As if there couldn't be any more Call of Duty-related revelations today, Modern Warfare 2 has seen a slight delay on PC.
That's according to a report by Electronic Theatre, which claims that the PC version of the game will now arrive a fortnight later than its console cousins on November 24.
File this under rumour for now. We've contacted Activision UK for comment.
Modern Warfare 2
Official trailer
2:12Infamy trailer
Modern Warfare 2
Official trailer
2:12Infamy trailer
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 15 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
It's just a rumor for now, but it's hardly unheard of. Personally, I consider 2009 one of the worst years in recent memory in terms of games release dates being delayed. While some have touted 2009 as one of the greatest gaming years ever, I beg to differ in light of the mass migration of game releases to 2010. At this rate 2010 will see the games market bottleneck and choke itself off economically due to oversaturation.
PC people are used to that. They release games for games platforms on time, then the PC later.
Gaming on a PC is like making fire with sticks. Yes it can be done, but why would you bother when you can do it faster, easier, and get a far better result using a lighter (which obviously represents the console in this analogy).
PC people are used to that. They release games for games platforms on time, then the PC later.
Gaming on a PC is like making fire with sticks. Yes it can be done, but why would you bother when you can do it faster, easier, and get a far better result using a lighter (which obviously represents the console in this analogy).
The only fault I can see with that analogy is that buying a lighter is more expensive than finding sticks - when in fact it should be the reverse. But in terms of your argument I agree wholeheartedly.
One other problem is the use of "better". In terms of actual tech capabilities what exactly can any of the existing consoles do "better" than a PC considering that the PC has access to the same, and often superior, hardware? Answer: Nothing. So, drop the "better" aspect and incorporate the "lighter" analogy and you're closer to an analogy that makes sense.
All that said, FPS was made on the PC and to this day it still remains at heart for the PC. Only the "laser gun", etc. concept has provided anything that even remotely compares to M&K FPS controls. Natal and other such tech may eventually even the equation somewhat, yet that is still a hypothetical.
You couldn't pay me to pick the console version of this game over the PC version. Just the frustration of being stuck with a gimped version of the control system would be enough to have me entertain thoughts of snapping the game disc in half. I equate it with being akin to going from highspeed broadband to a 56k dial-up modem = insufferable for any extended amount of time.
PC people are used to that. They release games for games platforms on time, then the PC later.
Gaming on a PC is like making fire with sticks. Yes it can be done, but why would you bother when you can do it faster, easier, and get a far better result using a lighter (which obviously represents the console in this analogy).
Not a good analogy at all really. Consoles are more like a microwave meal-for-one curry - yes it's cheap, quick and edible, but it tastes like crap compared to an Indian restaurant.
The PC version will be graphically superior, control-wise superior, cheaper with free online, free DLC, have a decent server browser and won't have too many annoying screaming kids online.
Judging by the fact that consoles now need upgrades and games need repeatedly patching, and both 360 and PS3 have recently been subject to hardware failure - why are consoles echoing the PC so much, if they're so much better?
I may as well repost something I wrote this morning in another thread. Yes, the graphics are better on the PC generally, but that is one of only a few advantages.
Ignoring the other inconveniences of power consumption, boot times etc. - you have to pay a substantial premium to get your PC to be able to play games in as comfortable an environment as that of an out-the-box console, let alone to customise your setup to your own personal taste.
And that's before we look at the time and effort of getting your set up "just so". When I buy a console, I spend a few hundred pounds and within 15 minutes of it being through the door I'm playing in HD and comfortably on my sofa.
I used to play games solely on the PC, so I can understand the appeal and I'm not criticising those who are hardcore PC gamers, but having seen the pros and cons of both sides I know which side suits me the best.
What if I want to go round a friend's house and play a co-op or multiplayer game with them? I can just take my controller, sign in with my account and play split screen. Setting up LAN parties is a massive pain in the backside in packing it all up, finding space for people, setting it all up, network issues etc. Because it's so difficult, they rarely occur and as such PC gaming can be a fairly solitary pursuit, in my experience (playing with people over the internet doesn't count). As a student it was a bit easier when there's a few of you living in the same house all networked together, but once you move into the real world you realise it's a little bit lonely.
