Gabe Newell on PS3: "just cancel it and do a do over"

You could get any console you wanted in the long run it'd end up being cheaper than a rig that is flashier than said console.
 
Then we're back at what it can do. And a computer can do more than a console, currently.
 
smwScott said:
We were talking about for gaming benefit. I mean, for most practical purposes you're ok with a damn 386, but for games it is MUCH more expensive to go the PC route than console route. You could pay a few hundred and get a fully capable PC that does all you need. In order to play new games you have to spend thousands and even then it has a much shorter lifespan than a $500 PS3.

Not to mention the PS3 runs Linux, which comes pre-loaded with Firefox and OpenOffice. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2-3 years this version of the OS reaches the state where it is actually acceptable as a PC.
Click to expand...


out of the box a ps3 has no where near the functionality a pc does ..not a valid comparison ..and yes a ps3 is far more expensive than a pc if you stack both sides evenly ..if you want equal playing fields then you'd have to throw in a 8800 but on the ps3 you'd have to throw in a hdtv that is capable of doing 1080p ..which puts the ps3 at a much higher price point than a pc ..with a $100 21" crt I can get far higher resolutions than the ps3 could hope to achieve ..so lets try this again ..$1000+ ps3 (ps3 + hdtv ..bare minimum $300 for a spectre 22" lcd that has hdmi) = a $1000+ pc except the pc does more than play games ..it's just not a valid comparison
 
How can you even THINK about arguing about this? It's obvious the PC is more veritile. The day I am working on a PS3 at work is the day I take that statement back.
 
You don't need a big hdtv - you can plug a ps3/360 into your monitor - it's just nice to have one. You can also watch movies on them too ;)
 
to make it an even playing field you'd have to have something capable of displaying 1080p
 
There's really not much difference between 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, espcially on screens under 60". I've never played at that res on a pc and have heard that many ps3 games will be upscaled anyways.
 
so then in order to make it a level playing field you'd have to purchase a 60" screen :)

oh and gamimng at 1600 x 1200 is teh awesome
 
Sure, but 1080p is 1920*1080. My monitor wuld have a fit at that res. Imagine the rig you'd need to play games at a decent framerate at those settings too!
 
CptStern said:
so then in order to make it a level playing field you'd have to purchase a 60" screen :)

oh and gamimng at 1600 x 1200 is teh awesome
Click to expand...

You do realize how flawed your argument is right?

You can get a $300 PC that will do everything most people would ever want to do on it - except play new games. Everything over that $300 cost point or thereabouts is what you're spending on the ability to play computer games.

Adding in the cost of an HDTV to a PS3 is just completely ... I don't want to be mean, I'll just say it's a bit irrational. First of all, you don't even need an HDTV, but it is nice to have one. Secondly, I got my HDTV for $700 long before I got my PS3 - and I didn't get it for the PS3 either. You're quick to point out that you can do other things with a computer ... but you use the logic that apparently televisions can only be used to play games. For a PC, by your logic I guess we all need 30'' widescreen LCDs with $2500+ computers for a "fair comparison".

Point by point analysis - almost everyone has a television. Therefore, anyone who buys a PS3 is capable of using it to play the latest games right out of the box. That's $500.

For a PC, in order to play the latest games you have to have a high end computer (1.5-2k range), not to mention a monitor, speaker system, whatever else.

Fact: it is cheaper to play games on consoles than PCs.
 
The difference between 1600*1200 and 1080p is only about 150,000 pixels/frame, something like a 4% increase. The only difference is that 1080p is widescreen, so you're tricked into thinking it's super-awesome :p
 
smwScott said:
You do realize how flawed your argument is right?

You can get a $300 PC that will do everything most people would ever want to do on it - except play new games. Everything over that $300 cost point or thereabouts is what you're spending on the ability to play computer games.

Adding in the cost of an HDTV to a PS3 is just completely ... I don't want to be mean, I'll just say it's a bit irrational. First of all, you don't even need an HDTV, but it is nice to have one. Secondly, I got my HDTV for $700 long before I got my PS3 - and I didn't get it for the PS3 either. You're quick to point out that you can do other things with a computer ... but you use the logic that apparently televisions can only be used to play games. For a PC, by your logic I guess we all need 30'' widescreen LCDs with $2500+ computers for a "fair comparison".

