Ah, see, that's all you had to say. I was under the misconception that you were a PC gamer (this being a PC gaming site and all) and as such, you'd have up-to-date hardware.
Well, in that case I apologize for what I said earlier, 'bro.
I'd hardly call upgraded hardware indicative per se of dedication to the platform.
nVidia and ATI would certainly disagree with you, especially if you were a gamer in the late '90s until a few years ago. In fact, I seem to recall a few debates (where you participated, IIRC) where the whole discussion centered around gamers being a main driving force for technology advancement for the PC.
The past few years haven't given us PC gamers much of a reason to upgrade.
Which is more or less the reason I haven't bought new hardware for my desktop in so long...to be honest, I'm due to buy a new machine regardless.
I think the fact that any of us are here on a (mostly) PC gaming news site is evidence enough.
Shrug. Games are games, regardless the platform.
1) PC has better graphics, framerates and controls.
And the hassles of upgrading, the inconsistencies of developer support, the constant patching, half-baked releases, etc. As for controls, meh. Preference for a keyboard and mouse on a console release of Fallout 3 or Bioshock is desired even by me, but it's negligible.
2) PC has mods.
No argument there.
3) Most 360 and PS3 games inevitably come out on the PC (where they are better most of the time).
Better in what way? Graphically? Again, I could care less. Controls? Depends on how well implemented they are, but on the whole I'd rather play something like GTA IV or MSG (which isn't out on the PC as of yet) than a keyboard. It's just preference.
4) Each console game costs $10-20 more than its PC equivalent. If you buy ten games a year, you're spending least $100 more.
If the release is even available on the PC, then the price comparison applies. As it stands, the vast majority of console games have not made the port to PC. But then, too, that is if you buy brand-new product. Gamestop stores are a great for picking up after-market games.
. With most high-end games being console ports, the need to upgrade your rig on a regular basis is decreasing and a good machine will last you years.http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23742
It still seems as if PC-centric FPS are still heading towards needing higher and higher powered machines. System requirements for most games have seemed to level off the last couple of years, though. The thing is, and central to my main point, is I don't have to even consider upgrading anyway
. The console's already there, my flat-panel TV can handle a 1080p signal (my only gripe with console graphics being I wish more studios would go beyond 720p, but meh), it's all right there. No tinkering with a potentially faulty PC product. No mods, but it's a trade-off.
Aside from that, a PC isn't just for gaming and serves many other purposes. So no, a brand new $800-1000 gaming PC seems like a much better investment than a $300-500 console + $10-20 extra per game + $60/year if you use Xbox Live.
Eh, I'm guessing you're talking about purposes that are so basic and rudimentary I can, and do, from my phone? Like browse the internet or chat or write email? The phone will never replace my PC or notebook for things like that, but I'm hardly tied down to it either. The $800-$1k "investment" in a computer is something I don't even have to consider, because alas, I already have the equipment for it.
As for Xbox live, I'm sorry, never bought into it and never will, just because of Live. Your statement about that is very true - it simply costs money to use it. On the other hand, it costs nothing to use PSN for multiplayer games, so the point is moot
But Fallout 3 and Bioshock were visually better on the PC
I couldn't tell much difference, TBH. But then I really didn't care at the time (and I still don't). The game played great on the PS3. The only thing I'm heartbroken over is the DLCs exclusive to the 360, but then again...nah, I don't lose that much sleep over it.