I find it quite difficult to believe that gaming will be so important in my life that I end up spending a thousand (or more) every 5 years or so and a decent chunk of my time setting it all up. It's just not worth it, in my opinion.
I may as well repost something I wrote this morning in another thread. Yes, the graphics are better on the PC generally, but that is one of only a few advantages.
Ignoring the other inconveniences of power consumption, boot times etc. - you have to pay a substantial premium to get your PC to be able to play games in as comfortable an environment as that of an out-the-box console, let alone to customise your setup to your own personal taste.
And that's before we look at the time and effort of getting your set up "just so". When I buy a console, I spend a few hundred pounds and within 15 minutes of it being through the door I'm playing in HD and comfortably on my sofa.
I used to play games solely on the PC, so I can understand the appeal and I'm not criticising those who are hardcore PC gamers, but having seen the pros and cons of both sides I know which side suits me the best.
What if I want to go round a friend's house and play a co-op or multiplayer game with them? I can just take my controller, sign in with my account and play split screen. Setting up LAN parties is a massive pain in the backside in packing it all up, finding space for people, setting it all up, network issues etc. Because it's so difficult, they rarely occur and as such PC gaming can be a fairly solitary pursuit, in my experience (playing with people over the internet doesn't count). As a student it was a bit easier when there's a few of you living in the same house all networked together, but once you move into the real world you realise it's a little bit lonely.
I find it quite difficult to believe that gaming will be so important in my life that I end up spending a thousand (or more) every 5 years or so and a decent chunk of my time setting it all up. It's just not worth it, in my opinion.
Yep that pretty much sums up what I ws going to say
you have to pay a substantial premium to get your PC to be able to play games in as comfortable an environment as that of an out-the-box console
You're still limited to an uncomfortable gimped control method on your comfortable sofa. At least PC players have the option of using crap controls if they want. Although the 30 seconds setting that up would constitute more "time and effort" I suppose.
You're typing on a PC now presumably? So you already had to set it up? Terrible argument, by the way.
you have to pay a substantial premium to get your PC to be able to play games in as comfortable an environment as that of an out-the-box console
You're still limited to an uncomfortable gimped control method on your comfortable sofa. At least PC players have the option of using crap controls if they want. Although the 30 seconds setting that up would constitute more "time and effort" I suppose.
That's your opinion. Personally I think (and I think a lot of people will agree) the controller is far more comfortable. How would you play with a mouse and keyboard on a sofa comfortably? Do you have to buy a tea-tray of some sort?
You're typing on a PC now presumably? So you already had to set it up? Terrible argument, by the way.
This is a work computer, so no, I didn't have to set it up on my own time.
you have to pay a substantial premium to get your PC to be able to play games in as comfortable an environment as that of an out-the-box console
You're still limited to an uncomfortable gimped control method on your comfortable sofa. At least PC players have the option of using crap controls if they want. Although the 30 seconds setting that up would constitute more "time and effort" I suppose.
You're typing on a PC now presumably? So you already had to set it up? Terrible argument, by the way.
My work has n IT department to set up the PC I'm typing on!
This is a work computer, so no, I didn't have to set it up on my own time.
Judging by the state of your argument, and the fact that you seem incapable of moving away from a sofa, I'd be inclined to agree with your opinion.
It would definitely take you a long, long time to set up a PC. Console gaming is perfect for you. Enjoy.
I will. Cheers.
Although I must say I do find it quite pathetic that you chose to use snide insults even though I made it obvious that my reasoning was based on personal experience and acknowledgement that it wasn't going to be the same opinion for everyone. I was in no way trying to cause any offence.
Apologies - I didn't mean to have a go as much as I did, I was out of order. It didn't sound that personal as I typed it, but reading it back is disgusting.
fallout - pads are great for every genre except the one we're talking about, and they're also available for the PC; so you can have the best of both worlds.
