At 4/4/14 05:18 PM, Richard wrote: You just destroyed your own argument. You just said you have to spend a shitload of cash to have a PC....then in the next statement, you tell us that you don't. LOLWUT.

No, I said many games do not require a gaming PC, but many others do. I have a 6 year old laptop, I can't run Fallout 3 FFS, but I've been really enjoying FTL and BoI. I'd need a completely new PC to play anything better.

Also, 1,000 dollars? I paid 800 for my PC. Four years ago. The thing still has more than enough RAM, video capabilities, and HDD space to grab anything on the market. In addition to this, the SHEER SAVINGS in STEAM SALES outweighs your argument.

If you read my actual argument you'd see that I said you'd be spending (and this is a generous estimation) $1,000 over the course of a console generation, not just your initial investment.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the witcher was ported to consoles. Because it was not. The only version of the witcher that has will possibly be ported to consoles is the third one that hasn't even been released yet. PC exclusive. For now.

"Platform(s): PC, OS X, Linux, Xbox 360"

As for RTSs...Civilization is NOT a real time strategy game. It is a TURN BASED strategy game. Halo wars is absolute shit, and everyone knows that. Tropico is NOT a real time strategy game either. It is a CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT GAME. Like Simcity.

Halo Wars was good fun, I know we're all entitled to our own opinions, but it simply wasnt absolute shit. Also, RUSE and Red Alert 3 are available on consoles.

Furthermore, your argument is invalidated by teh RPG genre, everyone knows that if you want to play the best RPGs, particularly JRPGs, you better be playing on console.

Counterstrike = no port to console.

Except for Counter Strike GO

Honestly, I'm just going to go with the opinion that you are a very unsuccessful troll, because that post of yours is just so stupid, that it couldn't be anything but a poor attempt at trolling.

I don't see how you could say this though, I provided solid reasoning, some of my points you haven't even addressed, if you haven't addressed them, it's logical to assume you have no rebuttal and therefore I have valid points and so am not a troll.

At the risk of coming off as a hipster, I think anyone who owns an xb1 or ps4 already is a complete sheep.

Neither of these consoles have any exclusive must plays. And by buying them, idiots have voted with their wallets to the effect of "hey it's cool to release your consoles with shitty lineups"

Wii U meanwhile, as has always been the case with Nintendo, is a solid console growing more solid by the month. It already has enough epic titles to justify the purchase. With a bunch more on the way.

What does PS4 have on the way? teased Naughty Dog content, MGS5 (the real one, not the 1.5 hour joke)

Anything good on either console is also on PC, which plays them better.

At 4/5/14 04:21 AM, iMini wrote: If you read my actual argument you'd see that I said you'd be spending (and this is a generous estimation) $1,000 over the course of a console generation, not just your initial investment.

The pricing for console gaming is even more expensive. Let's say the generation lasts five years.
Take Xbox One ($480),
Five years of Xbox Live Gold ($300),
A ridiculously low budget of ONE new retail game purchase per year ($300)

That's an extremely generous estimation of $1,080+ over the generation. And that's just for Xbox. It can be lower but that's if you decide to buy every game years after their releases.

At 4/5/14 01:01 PM, verycoolguy wrote:

At 4/5/14 04:21 AM, iMini wrote: If you read my actual argument you'd see that I said you'd be spending (and this is a generous estimation) $1,000 over the course of a console generation, not just your initial investment.

The pricing for console gaming is even more expensive. Let's say the generation lasts five years.
Take Xbox One ($480),
Five years of Xbox Live Gold ($300),
A ridiculously low budget of ONE new retail game purchase per year ($300)

That's an extremely generous estimation of $1,080+ over the generation. And that's just for Xbox. It can be lower but that's if you decide to buy every game years after their releases.

Well, the $1,000 figure I was talking about was just for the PC, not the games and not any additional subscriptions, just the PC and any upgrades it would require to stay at least on par with the graphics of a PS4 or Xbox One (as it's a fact that the graphics on consoles get considerably better throughout their life cycles).

It's pretty fair to say that PC gamers will have to pay a similar price for their games on release too, but I'm feeling generous so I'll say $50, that's $250. And you must consider that the Xbox One comes with a free game, so that's another $60 to get rid of, that's $240

Some people won't even get Gold, they don't need it. But wait, every black friday it's very easy to pick up gold for $40, so that's lowered the cost to $200.

So...

Base Xbox price = $480 (+1 free game)
4 Xbox games over lifetime = $240
5 Years of Xbox Live Gold = $200

BUT WAIT

You get a free game every month with Xbox Live don't you? Let's also assume that this will be bumped to at least 2 games every month from half way through it's life cycle of 5 years (seems fair given that you get 2 games a month on Xbox 360).

That's an additional (12*2.5) + (24*2.5) = 90 FREE games over the next 5 years, but let's say that's 45 retail games and 45 downloadable titles, averaging $30 each.

$30*90=$2100

Total spent on Xbox One = $920
Total WORTH on Xbox One = $3,020

So, that's actually not a bad deal, is it?

i like mine.

At 4/5/14 07:31 AM, sharpnova wrote: At the risk of coming off as a hipster, I think anyone who owns an xb1 or ps4 already is a complete sheep.

Yes, because it's fun to belittle peoples' choice of console that isn't a PC.

Neither of these consoles have any exclusive must plays. And by buying them, idiots have voted with their wallets to the effect of "hey it's cool to release your consoles with shitty lineups"

We're hardly into this generation of consoles, and yet we're still complaining about this? Maybe we should wait a year or so before with make any judgements on the games themselves, plus most of those games aren't that bad, at least as far as launch titles go. Cynical much?

Wii U meanwhile, as has always been the case with Nintendo, is a solid console growing more solid by the month. It already has enough epic titles to justify the purchase. With a bunch more on the way.

Now I know you're full of crap. Aside from Nintendo's first party titles, they are still sorely lacking in the third-party department that aren't ports from 360/PS3 games. There is no probable way that I see Nintendo climbing back to first place in the major console race, unless either Sony and/or Microsoft goes under completely. Your fanboyism is showing, and it's pretty obvious that you're way off.

What does PS4 have on the way? teased Naughty Dog content, MGS5 (the real one, not the 1.5 hour joke)

Give it time, they had the same problem in the last generation, and they came out strong in the second half. There is no reason why they can't do it again if it comes to that.

Anything good on either console is also on PC, which plays them better.

So what are you, a PC/Nintendo fanboy now?

At 4/5/14 06:55 PM, orangebomb wrote:

blah blah

dont defend a bullshit company like microdicks bro. they ripped off everyone. stop buying their shit

At 4/5/14 08:16 PM, PotHeadParadise wrote:

At 4/5/14 06:55 PM, orangebomb wrote:

blah blah

dont defend a bullshit company like microdicks bro. they ripped off everyone. stop buying their shit

So insightful.

At 4/5/14 08:57 PM, iMini wrote:

At 4/5/14 08:16 PM, PotHeadParadise wrote:

At 4/5/14 06:55 PM, orangebomb wrote:

blah blah

dont defend a bullshit company like microdicks bro. they ripped off everyone. stop buying their shit

So insightful.

well its true. once i got that xbox one i immediately sold it for the ps4. why did microsoft fucked up everything?

At 4/5/14 06:55 PM, orangebomb wrote: Yes, because it's fun to belittle peoples' choice of console that isn't a PC.

Not about it not being PC. Not about it being fun. About a person having to be a sheep to own one of these consoles since there is no justifiable reason for it yet.

We're hardly into this generation of consoles, and yet we're still complaining about this? Maybe we should wait a year or so before with make any judgements on the games themselves, plus most of those games aren't that bad, at least as far as launch titles go. Cynical much?

Exactly. Hardly in yet. So why would someone own one yet? We are hardly into this generation and there are no must plays yet. "Aren't that bad"???? That's supposed to justify buying the console? I think I hit a nerve with you. I definitely must have.

Now I know you're full of crap. Aside from Nintendo's first party titles, they are still sorely lacking in the third-party department that aren't ports from 360/PS3 games. There is no probable way that I see Nintendo climbing back to first place in the major console race, unless either Sony and/or Microsoft goes under completely. Your fanboyism is showing, and it's pretty obvious that you're way off.

Nope. Not full of crap :) Glad you think I am though that means we're getting somewhere! Teehee! I never said it wasn't necessarily all first party titles. What does that matter? The point is there are several awesome must play titles. My fanboyis? There are plenty of Sony franchises I love too. But they haven't released any great titles from those franchises for the PS4! So my point stands! Unassailed! Lol. Like I care if the titles are first or second or third or one hundred seventy third party. The point is that the must play title exists.

Give it time, they had the same problem in the last generation, and they came out strong in the second half. There is no reason why they can't do it again if it comes to that.

Exactly. Give it time. Don't buy PS4/XB1 yet. Give them time to actually release titles that justify the purchase of the console.

So what are you, a PC/Nintendo fanboy now?

Nope! But thanks since both of those are amazing platforms :) But throw in Sony and pretty much any other platform that has great games too :) Currently PC is a no brainer. Additionally Nintendo consoles have pretty much always been justified. PS1, 2, and 3 were all nobrainers. And currently there is no reason to buy an XB1 or a PS4. So having spent the $ to buy them makes no sense.

