This is something I've wanted to write for a long time, but never bothered with.

When it comes to discussing games console/portable technology, why are gamers so eager to use completely useless comparisons? It's always been PC vs console but now with smartphones this shit is getting worse.

Dedicated games consoles are priced for a reason, many reasons. Usually they have different hardware targets and features and are thus priced appropiately. You also have a razor model which some employ, some don't. Others have unique hardware features as USPs that (shock!) actually cost money to implement. If the market conditions are unfavourable they adjust the price accordingly. If it costs too much to make the console they cannot offer it cheaply without committing to years of taking losses.

There is SO much wrong with Gamers arguments' that it beggars belief. I find it hard to believe that some cannot work out the simple principles of a math equation as to why a console is priced as it is - compared to what it offers vs its specs.

BUT MY PC TROUNCES THE SHIT OUT OF CURRENT GEN CONSOLES

The consoles you are comparing your (modern) PC too are 5-6 years old now, WTF is the point of this stupidity? If you were to buy a PC of the same spec as your modern PC back in 2006 how much would it cost you compared to how much the 360 did? The price of consoles in order of magnitude are usually at a minimum half as much as a mid-range PC. Consoles specs are frozen in time, new PCs are continuously improved so what the f*** is the point of comparing your ever evolving PC space with a frozen in time box?

If you compare a PC and a console which are exactly the same spec, the console wins because a PC has to do fifty milllion other things with complex operating systems and requirements. Consoles can do more with less compared to PC in gaming terms. So what if your PC has twice the RAM of a console? The console can do wonders with that RAM while your OS will use half your PC RAM. PCs usually cost a lot more than consoles, sure you may be willing to pay more and put up with the hurdles you may have to jump to with your custom PC - on console terms it's a completely different ball park. And many consumers are not willing to pay high prices for a luxury car for instance.

BUT MY SMARTPHONE HAS MORE RAM THAN CONSOLE X

Just fuuuuuuuuuuuck off with the smartphone comparisons. Dipshit, your phone is on contract over 5 years, to buy it outright costs £500, compared to what? A portable that costs £150? Your smartphone gets new updated editions every year forever, the portable is frozen in time tech delivered at a fraction of the price. Guess what, the dedicated portable gets better games than the casual shite you pick up on your overpriced and underused smartphone.

BUT THIS CONSOLES SPECS ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT WEAKSAUCE ARCHAIC POS

Ever heard the phrase like for like? You're supossed to use it when making accurate comparisons. Some newer consoles have unique hardware features as USPs that (shock!) actually cost money to implement. So do the math. If you have two companies with $300 to spend on each machine.

• Company A chooses to spend $100 of that on an elaborate touch screen controller
• Company B uses all $300 to use higher performance components with no other hardware USPs

It means company A has $200 to spend on it's specs vs $300 of the other company.

Which console will have better graphics? No shit. But gamers should recognise and understand the reasons why and compare like for like. You will hear years of bitching about graphics and yet no one will ever say: Yeah but does Console B come with a controller like that? Simple fact, something like that costs money, so the system has to be balanced to factor this in and deliver it at an affordable price.

Other factors? Well how is the economy doing? If consumer spending is down then a hardware maker may skew the console to be cheaper. How is the company doing? If it's MS and they can blow hundreds of millions and take a loss on hardware sure pat them on the back, not everyone can do that. Why can't you understand this?

Here is something to think about: Xbox and Gamecube sold similar numbers, Nintendo made a profit on each GC sold, Microsoft lost money on each box and Xbox lost Microsoft $4 billion . One console was subject to abject mockery throughout its life, the other is a regarded as a success. Given the cost of making a box, versus how much you can sell it for and the obvious, implicit implications for years to come, can your fragile mind not understand why a console doesn't feature expensive bleeding edge hardware?

Wii U better be $250. I don't care that it's a last gen system with a fancy controller, I'm just a cheap arsehole. So it better be damn cheap.

Archangel3371 said:

The Wii U better be $199. I don't pay more then $200 for kids toys.