I can't think of anything worse than ruining a decent FPS by playing with a pad. As somebody else said, it's like being limited to a 56k modem when you're used to broadband. But then again, if that's what you're used to then you probably won't see it that way.
Apologies - I didn't mean to have a go as much as I did, I was out of order. It didn't sound that personal as I typed it, but reading it back is disgusting.
I may as well repost something I wrote this morning in another thread. Yes, the graphics are better on the PC generally, but that is one of only a few advantages.
Ignoring the other inconveniences of power consumption, boot times etc. - you have to pay a substantial premium to get your PC to be able to play games in as comfortable an environment as that of an out-the-box console, let alone to customise your setup to your own personal taste.
And that's before we look at the time and effort of getting your set up "just so". When I buy a console, I spend a few hundred pounds and within 15 minutes of it being through the door I'm playing in HD and comfortably on my sofa.
I used to play games solely on the PC, so I can understand the appeal and I'm not criticising those who are hardcore PC gamers, but having seen the pros and cons of both sides I know which side suits me the best.
What if I want to go round a friend's house and play a co-op or multiplayer game with them? I can just take my controller, sign in with my account and play split screen. Setting up LAN parties is a massive pain in the backside in packing it all up, finding space for people, setting it all up, network issues etc. Because it's so difficult, they rarely occur and as such PC gaming can be a fairly solitary pursuit, in my experience (playing with people over the internet doesn't count). As a student it was a bit easier when there's a few of you living in the same house all networked together, but once you move into the real world you realise it's a little bit lonely.
I find it quite difficult to believe that gaming will be so important in my life that I end up spending a thousand (or more) every 5 years or so and a decent chunk of my time setting it all up. It's just not worth it, in my opinion.
All those settings you go on about setting up "just so" are what makes the PC a multi-tasking workhorse that puts the consoles completely and utterly to shame in every single performance area. Sure, the consoles do a good enough job at playing games, but there is a reason why the PC crowd is considered elitist and it's because the PC is elite.
It's fair enough that your personal preference lies with the console(s). I too enjoy my Xbox 360 but my gaming PC is my proverbial "baby" in matters related to gaming.
As for not counting playing online as playing with other people? Well, suffice to say that I, and I'd wager tens of millions of other people, disagree with your personal definition.
The 1,000 quid or so setup you are referring to on a 5 year basis could conceivably be covered by price differences between PC games and console games providing you buy a certain amount per year. Furthermore, do not discount the cost of a LCD or plasma screen TV (many of which are hardly super economical in terms of power being used when not in standby mode), etc. - sure, it could be an old tube TV but those are hard to find in the developed world's mainstream TV stores these days. That too is part of the console operation costs just as a monitor, etc. is for the PC.
As for not counting playing online as playing with other people? Well, suffice to say that I, and I'd wager tens of millions of other people, disagree with your personal definition.
You miss the point - I'm not simply referring to multiplayer gaming. The social interaction of playing games in the same room over some drinks and food just can't be replicated anywhere near as easily on the PC. I find that side of multiplayer gaming far more enjoyable than just going lone-wolf online.
If you and all your friends have gaming-spec laptops then fair enough, but I wager that is the smallest minority of PC gamers.
And I very much doubt the extra money I pay per cycle in the difference between PC and console games makes up the difference in the initial cost.
As for not counting playing online as playing with other people? Well, suffice to say that I, and I'd wager tens of millions of other people, disagree with your personal definition.
You miss the point - I'm not simply referring to multiplayer gaming. The social interaction of playing games in the same room over some drinks and food just can't be replicated anywhere near as easily on the PC. I find that side of multiplayer gaming far more enjoyable than just going lone-wolf online.
I didn't miss that point; however, as Kricca has already pointed out you can connect a PC to a modern TV and use gamepads, etc. with about the same amount of hassle as it would take to set up a console. Granted, the PC tower will likely be heavier but that is what upper body strength is for. It's only a problem if the beholder in question decides to perceive it that way.
