buy more of the games for it, like elite beat agents and phoenix wright...and various other games that are hard to find, and remember the names of.

[fjafjan]

I say only this.

Wii shall be victorious!

[Endless Mike]

(it was always ps2 vs xbox nobody even mentioned GC)

I always saw it at GC vs XBox for #2 since EVERYONE had a PS2 and it was pretty clearly the winner of that generation years before it was over. Hell, it's still outselling the PS3. The XBox offered improved cross-platform games when compared to the PS2, but was about even with the GC in that regard, but got more of them. They both had some great exclusives (some of the best of last generation in my opinion), but neither had any sort of backwards compatibility (unless you count the GB Player for the Cube) or DVD capabilities out of the box, which was still a big deal around that time. Anyway, Nintendo can always improve graphics and add more features to whatever their next console may be. They certainly have a ways to go to catch up in the graphics arena, and Sony is claiming a 10 year cycle on the PS3.

[Vanguard]

Used GC's are 30$ here. Lawl.

[MFHodge]

I own a Wii (got December 2006) and a PS3 (got November 2007). I considered an Xbox 360 both times. Here are the reasons that I chose PS3 over 360. (I know both systems have mutliple SKUs, but I'll compare the Xbox 360 Pro, which I consider to be the best deal, and the 40GB PS3, which I bought).

The 360 costs $350 and the PS3 costs $400. For the additional $50, I get:

• A Blu-ray player (MS charges $180 for the HDDVD add-on)
• Built-in wireless (MS charges $100, generics for $50?)
• Free on-line play (MS charges $50/year)
• Double the harddrive (40 GB vs. 20 GB)

Counterpoints:

• Xbox Live is much better than PSN. I generally prefer single-player - just a personal preference.
• Xbox has more good games. There are lots of Xbox-only games that I really want to play. BUT there are already more than enough PS3-only and multi-platform games to fill my time.
• The 40GB model has no PS2 compatibility. I struggled with this, but my PS2 is still fine and I really don't think I'll miss this feature. I've never put a GC disc into the Wii. I've never played a PS1 game in my PS2.

Other factors:

• The failure rate of Xbox 360 hardware. I know they'll replace it free, but I would rather not deal with it.
• Because of the Core/Arcade models, MS insists that all games be playable without a harddrive. I believe they are allowing some exceptions, but this rule is still in place. I think this limits developers significantly.
• I think the size limitation of DVD will hamper Xbox 360 in the next few years. Blu-rays hold more than 5 times as much data. I'm not sure, but I'll bet a lot of the 360 games use 100% of the available space on the DVD. If nothing else, the same data can exist on the PS3 with less compression.

I think the 360 is a great gaming platform and if I played tons of games, I probably would have gone with that, but for me, PS3 was the clear choice.

[Endless Mike]

Your thoughts are mostly valid. The key that you're missing is that there's nothing stopping developers from making multi-DVD 360 games that I know of (please correct me if there is). Sure, it's ideal to fit everything on one if possible, but the manufacturing cost of two or three DVDs over one is negligable (even consumer-priced blanks cost next to nothing). The only time I can really see it being an issue is for things like GTA where you want a seamless city. The limitation of CD space never stopped anyone from releasing four disc games back when the PS1 was still relevant. It's annoying, yeah, but it's not much of a hindrance. The inability to use the hard drive is a MUCH bigger limitation, but it mostly boils down to increased loading times and screens (blah Mass Effect, or as I like to call it: Mass Elevator).

Also don't forget that despite your additional $50 you DON'T get any HD cables (although I'm aware that HDMI cables are cheap on the internet). 360 Pros come with component plus an HDMI port, and Elites come with both component and HDMI cables.

Personally, though, I couldn't get a PS3 without backwards compatibility. I don't trust PS2 build quality enough to last, plus you get texture smoothing and other such nice things. I'm vaguely kicking myself for not getting a 60 GB model while they were still available. Which brings up another point: all the PS3 models are really, really confusing for consumers, although that's not quite as big a deal now that they're down to two. The 360 ones (while somewhat confusing), are at least mostly delineated in their capabilities.