Point by point analysis - almost everyone has a television. Therefore, anyone who buys a PS3 is capable of using it to play the latest games right out of the box. That's $500.

For a PC, in order to play the latest games you have to have a high end computer (1.5-2k range), not to mention a monitor, speaker system, whatever else.

Fact: it is cheaper to play games on consoles than PCs.
Click to expand...

I can play the newest games now with my $600 PC.....They may not all be max settings *2x AA.. rest high*. 1.5 - 2k is a bit...fukcing extreme
 
CyberPitz said:
I can play the newest games now with my $600 PC.....They may not all be max settings *2x AA.. rest high*. 1.5 - 2k is a bit...fukcing extreme
Click to expand...

Buy a PC for $600 and tell me if it'll be able to run the top games in 5 years.
 
smwScott said:
You do realize how flawed your argument is right?

You can get a $300 PC that will do everything most people would ever want to do on it - except play new games. Everything over that $300 cost point or thereabouts is what you're spending on the ability to play computer games.
Click to expand...

for about $600 I can play any game on the market but no amount of money you throw at your ps3 will allow you to file your taxes and order a pizza (in game no less)

smwScott said:
Adding in the cost of an HDTV to a PS3 is just completely ... I don't want to be mean, I'll just say it's a bit irrational. First of all, you don't even need an HDTV, but it is nice to have one. Secondly, I got my HDTV for $700 long before I got my PS3 - and I didn't get it for the PS3 either. You're quick to point out that you can do other things with a computer ... but you use the logic that apparently televisions can only be used to play games. For a PC, by your logic I guess we all need 30'' widescreen LCDs with $2500+ computers for a "fair comparison".
Click to expand...

you didnt understand my point ..equal footing ..and no 30 inches is not a prerequisite just as 103" hdtv isnt for a ps3 ..I'm a foot and a bit away from my monitor I dont need a 30" to display high resolutions ..a $100 21" crt can do that just fine

smwScott said:
Point by point analysis - almost everyone has a television. Therefore, anyone who buys a PS3 is capable of using it to play the latest games right out of the box. That's $500.
Click to expand...

level playing field a regular tv is not using a ps3 to it's fullest potential

smwScott said:
For a PC, in order to play the latest games you have to have a high end computer (1.5-2k range), not to mention a monitor, speaker system, whatever else.
Click to expand...

no you dont, my last build (mother in law) plays all the latest games and it was $700 ..now I agree that to have it at it's fullest potential it'll cost me a little over $1000 ..$1300 with a 22" monitor

smwScott said:
Fact: it is cheaper to play games on consoles than PCs.
Click to expand...

apples and oranges ..a pc does more than play games but any pc can play games regardless of price point ..a ps3 can only play games/media


btw let me see you load this on to your ps3 and play it

http://onemorelevel.com/games3/double-wires.swf
 
CptStern said:
for about $600 I can play any game on the market but no amount of money you throw at your ps3 will allow you to file your taxes and order a pizza (in game no less)



you didnt understand my point ..equal footing ..and no 30 inches is not a prerequisite just as 103" hdtv isnt for a ps3 ..I'm a foot and a bit away from my monitor I dont need a 30" to display high resolutions ..a $100 21" crt can do that just fine



level playing field a regular tv is not using a ps3 to it's fullest potential



no you dont, my last build (mother in law) plays all the latest games and it was $700 ..now I agree that to have it at it's fullest potential it'll cost me a little over $1000 ..$1300 with a 22" monitor



apples and oranges ..a pc does more than play games but any pc can play games regardless of price point ..a ps3 can only play games/media


btw let me see you load this on to your ps3 and play it

http://onemorelevel.com/games3/double-wires.swf
Click to expand...

You probably could play that through the browser and with a KB+M.
 
right now? plug in a keyboard, download the program and let her rip ..post screen shots/photos of you playing drunken spiderman please
 
CptStern said:
right now? plug in a keyboard, download the program and let her rip ..post screen shots/photos of you playing drunken spiderman please
Click to expand...

Well I don't own a PS3 so I don't think that'll happen, but the browser has video playback and supports flash so I'm sure if someone else tested it, they would get it to work.

Sort of a trivial thing, though.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEcttV2qNCQ

Video of flash games running on the Wii and working with the remote.
 