P.S. Regarding a price tag of 1,000 quid - be it for a PC, a media system, something else, etc. - over a five year period that would amount to 16.67 quid per month. Depending on how frequently a person uses a PC or a TV, etc. that is a frighteningly good return on investment...providing you have the financial means to pony up the cash at the initial point of investment. That's the catch, but then that is always the catch when buying anything.
As for not counting playing online as playing with other people? Well, suffice to say that I, and I'd wager tens of millions of other people, disagree with your personal definition.
You miss the point - I'm not simply referring to multiplayer gaming. The social interaction of playing games in the same room over some drinks and food just can't be replicated anywhere near as easily on the PC. I find that side of multiplayer gaming far more enjoyable than just going lone-wolf online.
I didn't miss that point; however, as Kricca has already pointed out you can connect a PC to a modern TV and use gamepads, etc. with about the same amount of hassle as it would take to set up a console. Granted, the PC tower will likely be heavier but that is what upper body strength is for. It's only a problem if the beholder in question decides to perceive it that way.
So how easy would it be to do 4-way split screen multiplayer, all connected online using just the one TV with PCs?
Gaming on a PC is like making fire with sticks. Yes it can be done, but why would you bother when you can do it faster, easier, and get a far better result using a lighter (which obviously represents the console in this analogy).
Here's a better metaphor: Console is the lighter - cheaper, faster (to get set up), etc. PC is a homemade flamethrower. It can do a lot more, but is more expensive and you have to put it together yourself (unless you want to spend more on a factory-built model). The sticks/lighter analogy doesn't work because PCs have more advanced technology available. From a tech standpoint, consoles are dated and inferior, making them more like the sticks. And PCs get a better result - most multiplatform game reviews will tell you that the PC version runs more smoothly, better framerate, higher-res graphics, larger player capacity for multiplayer, etc. I have a PC and a 360 - trust me, if the developer actually cares about their PC version, it's always better.
As for not counting playing online as playing with other people? Well, suffice to say that I, and I'd wager tens of millions of other people, disagree with your personal definition.
You miss the point - I'm not simply referring to multiplayer gaming. The social interaction of playing games in the same room over some drinks and food just can't be replicated anywhere near as easily on the PC. I find that side of multiplayer gaming far more enjoyable than just going lone-wolf online.
I didn't miss that point; however, as Kricca has already pointed out you can connect a PC to a modern TV and use gamepads, etc. with about the same amount of hassle as it would take to set up a console. Granted, the PC tower will likely be heavier but that is what upper body strength is for. It's only a problem if the beholder in question decides to perceive it that way.
So how easy would it be to do 4-way split screen multiplayer, all connected online using just the one TV with PCs?
About as easy as plugging in a USB router with 4 ports, providing the game's software supports it, but that isn't the responsbility of the PC. That would be the responsbility of the game's developer/publisher.
I like the mouse part of the keyboard/mouse combo, but often struggle with the keyboard. Plenty of buttons, sure, but too fiddly for me (although I'm sure there are better ones out there that focus on gaming (with large QWEASD, like the large number 5 on the T12 Wasp?).
After playing the wii, the stick and pointer are an amazing combo. Although probably too few buttons on the nunchuck! You also get the benefit of analogue movement with a stick compared to pressing a keyboard button.
From playing online with the PC, I find the annoying kids from XBL are often replaced with sanctimonious adults. Kind of like comparing the CVG and Edge forums - the f**kers on the latter are still annoying, they just have deeper voices and use longer words.
I think both are great at what they do, but I definitely went with the hassle free approach. Plus I work from home, so am in my room at my PC most of the day - so don't want to be here after 6pm!
My main point earlier was that most homes have a PC these days anyway, so paying £150 for a gaming grade graphics card every couple of years is worth it.
My main point earlier was that most homes have a PC these days anyway, so paying £150 for a gaming grade graphics card every couple of years is worth it.
I get that. I was shocked when I realised how powerful my PC could be with a half decent graphics card (still not got a decent one yet though!) for £150.
The best way of comparing the whole console to PC thing is to say; could a 4 year old £280 Windows XP PC play Modern Warfare 2 better than an Xbox 360? Because saying that a modern £1,000+ PC is better than a Sub £200 console is a bit redundant.
Back on subject, we all know that MW2 is going to be the most pirated PC game this year, so I'm sure Activision and Infinity Ward would rather that bit of news doesn't get plastered across all the news channels when the game gets released(though we all know it'll be on the torrent sites long before it's release date anyway).
The best way of comparing the whole console to PC thing is to say; could a 4 year old £280 Windows XP PC play Modern Warfare 2 better than an Xbox 360? Because saying that a modern £1,000+ PC is better than a Sub £200 console is a bit redundant.
Back on subject, we all know that MW2 is going to be the most pirated PC game this year, so I'm sure Activision and Infinity Ward would rather that bit of news doesn't get plastered across all the news channels when the game gets released(though we all know it'll be on the torrent sites long before it's release date anyway).
1) I'm so glad we can all agree that the PC is superior. Now, let's up the ante; I can put together a PC system with parts from today that will put the Xbox 360's hardware to shame for the price of 280 quid at the currency exchange rates between the Pound and the Euro from 4 years ago (we want the best way to compare without being redundant after all)...
For proof feel free to visit the link below where you can purchase a ready-made PC.
Oh, and to give some reputable support to my claims, please watch the following review video of a similar HD 4670 card from HIS. Sadly that particular card is unavailable at the PC website I've linked to which has a slower Memory Clock, yet has double the amount of GDDR3 so it should be fairly even between this card and the HIS card in the review video.
The beautiful thing about this is that I didn't even have to resort to 4 year old tech to put together a system for a similar price.
Note: Before anyone starts to bring up the additional cost of a PC monitor, etc. I'm going to point out that the same applies to the Xbox 360, and for any of the other consoles (i.e. you need to buy a TV to play the console, etc).
This is where you no longer have a leg to stand on, Ted1138.
2) "We" don't "know" any such thing yet regarding the possible pirating of "MW2". I'll wait for the actual facts instead of haphazardly throwing around idle speculation.
The best way of comparing the whole console to PC thing is to say; could a 4 year old £280 Windows XP PC play Modern Warfare 2 better than an Xbox 360? Because saying that a modern £1,000+ PC is better than a Sub £200 console is a bit redundant.
Back on subject, we all know that MW2 is going to be the most pirated PC game this year, so I'm sure Activision and Infinity Ward would rather that bit of news doesn't get plastered across all the news channels when the game gets released(though we all know it'll be on the torrent sites long before it's release date anyway).
1) I'm so glad we can all agree that the PC is superior. Now, let's up the ante; I can put together a PC system with parts from today that will put the Xbox 360's hardware to shame for the price of 280 quid at the currency exchange rates between the Pound and the Euro from 4 years ago (we want the best way to compare without being redundant after all)...
For proof feel free to visit the link below where you can purchase a ready-made PC.
Oh, and to give some reputable support to my claims, please watch the following review video of a similar HD 4670 card from HIS. Sadly that particular card is unavailable at the PC website I've linked to which has a slower Memory Clock, yet has double the amount of GDDR3 so it should be fairly even between this card and the HIS card in the review video.
The beautiful thing about this is that I didn't even have to resort to 4 year old tech to put together a system for a similar price.
Note: Before anyone starts to bring up the additional cost of a PC monitor, etc. I'm going to point out that the same applies to the Xbox 360, and for any of the other consoles (i.e. you need to buy a TV to play the console, etc).
This is where you no longer have a leg to stand on, Ted1138.
2) "We" don't "know" any such thing yet regarding the possible pirating of "MW2". I'll wait for the actual facts instead of haphazardly throwing around idle speculation.
Comparing prices that have a 4 year gap and then compensating and adjusting for Euro exchange rates is remarkably tenuous. The best comparison is to consider if you could have built a full PC with the same functionality and comparable gaming performance for £280 in the back end of 2005 when the 360 was launched. And remember that as a pure gaming machine the 360 wouldn't have many of the system-hogging Windows services, so just because the 360 only has 512mb RAM doesn't make a PC with the same RAM comparable etc.