Good point comrade. If it's anything over $200 we'll have to buy them in bulk to help take NIntendo down. Viva la revolution!

Dvader said:

Wii U better be $250. I dont care about specs, I just know its a last gen system with a fancy controller. So it better be damn cheap.

But how does it compare to your smartphone, asshole? Hope this is sarcasm!

Say it with me:

• Company A chooses to spend $100 of that on an elaborate touch screen controller
• Company B uses all $300 to use higher performance components with no other hardware USPs

It means company A has $200 to spend on it's specs vs $300 of the other company.

P.S

Wii U uses a modern architecture and components, check out my post in the Wii U thread. It will be able to outperform the best looking PS3/360 games if the same level of effort is made with it. Which no 3rd party will do. It has a GPGPU, DSP, Tesselation Unit, I/O processor which negates the need for a fourth core, better DX level equivalent with compute shaders, an out of order processor, 8 channels of sound, 3 times as much eDRAM as 360 for better IQ, AA and should have about 3 times as much RAM which means less to no texture compression and more detailed textures. All this means better graphics. You were wowed by MGS Zeros? If that is for PS3/360 and so is Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs then you have no problem with Wii U which can do those better. Not as good as PC or the new consoles launching late 2013 or early 2014 though.

But seriously these smartphone fuckers need to shut it. Their smartphones cost as much as a laptop for chrissakes, if it's not on contract and the games usually look like crap anyway bar the odd standout.

Foolz said:

Good point comrade. If it's anything over $200 we'll have to buy them in bulk to help take NIntendo down. Viva la revolution!

We have a great discussion of this on the new podcast. I clarify my stance on the Wii U a bit there but I will share it here to. GG as for smartphones I agree, I dont see why anyone should compare, very different things. Now about the console to console comparison, your numbers are correct, what you are not taking into account are the expectations of the consumer. We knew all along the Wii U would be on the 360/PS3 level. With that comes an expectation of it being cheaper than a usual launch. Yes the controller is expensive, but Nintendo knew that selling people on a tablet controller is much harder than selling people on totally amazing new graphics.

Are people wrong in saying it should be cheaper, from a technical fact based answer yes they are cause the pad costs X amount and the system costs X amount and that price is reasonable cause of that. But consumers dont go by that, many times the expectations become the reality, with what will be old tech the system should cost less, controller and all. Its what happened to the PS3, that system was $600 cause it cost that much to make, does that mean people were wrong to say it was too expensive, no.

Oh I didn't realise there were new comments.

Dvader said:

Nintendo knew that selling people on a tablet controller is much harder than selling people on totally amazing new graphics.

Hmmm, pretty sure after DS and Wii they are sure about the opposite. They had last gen graphics but sold bucketloads because of hardware USPs. I guess you are expecting that Nintendo are (or should be) aiming their consoles at the die hard COD crowd? Maybe that's the problem with expectations.

Dvader said:

with what will be old tech the system should cost less, controller and all.

That's the problem, Wii U does not have old tech, it has new tech. It has a whole new architecture which will have more in common with PS4/Durango

Check out my post in the Wii U thread. It has a GPGPU, DSP, Tesselation Unit, I/O processor which negates the need for a fourth core, better DX level equivalent with compute shaders, an out of order processor, 8 channels of sound, 3 times as much eDRAM as 360 for better IQ, AA and should have about 3 times as much RAM which means less to no texture compression and more detailed textures. All this means better graphics.

Arkham a dev, working on a Wii U port bemoaned the tech early this year saying the ports would look worse because of the difference in architecture when porting 360 games. He recently though called it a "little beast" and said he couldn't wait for ground up games because of it.

When the new consoles hit Wii U will be left behind just like the wii was. That is what I mean.

Iga_Bobovic said:

Not by the same margin if the rumours are correct. But it does not matter. The Wii was behind the minute is was designed from a graphical stand point. At least Wii U is ahead. Even if it will last a few months or a year!

Yeah. So that is kind of why I am ok with the price, for the next year it will be a good price point for them. As soon as the other consoles hit it will drop. In the end Nintendo made the right choice for them.