best gaming monitor xbox 2012 image
Tyrant
This is where all PC elitists fail miserably at understanding what console gaming is really all about.
To be a fair competition, get a PC from 2005 that cost $350 at the time (XBOX Core cost $299 at the time). Then show me how many great games that system could handle all the way to present day.
Let me give you a hint: Not many.
Not only would you miss the Portal games, you probably couldn't even play half life 2 in 720p.
Stop comparing apples to oranges. PC gamers constantly compare their newly purchased rigs to hardware released almost a decade ago to proves what? That the world moved forward? You need to waste $700 on a video card to figure that out? Seriously?
Understand that your video card will be deprecated by a better, cheaper model within a year. Also savour the fact that many of the features that came with your new card will never be utilized by any developer.. well not until a $99 dollar model hits the market. But your card will be obsolete by then. You see, the games industry doesn't care about people with GPUs as expensive as yours. Your demographic is far too small to be profitable so they make games for people with reasonably priced video cards, or consoles. This is why I converted to consoles. I got sick of getting all caught up in the tech only to have a couple of games actually take advantage of my hardware.
It's a lot more satisfying seeing developers push old hardware beyond what you thought was possible and deliver visuals like Uncharted 3 or Halo 4. This is why consoles will always be a better investment and a more enjoyable product.
Answer
i agree that consoles are better for gaming, but let me play the devil's advocate.
assume that we're talking about a medium end gaming pc, not an alienware gaming pc.
300 was for the core 360, and most people end up buying the 20 gb hard drive for it so a 400 dollar price tag for the 360 is more realistic.
pc games only costs 50 dollars, while ps3/360 games costs 60 dollars. so if you bought 10 ps3 games, that's an extra 100 dollars. if you're anywhere like me, you've probably bought at least 50 games so that's an extra 500 dollars. suddenly, that 400 dollar 360 is now up to 900 dollars, still much less than the 1500 most people normally spend on a gaming pc.
for the 360, it costs an additional 50/60 dollars per year to play online, while it's free to play online for the pc. so if you bought the 360 and got xbox live since the beginning, that's almost 7 years and an extra 360 dollars (50 dollars for xbox live from 2005 to 2011) and 60 (for 2012). so now the 360 with 50 games and xbox live is now up to 1260. add some battery packs, extra controller, hdmi cable, and that 1260 gets bumped up to 1350.
the 1500 pc also includes a monitor. take away the monitor, and the pc drops about 200, so now it's 1300.
i agree that consoles are better for gaming, but let me play the devil's advocate.
assume that we're talking about a medium end gaming pc, not an alienware gaming pc.
300 was for the core 360, and most people end up buying the 20 gb hard drive for it so a 400 dollar price tag for the 360 is more realistic.
pc games only costs 50 dollars, while ps3/360 games costs 60 dollars. so if you bought 10 ps3 games, that's an extra 100 dollars. if you're anywhere like me, you've probably bought at least 50 games so that's an extra 500 dollars. suddenly, that 400 dollar 360 is now up to 900 dollars, still much less than the 1500 most people normally spend on a gaming pc.
for the 360, it costs an additional 50/60 dollars per year to play online, while it's free to play online for the pc. so if you bought the 360 and got xbox live since the beginning, that's almost 7 years and an extra 360 dollars (50 dollars for xbox live from 2005 to 2011) and 60 (for 2012). so now the 360 with 50 games and xbox live is now up to 1260. add some battery packs, extra controller, hdmi cable, and that 1260 gets bumped up to 1350.
the 1500 pc also includes a monitor. take away the monitor, and the pc drops about 200, so now it's 1300.
Should I get an HD Ready or Full HD LCD TV if I want to hook my PC up to it?
Cazaimex
I'm planning on buying a 32" (due to space restrictions in my room) LCD TV set to replace my current 29" CRT TV. I'm mainly going to use it for movies (DVD/Blu Ray) and gaming (Xbox 360/PS3). My friends tell me I will not be able to distinguish between an HD Ready and a Full HD set at 32" size, so I'll be wasting my money going for a Full HD set.
HOWEVER, I might want to hook up my PC to the TV (via VGA / D-Sub). Would it be worth it then getting a Full HD set? I currently use a 23" Dell monitor, set at 1920 x 1080 resolution, while using my PC.
Answer
Well, you use a Full HD monitor right? Try lowering the resolution to 1280x720 and see how it looks and feels quality and working space wise. Much worse right? You see now why your friends' advice is pointless. Same applies to a TV.
Full HDs are already a tad cheap these days. And offer MUCH More resolution and thus workspace for you. Multitasking, watching movie, music/video editing, games everything is much more crispy in a Full HD. Go for a Full HD man. There is a big difference. And the difference increases with the increase in screen size--totally opposite to what your friends said.
This is almost 2012. 1280s are a no go these days. Full HD will also make you much more future proof as pretty much all movies, programs and games are built so that they run at their best in Full HD. Cheers!!
For hooking up, if it's a newer model, pretty much EVERY TVs nowdays come with HDMI. If your system has an HDMI out, connect the TV with this. Or if you have a DVI out connect to that. Remember VGA gives worse quality than both DVI and HDMI. But it you don't have an HDMI capable device to run the TV, you need to buy a HDMI to VGA converter. You can get it and it'll get your job done.
Here, the converter: http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-VGA-HD15-Male-Cable/dp/B001OLCHJ6
Well, you use a Full HD monitor right? Try lowering the resolution to 1280x720 and see how it looks and feels quality and working space wise. Much worse right? You see now why your friends' advice is pointless. Same applies to a TV.
Full HDs are already a tad cheap these days. And offer MUCH More resolution and thus workspace for you. Multitasking, watching movie, music/video editing, games everything is much more crispy in a Full HD. Go for a Full HD man. There is a big difference. And the difference increases with the increase in screen size--totally opposite to what your friends said.
This is almost 2012. 1280s are a no go these days. Full HD will also make you much more future proof as pretty much all movies, programs and games are built so that they run at their best in Full HD. Cheers!!
For hooking up, if it's a newer model, pretty much EVERY TVs nowdays come with HDMI. If your system has an HDMI out, connect the TV with this. Or if you have a DVI out connect to that. Remember VGA gives worse quality than both DVI and HDMI. But it you don't have an HDMI capable device to run the TV, you need to buy a HDMI to VGA converter. You can get it and it'll get your job done.
Here, the converter: http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-VGA-HD15-Male-Cable/dp/B001OLCHJ6
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Is a PC that much better than consoles?
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment