sony's is supposed to be going for 900

I don't think it's going to be the end of pc games... or even high spec ones. Everything is driven by sales and profits, and whilst profits exist in a PC market - they'll produce the titles... if for no other reason than to not allow one company to garner a monopoly on the PC games title market.

PC Gaming is far from dead. There will always be people like me who refuse to buy new consoles (and have offered to sell a PS2 for a case of Coke).

The PS3 is being rumored to be priced at US$390. But there are roll-out issues so, maybe even cheaper by the time they come out to make up for the delay in implementation.

No, this can't be the end of PC gaming. I'd like a PS3, and I wouldn't want that asshole Jack Thompson to virtually end video games, I don't want Iran to start the Nuclear Holocaust, and I don't want the consoles to destroy the PC. Everybody's saying that the 360 will be the next Dreamcast. Besides, I don't want the PCs to be out before I can even get a new graphics card to play Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 2, Prey and the other stuff. (I've only got a 128MB and it's not working out too well on the games department.) Besides, I really need to get a new one before Splinter Cell: Double Agent comes out, either that or get a PS3. I suppose there is one major advantage that consoles have over PCs, and that is that you don't have to keep upgrading consoles, you just get the next one up in about five years. Besides, unless you already know someone who'll do it for you, you pay someone to do it or you know how to do it, upgrading PCs can be a pain in the ass.

If you consider that consoles are purpose built mini-gaming PCs that are locked-in as far as technology goes, the real question ought to be why PC games keep pushing the max out of PCs so that they have to get more powerful. The answer is because they can and because PC manufacuters need to make sure that people buy new PCs as often as possible.

There is no way consoles can spell the end for PCs. There are several obvious reasons.

Hertz for hertz, byte for byte, PCs will always be more powerful than consoles. The specs for these new consoles may look sexy (sorry, Taw) and all but game devs know they won't be able to access the top 20-30% of memory and processor power simply because of hardware limitations. The PC can use ALL of the resources available, and this is not taking overclocking into account.

Devs realise that the ability to mod a game is a great incentive to buy it for many people. Ask yourselves if Freelancer would be as popular as it is today if the game was on console.

Online distribution is coming back in favour of the PC. As more people are buying physical games online, more people are now simply downloading their games onto their PC and paying for them direct. This is much more convenient.

Properly challenging games (i.e. ones requiring the employment of skill and/or strategy) are only playable on the PC anyway. Games like FPS and RTS come to mind. Generally, if overall playing experience is improved by using the mouse, you can be sure the game is not suitable for console. Devs try to port it anyway and the entire game suffers for it, *cough* KOTOR *cough*.

There will always be PCs. You can upgrade them, too, but the workings remain the same. Every two to three years, a new console model comes out and everyone has to start from scratch. PC OSes are generally backwards and forwards compatible. If they're not, someone will find a fix for it.

MS aren't too fussed about you making a game that runs on Windows, but the respective owners of the consoles usually demand hefty tithes if you want to put a game on their systems.

You can do other things with a computer, such as... work, maybe?

PCs are lighter than XBoxes.


Ok, a bit tired, so I'll get off the soapbox.


I'm not evil, I'm morally challenged