CptStern said:
right now? plug in a keyboard, download the program and let her rip ..post screen shots/photos of you playing drunken spiderman please
Click to expand...

Yeah you could do it. I already told you the PS3 supports Linux and comes with Mozilla, you can do a lot more than that with it. It'd probably even work in the standard browser, I use it to watch flash videos all the time.

In case you missed it earlier, I also said it comes with OpenOffice. That means you can create powerpoints, word documents, excel spreadsheets, and all the other stuff that program does too. Right now programs that don't come pre-loaded and aren't designed for it don't run extremely well, but it's only a matter of time - this is the first release candidate.

As far as your argument goes - you keep harping on about "fullest potential." Well using a $600 computer is definitely not the fullest potential, yet a 1080p TV is the fullest the PS3 can go. Like you said, apples and oranges. Another very important point is that your $600 PC won't be able to max out the latest games now, and it won't even play them very well if at all in 1-2 years. The PS3 will be here for about 7 (look at the PS2, it's still going) and will have developers working the entire time to push it as far as it can go.

Like I said, since we were talking fullest potential, I'm going to use your numbers here. You said $1.3k for a PC capable of that+monitor. PS3 is $500+$700 for 30'' widescreen HDTV (the one I own, being generous because there are better deals out there). Right there you have $1200 for the PS3, but you also get a TV that you either already have or probably would have gotten anyway. I know you're going to say that you would have to have a PC even if you don't play games - let's be overly generous again and say you went for a nice one for $500, that's $800 you spent just on the game portion of your PC. That PC will not be able to play games at their fullest potential after 2 years, and will need to be upgraded in three ... the PS3 will continue providing top quality for new games for another 7 years.

Once again, it is more cost effective to play console games than PC games. You can argue (and quite effectively I might add) that PC gaming is better, and point to arguments such as the graphics passing that of the new consoles in 1-2 years, but it is a damn fact that console gaming is cheaper.
 
If you both keep saying apples and oranges, then why do you both keep arguing about which is better?
 
Too tangy. And your fingers are sticky after eating them.
 
Buy a PS3 and it'll run crap games in 5 years.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Too tangy. And your fingers are sticky after eating them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well apples are too bitter, and you can't eat the core.

Well, you can, but it tastes bad.

Also putting apple slices in Jell-O isn't as tasty as with orange slices.
 
I'm holding out for the Console that allows me to build my own game levels, add in custom content as I like, and publish those levels globally so other players can enjoy them. Until that console comes around I think I'll be sticking with the PC.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
I'm holding out for the Console that allows me to build my own game levels, add in custom content as I like, and publish those levels globally so other players can enjoy them. Until that console comes around I think I'll be sticking with the PC.
Click to expand...

Then buy a 360 and start working on Xbox Live Arcade titles.
 
With the free version you can access the place where you pay?

/EDIT not being sarcastic, i seriously don't understand XBOX Live
 
smwScott said:
Yeah you could do it. I already told you the PS3 supports Linux and comes with Mozilla, you can do a lot more than that with it. It'd probably even work in the standard browser, I use it to watch flash videos all the time.

In case you missed it earlier, I also said it comes with OpenOffice. That means you can create powerpoints, word documents, excel spreadsheets, and all the other stuff that program does too. Right now programs that don't come pre-loaded and aren't designed for it don't run extremely well, but it's only a matter of time - this is the first release candidate.
Click to expand...

still wont have the same abilities no matter how many gimped programs you throw at it

smwScott said:
As far as your argument goes - you keep harping on about "fullest potential." Well using a $600 computer is definitely not the fullest potential, yet a 1080p TV is the fullest the PS3 can go. Like you said, apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

yes because pcs are completely scalable yet they can all access the same content it's completely relative: a $600 pc can output to 1080p on a hdtv a beefier rig can run resolutions that are much higher than 1080p on even a cheap $100 crt ..again apples and oranges because they're both designed for different purposes ..I would sit a foot from my tv

smwScott said:
Another very important point is that your $600 PC won't be able to max out the latest games now, and it won't even play them very well if at all in 1-2 years. The PS3 will be here for about 7 (look at the PS2, it's still going) and will have developers working the entire time to push it as far as it can go.
Click to expand...

