If we count the PC in system wars, how did the PS2 win last gen?

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"]

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

naval

Why? games run on machines if they are AMD or INTEL. Or NVIDIA OR ATI. But they won't run on different OS's unless specifically compiled for them. What you said is like saying we should break out the PS2 into PS2 classic and PS2 slim. They both run the same games.

well you wanted to divide pcs based on what is required for gaming, not me

of course not...cause then you wouldnt have to admit that you require microsoft for gaming

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

I've seen them say if you count all the AAA in the PC library it dwarfs all the 360 AA and AAA games. or some stuff to that nature. And most just think well, DUH and ignore it. but the idea is there and understood. So why isn't the same true with consoles?

Also why do we include MAC, Windows, and Linux all in the same system? When you buy a windows game it clearly won't run on MAC's APIs or Linux APIs. You can run some emulation software sometimes but to truly game with the latest and greatest windows game you need windows. Or to game ona MAC only or Linux only game you need the respective OS.

So we really should consider breaking them out into PC: windows, PC: linux, PC: MAC.

But I know why that will probably never happen. Because that would give M$ 2 systems on system wars.

Kronos6

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

since when did you require an ati card or an nvidia card to play most pc games? you have a choice...

the fact is you require windows to play most pc games....you dont require any specific video card.....just a range in performance....your reaching...

The real reason why pc should still be regarded as a separate platform is that it's definitely competing against consoles. The constant pc gaming is dieing, because of console gaming is proof of this. It's really strange, but it seems that microsoft has two platforms which are really just competing against each other.

I really don't understand the support microsoft are giving to Epic either (epic make engines that can easily be played in linux, I won't be surprised if Bioshock can be played on linux). It all seems like microsoft is hurting themselves more than they are actually gaining from the whole console business.

[QUOTE="NerdMan"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

No I don't see how it's relevant. based on the title I can see what you're trying to say. How does that mean there are no hermits that look at the entire library available?

mikasa

I've never seen someone try and compare the entire historical PC library against any of the consoles. If you go to that link, you will see every AAA and AA game released for each platform, including the PC, SINCE THE RELEASE OF THE 360.

OK, you proved my point now that I looked at it. You mean there were NO PS2 games that were AAA since the release of the 360? You failed to put those into the PS3 #'s. What about final finstasy XII? It runs on the PS3 and got AAA. Why wasn't that counted?

Ah, I misunderstood you. You may have a point there.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"]

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

mikasa

Why? games run on machines if they are AMD or INTEL. Or NVIDIA OR ATI. But they won't run on different OS's unless specifically compiled for them. What you said is like saying we should break out the PS2 into PS2 classic and PS2 slim. They both run the same games.

well you wanted to divide pcs based on what is required for gaming, not me

So if I have a MAC or LInus PC I can just go to the store and buy any old game new or old and play it? or do I have to buy a windows game for windows and a linux game for linux? I know for the 360 I can only buy xbox and 360 games.

well if you have core you can't play all 360 games ( ex:- borderlands or mmo), so should we divide 360 into 360 core and 360 other

[QUOTE="Kronos6"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

I've seen them say if you count all the AAA in the PC library it dwarfs all the 360 AA and AAA games. or some stuff to that nature. And most just think well, DUH and ignore it. but the idea is there and understood. So why isn't the same true with consoles?

Also why do we include MAC, Windows, and Linux all in the same system? When you buy a windows game it clearly won't run on MAC's APIs or Linux APIs. You can run some emulation software sometimes but to truly game with the latest and greatest windows game you need windows. Or to game ona MAC only or Linux only game you need the respective OS.

So we really should consider breaking them out into PC: windows, PC: linux, PC: MAC.

But I know why that will probably never happen. Because that would give M$ 2 systems on system wars.

_Pedro_

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

since when did you require an ati card or an nvidia card to play most pc games? you have a choice...

the fact is you require windows to play most pc games....you dont require any specific video card.....just a range in performance....your reaching...

The real reason why pc should still be regarded as a separate platform is that it's definitely competing against consoles. The constant pc gaming is dieing, because of console gaming is proof of this. It's really strange, but it seems that microsoft has two platforms which are really just competing against each other.