Thanks!!! <- (imagine the voice and face of gerald from south park with his hybrid) LOlL

At 4/3/14 11:07 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: Here we go again. These arguments never go anywhere. Can we please not derail this thread?

I kinda agree. As much as I love seeing people arguing about devices, the Xbox hate trend is kinda getting old. We get it, they fucked up at the conference but they reversed it, so what else is there to complain about other than the Kinect and TV? Those are hardly much of issue. Not to mention they are coming out with a price drop and you can get a Xbox One without a Kinect. Also the TV feature is not the main part of the console. Obviously no one has seen the interface, Its just a option. I can laugh at a simple "TV and Xbox One" joke but when people actually believe and say TV is the main focus for the console you're just talking out of your ass. And if I'm not right Sony is going for the same direction and signing contracts with media companies to give you the ability to watch tv on your PS4. It's like gaming became political all of a sudden.

Honestly no console is better. Both have flaws. Just because the way they advertise their stuff doesn't make it automatically great. I have played both consoles and I really see no difference. Some people who loves playing on consoles but wish to play at least at a updated pc level should be glad they even catch up to those limits.

to the ones who probably didn't know CS:GO wasn't the only CS game to the make it to consoles that is all.

I have never bought any Xbox, and I never would.

At 4/6/14 09:23 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote:

At 4/3/14 11:07 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: Here we go again. These arguments never go anywhere. Can we please not derail this thread?

I kinda agree. As much as I love seeing people arguing about devices, the Xbox hate trend is kinda getting old. We get it, they fucked up at the conference but they reversed it, so what else is there to complain about other than the Kinect and TV? Those are hardly much of issue. Not to mention they are coming out with a price drop and you can get a Xbox One without a Kinect. Also the TV feature is not the main part of the console. Obviously no one has seen the interface, Its just a option.

First of you can't have a conversation like this without derailing. I mean loving a console is like loving religion. It is easy to point out the flaws of it, yet the people stick to defend to it.
Everything is wrong with the xbox. First like you state they tried to screw up the gamer to favour video game investors. Then they force a non-working camera system with the purchase. How did the consumer react to this? With turmoil.
Like the press release do they react to concerned consumers? No they did not. They letted the stocks do the talking. Every company is in it for the money even Nintendo with the cutest characters have a history in screwing companies and consumers over, in fact it led to the rise of the sony playstation, but becoming greedy to the point that the company almost gets swallowed up by his own ass is shitty to partake in.

Companies can fuck up and they can change. But does a xbox one favour the gamer? Is a xbox one consumer in a favouring market position buying over priced accessories, games and DLC. I mean if your not American most the features the Xbox one reserves resources for ( while already being weaker than a ps4 and more expensive ) are not even going to be used and you can't create a camera system that works for every person in every room. Eating breakfast while watching tv and suddenly you the xbox overlay, because your fork triggered hand function for xbox overlay. The only reason to buy the console is nostalgia. Even the exclusives are all games either made by favourite companies or the next in a game series.

And this bothers other people. I mean from the outside view you see a consumers getting screwed over. And defending their boyfriend that beats on em. He doesn't beat me that much lately, stop complaining. :D

At 4/6/14 09:23 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote:

At 4/3/14 11:07 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: Here we go again. These arguments never go anywhere. Can we please not derail this thread?

I kinda agree. As much as I love seeing people arguing about devices, the Xbox hate trend is kinda getting old.

That post was about the PC elitists that seemed to have wandered off. But yeah console hate is getting annoying.

At 4/6/14 11:45 PM, kazumazkan wrote: to the ones who probably didn't know CS:GO wasn't the only CS game to the make it to consoles that is all.

It might have been ported to A console. But it was a poor and shitty port.

The Xbox One also has Titanfall, which is pretty neat, I know the PS4 just got Second Son but it's quite short and single player only

andTitanfall is multiplayer only

1.6, all day everyday. Anybody with a bad computer could play that game and still get a constant 60fps.

Thats becouse the graphics are terrible

At 4/7/14 08:20 AM, elitegamer11 wrote: Thats becouse the graphics are terrible

graphics don't make a entire game you fucking troll.

At 4/7/14 08:26 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 4/7/14 08:20 AM, elitegamer11 wrote: Thats becouse the graphics are terrible

graphics don't make a entire game you fucking troll.

im not a troll im just saying that those graphics arn't exacly Battlefield 4

At 4/7/14 08:42 AM, elitegamer11 wrote:

At 4/7/14 08:26 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 4/7/14 08:20 AM, elitegamer11 wrote: Thats becouse the graphics are terrible

graphics don't make a entire game you fucking troll.

im not a troll im just saying that those graphics arn't exacly Battlefield 4

Lol battlefield 4 you mean that retarded FPS? Regardless the PlayStation consoles and PCs always rank the best for graphics especially PCs.