And you do realise that that PC you found was "Vista-ready", meaning that there is no installed or supplied OS. That's one additional cost that you wouldn't have to pay for on the 360. And with the £280 Pro bundle at launch you also got a wireless controller, so you'd need to then buy a wireless mouse and keyboard (of which there are none included in the system you have specified). Then we have the bundled headset and 5m ethernet cable..... Hang on a tick, is there even a hard drive or DVD drive in that bundle?
There's more hidden costs to bring it up to par than you might think.
It definitely becomes better value when you consider the cost of upgrading your general home PC to be of gaming spec - which is why a lot of people do it, but when it's a straight comparison of value and gaming performance and functionality between the PC and the 360 then the unbiased truth is that the 360 does come out on top. I'm just going by facts, here.
I understand that there is a lot of satisfaction in spending and upgrading your PC to play games (I myself did spend £550 on my last PC build on the FX-55 processor alone! I'm certainly no stranger to building my own gaming rigs). And as much as I say that LAN parties are a pain to set up, and I cannot be doing with that sort of thing anymore, there was probably more fun to be had and more satisfaction in getting 6 PCs linked via a BNC network to finally ping each other with no drops than playing the games themselves! I have good memories of the days of playing Land Warrior, Counter-Strike and Red Alert 2 over the old gas-pipe network!
But the range of games, the value for money, the comfortable gaming environment and social aspect of console gaming pulled me away, and The Orange Box and Battlefield on the 360 was kinda the nail in the coffin.
The best way of comparing the whole console to PC thing is to say; could a 4 year old £280 Windows XP PC play Modern Warfare 2 better than an Xbox 360? Because saying that a modern £1,000+ PC is better than a Sub £200 console is a bit redundant.
Back on subject, we all know that MW2 is going to be the most pirated PC game this year, so I'm sure Activision and Infinity Ward would rather that bit of news doesn't get plastered across all the news channels when the game gets released(though we all know it'll be on the torrent sites long before it's release date anyway).
1) I'm so glad we can all agree that the PC is superior. Now, let's up the ante; I can put together a PC system with parts from today that will put the Xbox 360's hardware to shame for the price of 280 quid at the currency exchange rates between the Pound and the Euro from 4 years ago (we want the best way to compare without being redundant after all)...
For proof feel free to visit the link below where you can purchase a ready-made PC.
Oh, and to give some reputable support to my claims, please watch the following review video of a similar HD 4670 card from HIS. Sadly that particular card is unavailable at the PC website I've linked to which has a slower Memory Clock, yet has double the amount of GDDR3 so it should be fairly even between this card and the HIS card in the review video.
The beautiful thing about this is that I didn't even have to resort to 4 year old tech to put together a system for a similar price.
Note: Before anyone starts to bring up the additional cost of a PC monitor, etc. I'm going to point out that the same applies to the Xbox 360, and for any of the other consoles (i.e. you need to buy a TV to play the console, etc).
This is where you no longer have a leg to stand on, Ted1138.
2) "We" don't "know" any such thing yet regarding the possible pirating of "MW2". I'll wait for the actual facts instead of haphazardly throwing around idle speculation.
Comparing prices that have a 4 year gap and then compensating and adjusting for Euro exchange rates is remarkably tenuous. The best comparison is to consider if you could have built a full PC with the same functionality and comparable gaming performance for £280 in the back end of 2005 when the 360 was launched. And remember that as a pure gaming machine the 360 wouldn't have many of the system-hogging Windows services, so just because the 360 only has 512mb RAM doesn't make a PC with the same RAM comparable etc.
And you do realise that that PC you found was "Vista-ready", meaning that there is no installed or supplied OS. That's one additional cost that you wouldn't have to pay for on the 360. And with the £280 Pro bundle at launch you also got a wireless controller, so you'd need to then buy a wireless mouse and keyboard (of which there are none included in the system you have specified). Then we have the bundled headset and 5m ethernet cable..... Hang on a tick, is there even a hard drive or DVD drive in that bundle?
There's more hidden costs to bring it up to par than you might think.
