Xbox 360 vs. PC

I got a gaming PC in November, and it kicks quite a bit of ass. Its graphical output is not on par with my 360, but I find the control and variety to mop the floor. They can both hook up to my TV, as well, so I can't give the 360 extra points for that. I can't really think of a single thing that could make the 360 better. The online is unreliable and costs money, the controller is not as precise as a mouse and keyboard, and, Jesus Christ, Team Fortress 2 hasn't been updated yet on it! I will say this in its defense: It does have console games. Sonic Unleashed was a rare gem, a GOOD modern Sonic game, other than Sonic Adventure 2. Banjo Kazooie Nuts&Bolts was a work of art. And I really don't think games like these would have any sort of real success on the PC, mainly because not everyone on a PC has a gamepad, and also because the market's really different. What do you guys think?

The Xbox 360 has a great online system. It is costly, but it has many features. You can connect with your friends very easily. Join them in mid-game. Chat with them when playing with them or when playing alone. You also have access to exclusive games and DLC that is not available for other systems (Like Banjo and Kazooie for Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing). You can also use Netflix to stream movies, the gamepad is good for a lot of games, arcade pads also work for fighting games, almost no lag due to great servers and you can play with celebrity or game developers.

And it also has LOCAL MULTIPLAYER!!!

Also, PC Games have Anti-Piracy Systems that are so strong that they even bother Original Game Users. For example, you cannot play Assassin's Creed 2 on PC offline. You have to be online at all times. Great disadvantage there.

Assassin's Creed 2 is at it's base a console game, which is what the 360 is for. But the 360's online system doesn't compare to messenger with an actual keyboard to keep up with gaming friends, and if one person on a 360 server has a bad connection, everyone suffers. Netflix is available on computers, and Xbox gamepads are still compatible with PCs. The Xbox 360 is really only there for console games, Assassin's Creed for instance, as well as games like Dante's Inferno (That wasn't PS3 exclusive, was it?) that just wouldn't work on the PC platform because they're not built with low-end users in mind. There's also the price. My computer ran just under 900 dollars, and I'd say it's just barely upper middle range. The graphical output is not as good as my Xbox (although I'd wager that the sound output is better), but I think the tradeoff, monetarily at least, is worth it for the variety and much better online experience.

Another thing about the PC online experience. You can choose who you're around.

In Xbox Live, you're thrown into a match. It may be inhabited by trolls, it may not. Sometimes I'm in the mood to play with trolls. On the PC, I know which servers have trolls, and which do not, and I can make that choice for myself. Except in some really recent games which only do matchmaking, but that's bullshit if you ask me.

PC's are very expensive. Especially updating them. Most especially if they're gaming laptops. The lack the console games we all love.

And I would like to include the PS3. It has the cell processor which allows the to create amazing physics like Uncharted 2. Most PC's processors' aren't that powerful.

But back to the 360. It is mostly for convenience of use. AND you don't have to keep updating it. AND it has official support. What I mean is that all games will always work. You don't have to change anything.

And the Xbox Live system is very user-friendly, like the other stuff themselves.

Consoles are holding back the development of advances in the gaming world. The current systems are all at least three years old. In that time, technology has gone so far, we can have free-flow multiplayer time travel. But such technology in not available on console, where technology sort of jumps every now and then, rather than the progression of the PC. Sure, everyone has a different system, but in the end support for more better stuff is superior to the same low-power (in comparison, there is no denying the technology in a console is good) computer.

However, because of the bias toward consoles, it doesn't matter. Anti-piracy junk just makes it worse. Soon, every developer will treat the computer as second, following the consoles. And that's a shame.

And I also believe it is time to release the new consoles. But nope. They are just releasing new controllers to expand the live of their consoles and save save some money. The Wii has Motion+. PS3 has the Magic Wand. And Xbox 360 has Natal. And now that I think about it, this technology would not be seem very usable in PC's, or at least they wouldn't sell as much. If very few PC users have actual gamepads, imagine how many would actually buy Natal for their PCs. PCs are and will be getting the second hand treatment.

P.S.: I fixed a little error and now Three60 is an official admin. Congrats, I guess...

Well, the only reason such devices aren't put on the PC is because of the general thought about the gaming rig. If you think of a PC gamer, you think of a monitor, a desk, a keyboard, a mouse, and a big computer. What's to stop me from putting that computer on a TV, raising the resolution, and installing the same stuff that the consoles have on it? Only the technology, because it's all being put on the consoles. If people spent time making PC equipment, we would adapt to it. The next XBox could just be a computer in an XBox case, complete with wireless keyboard and mouse along with controller, and a disc to re-image new hardware with the XBox OS (which, if based on Windows to any extent, would make a disc compatible between XBox and PC). It's really not that hard, from the technology side. And most people would never care, but for those who do, it would be much better.

But that would not be user-friendly enough. People needs to be able to use things freely. And it would take up too much space, although not as much as those Activision addons. Besides, developers may just not use the mouse and controller. They may use it just for FPS, which are quite popular. But other games wouldn't. I've always said: "Keep it simple." "Too many accessories will just create a mess of a console". Just look at the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive...

