Profile of TexasRanger

Xbone not having backwards compatability was because Microsoft decided to not learn from Sonys mistakes and make the Xbone a multi-core processor, so that it couldn't emulate anything from a 360!

Well the ps3 can play any ps2 game, so I'm not really sure how that works. Not playing older gen games isn't really a huge deal, but can still be annoying down the road.

It really all comes down to games for me, and Sony just has so many people making great exclusives for them it's hard for xbox to compete even with an equally great console. The fact that they screwed the pooch with subscriptions and online requirements just makes the decision really obvious.

X1 always online and still using the subscription-based xbox live is such a fail. More powerful ps3 with tons more exclusives seals the deal for the third generation in a row!

Winner: Dark Souls

1) Implying post-launch support available on PCs but not consoles is a bad thing against PCs. It allows for patching, balancing and game development beyond launch.

2) Implying better replay functions would be sold as optional buyable DLC, which they certainly will not.

3) Implying PCs capacity to handle optional payed content DLC is a bad thing. As long as they arent pay-to-win, ofc.

4) Implying console games are "complete" when launched. Which they most certainly are not. Instead developers cut content, diversity and functions in order to simplify the game down through shortcutsmin order to meet deadlines and reduce complexity. You must be too young to remember how incredibly buggy console games have been in the past. And they still are. Games designed to be crossported to consoles bottleneck developers massively, and turn what could have been a far more complex and better game on PC, into a shit, cut down, lowesr common denominator product, as throttled by the limitations of consoles.

You seem to be a master of making false implicationsl and then arguing against them as if the other person had ever said them.

I implied none of those things. If you don't understand my post, please don't respond to it. I am primarily a PC gamer, I just feel the need to play devil's advocate since this will obviously be a "PC MASTER RACE!!!" forum.

1. Post-launch support is available for console too. Patching and balancing does happen on my ps3, and I never implied it was bad.

2. I neither said nor implied it would be paid dlc.

3. Not implied. My ps3 also handles optional, paid DLC, and no it's not a bad thing at all.

4. The idea of completeness comes from the fact that you know exactly what you're getting when you buy a console game. The notion of advertising post-launch features X, Y, and Z before the game ever launches does not really exist for consoles. Both console and PC devs occasionally release games that feel unfinished and rushed - that's not exclusive to consoles.

Like you pointed out PC has dominance in some genres, like RTS games, but consoles excel in other areas like sports or racing.

Also, getting together with friends to play some super smash bros. is a lot less nerdy than setting up a CoH LAN party! Just saying.

Errrr no. This time I come prepared for my rebuttal!

The average gamer is over 30 years old. That means they should have the cash to purchase a rig IF they so desire.

Source on this? As someone who is less than 30 and who routinely listens to 9 other Justin Biebers spam voice chat in-game, I would lay strong doubt to that first claim.

Cost. This is total bullshit, and people that say a console is cheaper than a gaming PC, has never done the math correctly. For educational purposes lets do it:

-You can get a gaming PC for $500 bucks, that runs the newest games (at max graphics), if you know where to look. Granted, it will have generic hardware, and you'll have to replace it soon enough, but you can play at 60fps. I built a $1500 PC (including speakers, monitor, etc), and it has lasted my since 2007 without any upgrades whatsoever (I can play Bioshock Infinite on lowest settings, but hey, I can play it). That's almost 6 years. Divide the investment on a yearly basis: that's like $300 bucks a year.

Interesting. I bought my ps3 in 2007 for $500 (less than $400 considering I traded in my ps2). Compared to your $300/year PC, that feels like a bargain. I'm not a math major anymore, but even if it was an xbox with yearly online fees and shoddy equipment that needs replacement, my calculations see consoles as considerably cheaper.

I do not mean to stray too far. I love my ps3 and my PC, and would hate to choose 1 over another.

Yes, me too. The password is written very lo-res in game so I haven't ruled out the possibility that I'm misreading it.