True, and it already seems that Crysis will come close to equaling if not exceeding some of the next gen console's graphical splendor, not to mention the physics, Im not contesting that. What Im saying is that there are people who are ready to invest 700USD for a top of the line GFX card every year, and in comparison the peeps who buy the PS3, knowing it wont be replaced in several years, arent nearly as nonsenical in their spending.Master of Ossus wrote:Nonsense. Consoles have historically been graphically slaughtered by PC's 2-3 years after their release. Even games that are considered graphically strong on some consoles would be considered awful on any PC. Also, until 1080p TV's were released, PC's often had to push far more pixels simply because standard definition sets have a piddling resolution compared with even decent monitors.
Seriously, I havent claimed that I expect top-end graphics from the consoles to the point they are replaced by the next generation of consoles. And ofcourse they would be considered obsolete, but the guy who buys this thing wont be spending 700USD or more each year staying at the top. As such, the high price tag of the console might not be such a turn-off for every customer.It is if you expect to continue to receive top-end graphics, particularly since the last generation of consoles and this generation of consoles would be considered obsolete technically within one year of their release.
Yes, and at no point am I contesting that. But in someone might think "Hey, sure this is a bit expensive. But not as expensive as a computer upgrade each year."That's because consoles aren't released every year and so their performance only improves every 5-6 years. But in any case, you seem to be objectively wrong, since many people have purchased a 360 only to "replace" it with a PS3... one year later.
Really? There are a lot of people who've actually replaced their 360's with PS3's? I have to say, that makes no goddamn sense.