yes but by that time the comparison from ps3 games to pc will be about how ps2 looks in comparison to pc now ...apples and oranges

smwScott said:
Like I said, since we were talking fullest potential, I'm going to use your numbers here. You said $1.3k for a PC capable of that+monitor. PS3 is $500+$700 for 30'' widescreen HDTV (the one I own, being generous because there are better deals out there). Right there you have $1200 for the PS3, but you also get a TV that you either already have or probably would have gotten anyway.
Click to expand...

you're fudging the numbers ..my figures were in canadian dollars ..so it's $649 for the ps3 not $500 so it's about the same (I'll ignore that you didnt add things like extra controllers, keyboard etc)

smwScott said:
I know you're going to say that you would have to have a PC even if you don't play games
Click to expand...

or the flipside being that you'd most likely have a pc if you're purchasing a ps3

smwScott said:
- let's be overly generous again and say you went for a nice one for $500, that's $800 you spent just on the game portion of your PC.
Click to expand...

not necessarily ..I do graphic work, 2g of ram is bare minimum, dual core cpu, decent graphics card etc also watching movies on anything larger than a 17" screen etc

smwScott said:
That PC will not be able to play games at their fullest potential after 2 years, and will need to be upgraded in three ...
Click to expand...

depending on what type of gamer you are ...i could play solitarie or chess or the sims for more than 3 years on the same pc

smwScott said:
the PS3 will continue providing top quality for new games for another 7 years.
Click to expand...

nope it stopped being top quality the day the nvidia 8800 was released in terms of graphics horsepower ..pcs will surpass consoles this year in terms of visuals ..the ps3 will have deminishing returns up until it's eventual retirement

smwScott said:
Once again, it is more cost effective to play console games than PC games.
Click to expand...

it's not really a valid comparison because the ps3 is static for it's entire cycle; you will not be able to upgrade. I concede that it is cheaper but so long as you accept that what you have in front of you is as good as it gets ...no so with the pc, each sucsessive graphics generation or engine iteration ups the ante for what the pc is capable of doing ..if both gamers stayed static I concede that a console is a better choice as the pc gamer will run out of options in about half the amount of time as the ps3 gamer ..however the ps3 gamer will have to bite his lip and take it like a man as his ps3 spirals into obsolescence with each passing year

smwScott said:
You can argue (and quite effectively I might add) that PC gaming is better, and point to arguments such as the graphics passing that of the new consoles in 1-2 years, but it is a damn fact that console gaming is cheaper.
Click to expand...

fine I concede to that point however it's apples and oranges so ...not really :)






bottom line: to each his own, I like upgrading my gaming tool of choice
 
CptStern said:
it's not really a valid comparison because the ps3 is static for it's entire cycle; you will not be able to upgrade. I concede that it is cheaper but so long as you accept that what you have in front of you is as good as it gets ...no so with the pc, each sucsessive graphics generation or engine iteration ups the ante for what the pc is capable of doing ..
Click to expand...
That's not exactly true. Look at the first few PS2 games and then look at the current generation PS2 games. Some of them have vastly improved in terms of graphical quality. The biggest problem is, how far will you be able to push the PS3 in terms of graphical quality if it is already being surpassed?
 
Beerdude26 said:
That's not exactly true. Look at the first few PS2 games and then look at the current generation PS2 games. Some of them have vastly improved in terms of graphical quality. The biggest problem is, how far will you be able to push the PS3 in terms of graphical quality if it is already being surpassed?
Click to expand...

Some? Its All PS2 games. It all comes down to experience and it obviously isn't there in the first year of the consoles cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

-smash-
Are Valve and Bad Robot Still Working Together on a New Game?
Replies
6
Views
15K
sage78
sage78
BabyHeadCrab
Gabe and VAC. PSA on Reddit.
Replies
2
Views
2K
MuToiD_MaN
MuToiD_MaN
ríomhaire
Gabe Newell Talks About Valve's Organisational Structure
Replies
18
Views
10K
SteamEmpire
SteamEmpire
Pikminiman
[Update: It's over.] Gabe Newell's Reddit AMA Round-Up
2
Replies
40
Views
17K
Pikminiman
Pikminiman
Destructo-Bot
Just got a robotic vacuum...
Replies
1
Views
2K
tabernumse
tabernumse
Back
Top