At 4/7/14 11:43 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 4/7/14 08:42 AM, elitegamer11 wrote:

At 4/7/14 08:26 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 4/7/14 08:20 AM, elitegamer11 wrote: Thats becouse the graphics are terrible

graphics don't make a entire game you fucking troll.

im not a troll im just saying that those graphics arn't exacly Battlefield 4

Lol battlefield 4 you mean that retarded FPS? Regardless the PlayStation consoles and PCs always rank the best for graphics especially PCs.

how is battlefield 4 retarded? and if PlayStation consoles and PCs always rank the best for graphics and why does Counter Strike, a pc game have such terrible graphics?

At 4/7/14 12:34 PM, elitegamer11 wrote: how is battlefield 4 retarded? and if PlayStation consoles and PCs always rank the best for graphics and why does Counter Strike, a pc game have such terrible graphics?

Probably because it came out in 1999.

At 4/7/14 12:44 PM, Valjylmyr wrote:

At 4/7/14 12:34 PM, elitegamer11 wrote: how is battlefield 4 retarded? and if PlayStation consoles and PCs always rank the best for graphics and why does Counter Strike, a pc game have such terrible graphics?

Probably because it came out in 1999.

i was talking about 1.6 not the old one

At 4/7/14 01:05 PM, elitegamer11 wrote:

At 4/7/14 12:44 PM, Valjylmyr wrote:

At 4/7/14 12:34 PM, elitegamer11 wrote: how is battlefield 4 retarded? and if PlayStation consoles and PCs always rank the best for graphics and why does Counter Strike, a pc game have such terrible graphics?

Probably because it came out in 1999.

i was talking about 1.6 not the old one

Did they update the graphics for the 1.6 update? They look the same. Even so, 1.6 is eleven years old.

At 4/7/14 01:54 AM, Migel wrote:

At 4/6/14 09:23 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote:

At 4/3/14 11:07 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: Here we go again. These arguments never go anywhere. Can we please not derail this thread?

And this bothers other people. I mean from the outside view you see a consumers getting screwed over. And defending their boyfriend that beats on em. He doesn't beat me that much lately, stop complaining. :D

I'm complaining? I'm just saying it's funny how that it isn't much of a problem anymore and people who bought the console have been satisfied while outside of the fanbase is whining gamers wishing the way they wanted the console to be.

ALSO I wouldn't worry about the Kinect either considering that Sony is working on VR headset with a PS Eye, Motion Detector, etc. requirement which I'm pretty sure will cost more than the Kinect itself. As always, Sony has clever ways to make money out of their consumers via deception and indirection. Right, and what happened to the fanboys that bitched about Microsoft wanting money from the Kinect and not Sony? Also I already stated that they are cutting down the price and giving you the option to get one without a Kinect.

It's just so interesting to see how hypocritical "fanboys" can be. Also how come we are still calling people fanboys now? People right now are hardly even fanboys. It's just people slapping heads because they bought the opposite console. I wish a lot of people who are all of a sudden "Sony fanboys" (I hate using these terms) would do research that Sony was gonna do the exact same thing Microsoft was gonna do with the console with all the restrictions. Like the DRM policy. I wished it wasn't true and hoped it was some other fanboy dribble but they were actually doing it, but after the heat Microsoft was getting, they quietly removed it off.

The name Xbox1 is definitely a flop.

At 4/7/14 04:49 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote:

It's just so interesting to see how hypocritical "fanboys" can be. Also how come we are still calling people fanboys now? People right now are hardly even fanboys. It's just people slapping heads because they bought the opposite console.

^^^This^^^

I don't want to sound like an asshole when I say this, but if you're of higher SES this type of issue is laughable.

At 4/7/14 04:53 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: The name Xbox1 is definitely a flop.

Yeah I agree. I hate having conversations when I'm talking about the Xbox One and try NOT to confuse people with the Xbox Original first console. I think it would've been the safest thing to do was to call it Xbox 720 or Xbox Infinity or any other name that sounds appealing. Especially Xbox 720, I mean the name of it just SELLS.

At 4/7/14 01:05 PM, elitegamer11 wrote: i was talking about 1.6 not the old one

1.6 came out in 1999 its old, and if not its the game developers choice on how they want to do graphics on what resolution and FPS. not all of them go for AAA you fucking troll.