It definitely becomes better value when you consider the cost of upgrading your general home PC to be of gaming spec - which is why a lot of people do it, but when it's a straight comparison of value and gaming performance and functionality between the PC and the 360 then the unbiased truth is that the 360 does come out on top. I'm just going by facts, here.
I understand that there is a lot of satisfaction in spending and upgrading your PC to play games (I myself did spend £550 on my last PC build on the FX-55 processor alone! I'm certainly no stranger to building my own gaming rigs). And as much as I say that LAN parties are a pain to set up, and I cannot be doing with that sort of thing anymore, there was probably more fun to be had and more satisfaction in getting 6 PCs linked via a BNC network to finally ping each other with no drops than playing the games themselves! I have good memories of the days of playing Land Warrior, Counter-Strike and Red Alert 2 over the old gas-pipe network!
But the range of games, the value for money, the comfortable gaming environment and social aspect of console gaming pulled me away, and The Orange Box and Battlefield on the 360 was kinda the nail in the coffin.
Yep, I am aware of that and if you are aware of that then I'd wager you are also aware that it is possible to get open sources OS's that can be confirgured to play PC games (although personally I prefer to use Windows). Furthermore, on that same website you can purchase a 500 GB HDD for 39 euros. Sure, it's refurbished (you can buy a new 160 GB one for the same price,) - both of which give you much more value for money than the console HDDs you can upgrade to. Imagine that.
As for the mouse and keyboard, if all I want is a standard mouse and keyboard, which still gives me superior precision to a gamepad, then I can buy both for the price of a new gamepad for the Xbox 360. Let's not forget that many consoles only come with one controller and an ethernet cable that doesn't even cover a meter. I can buy an ethernet card for 7 euros on that site as well and an ethernet cable that doesn't cost a fortune ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ethernet+cable), so again: there is no leg to stand on.
It is possible to assemble a PC with superior specs to the consoles within the same price range. Now, if you want to spend more money you can further leave the consoles in the dust and there is nothing any of the consoles can do that the PC can't pull off either. This isn't just a matter of opinion; I've now gone to the trouble of empirically supporting these claims which is more than I can say for any of the console fanboys I've encountered over the years. That you prefer a console is fine, as I've mentioned previously I enjoy my Xbox 360 as well, but it is high time to nib in the bud the myth that PC gaming has to cost a substantial amount more than a console to achieve (and in this case surpass,) a console's performance. Factor in substantially cheaper game prices in tandem with superior performance, without having to break the bank the way some extreme PC gamers may do, only adds weight to this argument.
For the price, a console can't be beaten. As far as I'm concerned, the PC lashes any console in any other department other than the sofa-ness aspect previously discussed.
FX-55 - presumably with an A8N-SLI, the only board worth bothering with at the time. Same as me - did your northbridge fan fail and need replacing with a passive heatsink? Common fault! Anyway, that was the single most expensive setup around 6 years ago, and BNC networks were dropped well over 10 years ago. If you're basing your opinion on that kind of tech, at that kind of cost then there will be only 1 winner.
FX-55 - presumably with an A8N-SLI, the only board worth bothering with at the time. Same as me - did your northbridge fan fail and need replacing with a passive heatsink? Common fault! Anyway, that was the single most expensive setup around 6 years ago, and BNC networks were dropped well over 10 years ago. If you're basing your opinion on that kind of tech, at that kind of cost then there will be only 1 winner.
No I did move up to ethernet, but 10mbps BNC networking was where we had the most fun setting it up. It was just an example of how I'm not just a console fanboy with no knowledge of PC gaming and that I do understand why some people choose to do it.
Yeah I got the A8N-SLI Deluxe - lovely board, have got to replace the CMOS battey at some point, as it goes. Run it with 2 XFX 6600GT's in SLI mode - both of which went pop and had to get replaced. Now that I've got Windows 7, SLI graphics isn't supported as far as I can tell, but I don't use it much so no biggie.
I didn't have the fan problem as I bought a set of Zalman heatsinks straight off the bat - couldn't quite afford the water cooling that I'd been after. Allowances should be made considering I was a student, though.