[MFHodge]

Yes, I totally agree with most of what you said. I actually meant to mention the included cables.

Regarding multi-disc games: it depends on the type of game. For something fairly linear, disc switching is no big deal. You finish the first disc and move onto the next. The one that made me cringe at the format was when I was playing Tiger Woods on GC. Both discs had the whole front end, so I would turn the system on and select a tournemant or a challenge or whatever and then it would tell me I had to switch the discs. There wasn't even a way to just cancel and pick something else. I know that example is mostly just bad design, but it's the type of problem that can occur with multi-disc games.

If MS offered bigger hard drives for reasonable prices (or even twice reasonable prices ) then games could have an install disc and a play disc. Instead, the vast majority of 360 owners have a 20 GB HDD, which is fine for XBLA and game saves, but not enough for multi-GB installs. I think the Xbox 360 would benefit greatly from a huge price drop on the $180(!) 120GB harddrive. The PS3 can take any standard drive (and they don't even try to hide this feature - instructions to swap are in the manual). I appreciate that.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens next with hardware. I think that the next major console release will be a Wii HD. I expect it will be similar to Gameboy Color in that it is pretty much the same hardware and they will be 100% compatible with each other.[code][/code]

[Endless Mike]

Yeah, there's no doubt MS overprices the accessories, which was one reason I opted for the Elite (at its launch). I also wanted HDMI, which wasn't available on the Pro at the time. I'm actually down to something like 62 GB left on it! But yeah, I'm definitely in the "drop no-HDD support" camp if for NO other reason than to stream off the HDD rather than the DVD.

[Anasazi]

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ps3%2Cxb ... all&sort=0
i bet ps3 only beat 360 because people searched "ps3 sucks"

[MFHodge]

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ps3%2Cxbox360%2Cwii&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
i bet ps3 only beat 360 because people searched "ps3 sucks"

Why would anyone search "ps3 sucks"?

I would expect it has more to do with the fact that your comparison is for "xbox360" as one term and not "xbox 360" as two terms. My quick test shows currently:

• xbox360 = 34.8M hits
• xbox 360 = 172M hits

[e946]

"xbox 360" with quotes=197m results.

[Xbehave]

"xbox 360" 174m
xbox 360 172m
wtf surely every page that has "xbox 360" has xbox and 360
xbox 338m
xbox -360 11.2m
that means that there are (338m - 11.2m) 326.8m that contain xbox 360

found this link thats quite relevant http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6989 ... artyr2.jpg

[Endless Mike]

found this link thats quite relevant http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6989 ... artyr2.jpg

I barely like FPS or RTS and don't like spending hours installing, patching, and tweaking settings, but I like *video games*. So no, it is not relevant. Seriously, Civilization 4 is the last PC game I bought since nothing has really interested me. I'll get Spore when that comes out, though.

[Xbehave]

found this link thats quite relevant http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6989 ... artyr2.jpg

I barely like FPS or RTS and don't like spending hours installing, patching, and tweaking settings, but I like *video games*. So no, it is not relevant. Seriously, Civilization 4 is the last PC game I bought since nothing has really interested me. I'll get Spore when that comes out, though.

riiight,
1) you don't need to patch or tweak games to play them
2) an install doesn't take hours
3) PCs cover all game genres
4) PCs have the internet for multilayer it beats any console for online play
5) theres a software backwards compatibilty mode for most games (stupid vista broke this point tho)

hell even ignoring the fact the link is saying PCs are the best the rest of the image is relevant
Seriously, the last console game that really interested me was halo (1)!

[zenten]

Comparing the Wii to the other two consoles is problematic, as it's not targeting the same market. The Wii does play games, sure, but it also is the first successful web TV box, and it has a really good emulator built in that lets you download all sorts of older gaming content. Sony or Microsoft (or someone else) could get every single sale from the traditional console market, and still be hugely outclassed in sales by Nintendo, just because the Wii has created it's own different market that just happens to overlap a bit with the console market.

It's almost like comparing the market for Macs with the PS 3, it just doesn't make sense for the most part, even though both can play games.