What, a computer isn't user-friendly? The only difference I gave was the XBox OS and a controller being packaged. Besides that, it would be just a computer. Hooked up to a TV. The keyboard and mouse would only be included because it is a computer. Developers hinder their machines on purpose by not using standard equipment. If the same stuff that was used in normal machines was used, it wouldn't matter if you just took a small box and turned it into an XBox. And Microsoft has never minded this setup before.

Three60 wrote:

What, a computer isn't user-friendly? The only difference I gave was the XBox OS and a controller being packaged. Besides that, it would be just a computer. Hooked up to a TV. The keyboard and mouse would only be included because it is a computer. Developers hinder their machines on purpose by not using standard equipment. If the same stuff that was used in normal machines was used, it wouldn't matter if you just took a small box and turned it into an XBox. And Microsoft has never minded this setup before.

The Commodore 64...

The commodore 64 was not a failure, if that's what you're trying to imply.

shadow6000 wrote:

The commodore 64 was not a failure, if that's what you're trying to imply.

But it was not the new Xbox either...

...It was released in 1983.

shadow6000 wrote:

...It was released in 1983.

When the NES OWNED JAPAN!

I don't understand how this is relevant to gaming today.

It means that when you include too many features and controllers you make your videogame package more expensive and less user friendly so it will sell less no matter how powerful it really is.

Personally, i'm a PC-360 cross gamer. The 360 is faster and gives me better graphics, plus a (relative to Windows LIVE) reliable and fast (albeit expensive) experience. I'll play most FPSs on my 360, but many games I love I have to play on a PC.

I mean seriously... I dare anyone here to look at me in the eye and tell me Oblivion was as good on the Xbox as it was on the PC? And how about Dragon Age? Or Mass Effect? PC is the way RPGs are meant to be played...

I'm also a big RTS fan (Total War, anyone?)... Halo Wars was so simplistic and it is BARELY mediocre compared to contemporary PC RTSs...

My two cents...

OBJECTION!!!

PC's Graphics > Xbox 360's Graphics

Mouse and Keyboard for Shooters > Gamepads for Shooters

Ask ANYONE!!!!

Ask me...

Anyways, on your first point: Yes and No. It depends solely on the PC youa re comapring to an alienware. if you take my desktop the 360 will give me better graphics any day. If we're talking about my newly purchased laptop... yeah I guess if I max out the settings some games will look better. HOWEVER, my laptop has a 15 inch screen. I can hook up my xbox to any TV or projector.

On your second point, a year ago I would have agreed with you, but today I honestly can't tell the difference, I dont mind the game pad at all.

And since we're talking about shooters, have you ever tried playing online through WINDOWS LIVE? If you were ever forced to eat cow poo for a week, barf it up and then eat it again while you are slowly raped by a bull, you'd have a rough idea of how aggravating it is.

Obnoxious Bread wrote:

Ask me...

Anyways, on your first point: Yes and No. It depends solely on the PC youa re comapring to an alienware. if you take my desktop the 360 will give me better graphics any day. If we're talking about my newly purchased laptop... yeah I guess if I max out the settings some games will look better. HOWEVER, my laptop has a 15 inch screen. I can hook up my xbox to any TV or projector.

On your second point, a year ago I would have agreed with you, but today I honestly can't tell the difference, I dont mind the game pad at all.

And since we're talking about shooters, have you ever tried playing online through WINDOWS LIVE? If you were ever forced to eat cow poo for a week, barf it up and then eat it again while you are slowly raped by a bull, you'd have a rough idea of how aggravating it is.

omfg. you guys stfu while I explain..

Alienwares fail. They're a ripoff and they're shit. Building a gaming pc (or even an all-in-one pc) only costs around $900.. and its blazing fast for the newest games. You can even get an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black and a Nvidia Geforce GTX 295 and still go for around $900. You can also hook up your laptop or computer to ANY TV OR PROJECTOR. Just get an adapter for VGA/DVI/(whatever your pc has) to composite or HDMI. The newer pc's and laptops come with HDMI slots so you don't even have to buy an adapter. And, fuck windows live. You don't have to use it. there are TONS of online games that DON'T use windows live. If you have a bad connection or just don't like it then its fine, you can even download a crack for the game if it ONLY uses windows live. Also, its called STEAM. 90% of popular online games including FPS' run off of steam, and windows live isn't very popular at all. In fact, I can't think of any game at all off the top of my head that you can't use steam with or that steam sells. MW2 on pc runs through steam and can only be accessed without steam by using a crack illegaly. all call of duty PC games are available on Steam along with Left 4 Dead. Hell, valve made steam and they're the developers of L4D games so you can only play that through steam too, and as I believe I said before, steam is extremely reliable and has a great community. Xbox 360's community is HORRIBLE. It's mostly little kids and the most played game on xbox 360 is always the LATEST call of duty game, followed by the LATEST Halo game.

My laptop was 800 dollars.

I can play Crysis on medium settings.

EVERYTHING looks better than Xbox.

And it hooks up to anything with HDMI.

Alienware is weird.