Originally Posted by Myself on the issue of console gaming hindering PC games.
>dual 64-bit AMD at 6000MHz
Don't argue if you don't have any knowledge about your subject. You are probably talking about a dual-core processor @ 3.0 GHz. Cores do NOT work in parallel. And even if they did, you wouldn't multiply the clock frequency by the number of cores.
Console gamers use the ol' "I NEED $1500 FOR GAMING COMPUTER STFU NOOB" copout. Problem is, they don't need that much, and the performance they get would be super overkill in comparison to console-rendered graphics.
Most consoles are sold at a loss, or for no profit. They profit through other mediums such as licenses to make games, subscriptions, peripheral accessories, etc. Since consoles are proprietary, they can afford to sell at a loss. Since the PC market isn't proprietary, PCs and parts are usually sold for a profit.
Today, you can buy or manually assemble a computer that can reach console-level graphics for the price of a console, EVEN THOUGH CONSOLES THEMSELVES DO NOT PROFIT. If consoles never change, then you will always be able to play on console-level graphics on said computer. The PC isn't a platform exclusive to gaming, either- it's an actual multimedia platform! There's little reason to deny that the PC is an inherently superior platform.
P.S As an addendum to my points, you have to pay a monthly subscription on the Xbox platform in order to play online. Remember when I told you that consoles were sold for a loss?
However, they were priced at US$499 and US$599 respectively, meaning that units may have been sold at an estimated loss of $306 or $241 depending on model, if the cost estimates were correct...
After typing out all this Engrish, I thought I had to share it on SPUF.