Seriously, the last console game that really interested me was halo (1)!

But Halo 1 was way better on the PC anyway.

[Endless Mike]

found this link thats quite relevant http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6989 ... artyr2.jpg

I barely like FPS or RTS and don't like spending hours installing, patching, and tweaking settings, but I like *video games*. So no, it is not relevant. Seriously, Civilization 4 is the last PC game I bought since nothing has really interested me. I'll get Spore when that comes out, though.

riiight,
1) you don't need to patch or tweak games to play them
2) an install doesn't take hours
3) PCs cover all game genres
4) PCs have the internet for multilayer it beats any console for online play
5) theres a software backwards compatibilty mode for most games (stupid vista broke this point tho)

hell even ignoring the fact the link is saying PCs are the best the rest of the image is relevant
1 & 2)Seriously, the last console game that really interested me was halo (1)!

I got Civ 4 the day it was released. I brought it home, stuck in the DVD, waited 10 or so minutes for it to install, and started it. The startup screen was corrupted, and it wouldn't start a game. At all. Searching a handful of forums and the Firaxis site finally brought me to the fact that the game somehow managed to make it through QA without anyone noticing that the end user has to manually unpack a set of files if they're using an ATI video card (which I was). Okay, so I did so, started it up again, and it worked! Good. Problem is, I shouldn't have had to have done this. If I had some horribly obscure piece of hardware I could at least understand it, but this was an issue with every single card made by one of the TWO major video card manufacturers. There is no excuse for this, and I've just spent a half hour or more getting a game just to even play. So now, I start a game. Ideally, it should set the graphical setting optimal for your system, but who doesn't play around with them? Anyway, once I got to the point where I knew all the other civs and had a good portion of the map shown (maybe an hour or two of gameplay), it would crash every two or three turns. Again, how does this get past QA? Finally, a few patches later, I can play it without this happening. I'm not saying console games are lacking bugs, but I can be assured of two things when I place a 360 game disc in my 360 (ignoring hardware problems): it will run, and it will very rarely, if ever, crash (I can't think of it happening any times for me).
3) Of the top 20 games on Metacritic, 7 are FPS, 4 are western RPGs, 3 are RTS, 2 are Civilization, 2 are Grand Theft Auto, 1 is point and click adventure, and 1 is baseball (what?). Of those, 12 are available on some console (albeit not always a great port *cough*Command & Conquer). Expanding that to the full list of games (since Top 20 is pretty limited when "PC" as a platform goes back 30 years), I see more FPSes, more RTSes, some more point and click adventures, some more western RPGs, a flight sim or two, a Civ clone or two and similar 4X games, an occasional sports game (which I rarely play on console, either), some turn-based strategy, some racing games, a couple console ports, a space sim or two (which consoles are severly lacking in, admittedly, but so are PCs in the past several years), a couple MMOs (no), The Sims (also no), and some other Sim games (yeah, okay, I like these, too) above 80%. So...where are the platformers (excluding Prince of Persia, which again, I can and have played on console)? Where are the rhythm games (GH3 just came out, and there's some clones of it and DDR, oh boy)? Where are the Japanese RPGs (which I like much more than western ones)? Where are the 2D shooters? Where are the straight up action games? Where are the quirky things like Katamari Damacy? Where are the fighters (that aren't emulated)? Where are the party games? They're not being made because people don't buy them on PC (especially things that thrive on offline multiplayer). Theoretically, you could have all of these, sure, but no one's making them since there's little demand.
4) Arguable. I turn on Xbox Live and I have universal voice chat, text messaging, notifications when friends join no matter what I'm playing, a simple invitation system, and parity in hardware (hard drives are irrelevant since they don't affect gameplay). But yeah, it costs me money, so I'll concede on that point. Voice chat exists on PC, sure, but through outside programs. Text chat is in every game, but limited to that specific game, unless you're using outside messengers, and that presents other issues. Friend notifications exist, but only in Games for Windows Live which is a port of Xbox Live, or through Steam, provided it's a Steam game, or through outside messengers, but if someone's on XBL, it's a good bet they're playing a game, unlike, say AIM. An average online PC gamer is probably less obnoxious than an average Halo 3 pubbie (I guess, I haven't actually played it), but you get to the point where it's irrelevant by playing with people you know.
5) Okay, I'll mostly concede this. All three current generation consoles have at least partial backwards compatibility going back one generation. 360 has a bit over 70% compatibility, Wii has full GameCube compatibility, and PS3 varies from nearing 100% going back two generations with 20 GB and 60 GB models (there's some small percentage of games with some strange problems, but there are no longer being made) to 0% on 40 GB models, with 80 GB having something around 70% for PS2 games and near 100% for PS1 games (PS1 games are emulated in software). PC games are near 100% if you can get it running at all. But we both know there's plenty of old games that are either difficult or impossible to get running properly on modern hardware and OSes and can't be run in DOSbox.

