OK. We have a man called Peter and its his birthday today. He has got so many presents from his family members.
From Dad: A 26 inch HD 1080p monitor that can connect to a wide range of equipment inlcuding consoles and PC's. And a Wi-fi router so he can connect his iphone and DS to internet.
From Mum: He got his favourite movie trilogy The Matrix Trilogy on Blu-Ray.
From older brother: he got Call of duty 4 for PS3.
From younger brother: he didn't know that older brother got COD4 so he accidently got COD4 for PC as a present.
From Rich uncle: State of the art Speaker system/reciever, 7.1 and capable of decoding Dolby True HD and DTS HD.
From rich Aunt: Didn't know what to get for Peter so gave him £430 as a gift.
Hmm, so Peter has a problem. He is skint (from last nights party) and only has £430 money left from aunt. Should he get a PC or a PS3? With £430 he can buy a 60 GB PS3 (£399), HDMI cable (£19.99) and coaxial cable for Digital sound (£10). Connects it up with ease, inserts game WITHOUT INSTALLATION and enjoys his birthday. Thereafter to finish the day he can watch Matrix.
Wow, it really is a hard decision to make isn't it hermits? You can't get what Peter needs for that day with £430. Try and beat it. Yeah I thought so.
*edit* Peter is a casual gamer, he don't care how many AAA games systems have. He dosn't even know what it is. And he doesn't even know what 1080p means.
r_gam3
OK. We have a poster called r_gam3 and he makes a thread asking how a PC as cost-effective as a PS3 can be made. He has got so many replies from his fellow posters.
From angelkimme: A PC with 2GB of RAM, a 8600 GT and a Dual Core for 1 pound cheaper. (He later complains about a lack of standard household items like a KB/M and monitor, obviously ignoring that these items are much more common than, say, a HDTV, which he won't factor into the cost of a PS3).
From com2006: He got a PC which was 60 pounds more expensive than the PS3. Obviously that 60 pounds was more important than the limitless value that PC would have over the PS3. It's not like the thread was about cost-effectiveness or anything.
From OmegaOrtera: he got a PC from newegg, costing $570 US dollars (around 290 pounds), that again, craps all over the PS3 in value and function.
From sadovic: he got another PC that was cheaper than the PS3, which again beats it out in performance. it doesn't have a blu-ray drive, so r_gam3 latches onto that for dear life (even though the PC doesn't need Blu-ray). A technicality can perhaps save some semblance of his argument.
Hmm, so r_gam3 has a problem. He received enough replies to make his thread about cost-effectiveness look entirely foolish. Should he get concede defeat or make himself look worse? With another thread, he can distance himself from the horrible chain of people pointing out fault in his logic, quoting him, and attempt to start fresh with new posters.
What's more, he can funnel his argument into a contrived situation about someone who knows nothing about games libraries, and apparently thinks the PS3 doesn't have installations.
*edit* r_gam3 is a fanboy, he don't care how many AAA games the PC has if it weakens his point. He dosn't even know what value is, despite making a thread claiming to analyse it. Pity him.
Log in to comment