I think pc gameing is far better than the consoles, i have all my consoles and pc plugged in to a 50 inch hd tv and they are all connect to the same AMP i often will download the same demos on all 3 to see if there is a difference 9 times of 10 the pc game will look better, there are very few game that run at 60fps in 1080p on the consoles, also if you look at the on line services like steam and even windows live the pc has a better service for free not to mention mod support for the games better controls and cheaper games at retail. but im not a fan boy i just finished halo on my 360 and am still playing the dreak2 beta on the ps3 and love both games.
PCs are marmite I suppose - I enjoy my games enough to warrant paying whatever it costs to play them. It's certainly not £1000 though, more like £600 every 4 years.
Uncharted2 will be the first new console game I buy this year though, if I can get away from L4D2 long enough to actually buy it.
The thing that gets my back up is the console control scheme destroying classic PC franchises such as Monkey Island. What a disappointment that was.
If you could easily connect up a k&b to a console, would you? And would the current PC owners consider moving to consoles if this was available?
Negative. While a K&M option for the consoles might actually make FPS games on them bearable in regards to controls, I would likely still miss the added functions and options tweaking of the PC, plus it's superior performance. On the other hand, it would allow me to completely bypass odious DRM in the PC world while theoretically keeping the precision and speed of the K&M.
While it may differ for other people, I personally think the damage has been done for me where it concerns playing FPS games on a console...And short of some sort of special game tray, sitting in a couch with a low coffee table probably would be less comfortable with the K&M than sitting at my home desk in my ergonomic, leather office chair. The gamepad is more comfortable for a couch scenario IMO, but it is possible to pull it off with a K&M combo.
The best way of comparing the whole console to PC thing is to say; could a 4 year old £280 Windows XP PC play Modern Warfare 2 better than an Xbox 360? Because saying that a modern £1,000+ PC is better than a Sub £200 console is a bit redundant.
Back on subject, we all know that MW2 is going to be the most pirated PC game this year, so I'm sure Activision and Infinity Ward would rather that bit of news doesn't get plastered across all the news channels when the game gets released(though we all know it'll be on the torrent sites long before it's release date anyway).
1) I'm so glad we can all agree that the PC is superior. Now, let's up the ante; I can put together a PC system with parts from today that will put the Xbox 360's hardware to shame for the price of 280 quid at the currency exchange rates between the Pound and the Euro from 4 years ago (we want the best way to compare without being redundant after all)...
For proof feel free to visit the link below where you can purchase a ready-made PC.
Oh, and to give some reputable support to my claims, please watch the following review video of a similar HD 4670 card from HIS. Sadly that particular card is unavailable at the PC website I've linked to which has a slower Memory Clock, yet has double the amount of GDDR3 so it should be fairly even between this card and the HIS card in the review video.
The beautiful thing about this is that I didn't even have to resort to 4 year old tech to put together a system for a similar price.
Note: Before anyone starts to bring up the additional cost of a PC monitor, etc. I'm going to point out that the same applies to the Xbox 360, and for any of the other consoles (i.e. you need to buy a TV to play the console, etc).
This is where you no longer have a leg to stand on, Ted1138.
2) "We" don't "know" any such thing yet regarding the possible pirating of "MW2". I'll wait for the actual facts instead of haphazardly throwing around idle speculation.
Good grief, was what I said so hard to understand? My point was not what can you build today for £280, but what could you have built four years ago, at the same time the Xbox 360 was launched, for that price, and how would it compare today when running MW2 side by side with an Xbox 360.
As for not knowing if MW2 is going to be pirated yet? Come on, how much denial can you possibly be in? Of course it will.
As for who hasn't a leg to stand on? If you can't understand simple concepts, explained in simple English, then that would be you.
FPS on console=total $hit with a controller, get over it and stop trying to defend such a crap control system for FPS's, may as well be trying to play Tekken with a keyboard.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
It's only a problem if the beholder in question decides to perceive it that way.
Because saying that a modern £1,000+ PC is better than a Sub £200 console is a bit redundant. 