Ignoring all this, there's the simple matter that I much prefer to sit on the couch with a big TV rather than in front of my computer with its much smaller monitor. And when I can play many of the same games in either setting and without having to worry about system requirements, why settle?

The one thing I will concede on is the PC modding community, but that almost entirely exists for more popular games.

[rrwoods]

Mise well toss in my $0.02 on PC games:

I'm with the "can't stand the constant problems" boat. When I give you fifty dollars, I want to, oh, I don't know, play the game I bought from you. Not patch it, not figure out why it isn't working, I want to play it. Literally every game I've ever played for the PC has had numerous problems getting it to work. Consoles simply don't do this to me.

The one type of game I play exclusively on PC's is FPSs, but the Wii (and similar future consoles?) might change that.

[EvanED]

I got Civ 4 the day it was released. I brought it home, stuck in the DVD, waited 10 or so minutes for it to install, and started it. The startup screen was corrupted, and it wouldn't start a game. At all. ... I'm not saying console games are lacking bugs, but I can be assured of two things when I place a 360 game disc in my 360 (ignoring hardware problems): it will run, and it will very rarely, if ever, crash (I can't think of it happening any times for me).

At the same time, saying that's even close to the norm for PC games is being extremely disingenuous. I'm running Vista for pete's sake, and I've had trouble with *1* game I've tried to run. (And that was a fairly old title.)

3) Of the top 20 games on Metacritic, 7 are FPS, 4 are western RPGs, 3 are RTS, 2 are Civilization, 2 are Grand Theft Auto, 1 is point and click adventure, and 1 is baseball (what?). Of those, 12 are available on some console (albeit not always a great port *cough*Command & Conquer).

And IMO, even if the port is fine for a console, for instance HL2 or Portal, it's still far better on a PC. I personally hate console controls; give me a mouse + WSAD any day.

Where are the rhythm games (GH3 just came out, and there's some clones of it and DDR, oh boy)?

That said, Stepmania beats the pants off of real DDR. (The clones of GH suck.)

They're not being made because people don't buy them on PC (especially things that thrive on offline multiplayer). Theoretically, you could have all of these, sure, but no one's making them since there's little demand.

I never really understood this either. I mean, I'm not going to go out and spend at least $130 for a PS2 so that I can then go out and spend more money for the like 3 games that I would want for it, and then have no upgrade path now that games are being released for the new generation. I'm certainly not gonna go out and spend $400 one the 360 on PS3; I don't have that kind of money to burn.

(Oh yeah, and in order to not have lag of a good second or more, I would also have to buy a TV if I were to get a console without VGA or DVI out. There's a couple hundred more.)

If GH2 came out for PC, I would go get it in a second. If Rock Band came out for PC, I would get that in a second. (I don't have GH3, but it is either too easy on medium, or frustratingly above my current skill level on hard.)

But we both know there's plenty of old games that are either difficult or impossible to get running properly on modern hardware and OSes and can't be run in DOSbox.

But you can in VMWare.

[Endless Mike]

No, that's not the norm, but it happens with PC games. It doesn't happen with console games, since the developers know exactly what hardware will be used. And there's still plenty of PC games released all the time that are barely finished. Morrowind was a buggy disaster at release, and Oblivion was only a little better, and that's largely because it had to be *done* for the console releases. It's still completely screwed when a brand new game is UNABLE to be run on an extremely common piece of hardware.

Anyway, there's the fundamental difference between us. I don't want to spend the money to play the 2 or 3 PC games that I otherwise can't get since very few interest me and you don't want to spend it for the 2 or 3 console games you can't otherwise get since very few interest you. Like I said, I'm not much into FPSes or RTSes (and I'll append western RPGs for the most part on here as well, although Mass Effect was lots of fun), and that's what the majority of PC releases are. I do completely agree that mouse and keys are better than a gamepad for those types of games, but for me, it's not enough of a difference to matter since I'm terrible in either case.

PS2 was also probably a bad example, since there's still more of them being sold than PS3s (which don't all even have backwards compatibility), so there's going to be plenty of devoper support in the near future, plus an enormous back library.

And installing and configuring VMWare is just really way too much effort to get something to run and you certainly can't expect the majority of people to do it.

[Xbehave]

No, that's not the norm, but it happens with PC games. It doesn't happen with console games, since the developers know exactly what hardware will be used. And there's still plenty of PC games released all the time that are barely finished. Morrowind was a buggy disaster at release, and Oblivion was only a little better, and that's largely because it had to be *done* for the console releases. It's still completely screwed when a brand new game is UNABLE to be run on an extremely common piece of hardware.

my bothers xbox 360 version of bf2 would crash after about 2 hours for a while, i think he returned it or it got patched eventually.

tbh this argument is abit like mac vs pc (talking hardware not OS) where if you pay more you get a 100% reliable system but if you pay less you get a system you can upgrade for much less than buying a new one. If i spent £500 on my PC every 5 years i would have a hell of a system.

And installing and configuring VMWare is just really way too much effort to get something to run and you certainly can't expect the majority of people to do it.

the majority of people dont play games that are more than 5 years old

edit: i forgot to tell you that ATI suck, go with nvidia and youll have less trouble

[zenten]

No, that's not the norm, but it happens with PC games. It doesn't happen with console games, since the developers know exactly what hardware will be used. And there's still plenty of PC games released all the time that are barely finished. Morrowind was a buggy disaster at release, and Oblivion was only a little better, and that's largely because it had to be *done* for the console releases. It's still completely screwed when a brand new game is UNABLE to be run on an extremely common piece of hardware.

I take it you never played Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time.

[bigglesworth]

My friend's Xbox360 has has crashed fatally and had to be returned exactly three times more than my gaming PC.

That said, that's also three times more than my PS2...

[Endless Mike]

No, that's not the norm, but it happens with PC games. It doesn't happen with console games, since the developers know exactly what hardware will be used. And there's still plenty of PC games released all the time that are barely finished. Morrowind was a buggy disaster at release, and Oblivion was only a little better, and that's largely because it had to be *done* for the console releases. It's still completely screwed when a brand new game is UNABLE to be run on an extremely common piece of hardware.

I take it you never played Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time.

On GameCube I did. I had no trouble with it at all.

[zenten]

No, that's not the norm, but it happens with PC games. It doesn't happen with console games, since the developers know exactly what hardware will be used. And there's still plenty of PC games released all the time that are barely finished. Morrowind was a buggy disaster at release, and Oblivion was only a little better, and that's largely because it had to be *done* for the console releases. It's still completely screwed when a brand new game is UNABLE to be run on an extremely common piece of hardware.

I take it you never played Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time.

On GameCube I did. I had no trouble with it at all.

I had a number of annoying bugs on both the GameCube version and the PS 2 version, but I don't remember at the moment which one had so many that it became unplayable.

[Xbehave]

On GameCube I did. I had no trouble with it at all.

on nvidia i had no trouble with civ 4,

Spoiler:

although tbh it was cracked and i only used it as a trial then decided it didnt do much to bring me back to RTS from FPS (when games like Natural Selection are still about anyway)

Also ive never had to return my PC to a shop to get it replaced, i even driped water on it and blew fuses, my brother has replaced atleast 1 360 possibly 2!