I really don't understand the support microsoft are giving to Epic either (epic make engines that can easily be played in linux, I won't be surprised if Bioshock can be played on linux). It all seems like microsoft is hurting themselves more than they are actually gaining from the whole console business.

if microsoft doesnt gain support from epic....sony gets support from epic..and microsoft has to do what it can to prevent sony from running the living room.......thats the number 1 reason why the xbox was invented....more often then not casual gamers have consoles.....by ignoring consoles they were letting thier grave get deeper....this isnt about pc gaming vs console gaming...this is about microsoft vs nintendo vs sony....and hermits never want to admit that

All the new rules in SW makes me laugh, it has completly changed. It's not even funny comming here anymore.haris12121212

don't worry. sales determining the winner will not be made into a rule.

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"]

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

naval

Why? games run on machines if they are AMD or INTEL. Or NVIDIA OR ATI. But they won't run on different OS's unless specifically compiled for them. What you said is like saying we should break out the PS2 into PS2 classic and PS2 slim. They both run the same games.

well you wanted to divide pcs based on what is required for gaming, not me

So if I have a MAC or LInus PC I can just go to the store and buy any old game new or old and play it? or do I have to buy a windows game for windows and a linux game for linux? I know for the 360 I can only buy xbox and 360 games.

well if you have core you can't play all 360 games ( ex:- borderlands or mmo), so should we divide 360 into 360 core and 360 other

That's a stretch becuase I can add HDD to the system and keep the same system in tact. But you can't do that with the OS. You can multiboot with the new MACs but still you are either runnign windows or MAC OS.

But even then remove the couple of games from the core and you still have a system that has a ton of games. So I'm not sure what your getting at.

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"]

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

naval

Why? games run on machines if they are AMD or INTEL. Or NVIDIA OR ATI. But they won't run on different OS's unless specifically compiled for them. What you said is like saying we should break out the PS2 into PS2 classic and PS2 slim. They both run the same games.

well you wanted to divide pcs based on what is required for gaming, not me

So if I have a MAC or LInus PC I can just go to the store and buy any old game new or old and play it? or do I have to buy a windows game for windows and a linux game for linux? I know for the 360 I can only buy xbox and 360 games.

well if you have core you can't play all 360 games ( ex:- borderlands or mmo), so should we divide 360 into 360 core and 360 other

no because you have a 360....the hard drive doesnt change if its a 360 or not....

however a pc cant game without an operating system...and a pc is only defined by its operating system......

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Kronos6"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

I've seen them say if you count all the AAA in the PC library it dwarfs all the 360 AA and AAA games. or some stuff to that nature. And most just think well, DUH and ignore it. but the idea is there and understood. So why isn't the same true with consoles?

Also why do we include MAC, Windows, and Linux all in the same system? When you buy a windows game it clearly won't run on MAC's APIs or Linux APIs. You can run some emulation software sometimes but to truly game with the latest and greatest windows game you need windows. Or to game ona MAC only or Linux only game you need the respective OS.

So we really should consider breaking them out into PC: windows, PC: linux, PC: MAC.

But I know why that will probably never happen. Because that would give M$ 2 systems on system wars.

Kronos6

yeah then we should break them into pc :Ati, pc: nvidia, pc:intel etc

since when did you require an ati card or an nvidia card to play most pc games? you have a choice...

the fact is you require windows to play most pc games....you dont require any specific video card.....just a range in performance....your reaching...

The real reason why pc should still be regarded as a separate platform is that it's definitely competing against consoles. The constant pc gaming is dieing, because of console gaming is proof of this. It's really strange, but it seems that microsoft has two platforms which are really just competing against each other.

I really don't understand the support microsoft are giving to Epic either (epic make engines that can easily be played in linux, I won't be surprised if Bioshock can be played on linux). It all seems like microsoft is hurting themselves more than they are actually gaining from the whole console business.

if microsoft doesnt gain support from epic....sony gets support from epic..and microsoft has to do what it can to prevent sony from running the living room.......thats the number 1 reason why the xbox was invented....more often then not casual gamers have consoles.....by ignoring consoles they were letting thier grave get deeper....this isnt about pc gaming vs console gaming...this is about microsoft vs nintendo vs sony....and hermits never want to admit that

Ding ding ding we have a winner. M$ would rather the PC with windows win. But since sony was coming after them with linux on teh console and getting into the living room...MS shot back and now has 2 dogs in the fight.

of course not...cause then you wouldnt have to admit that you require microsoft for gaming

Kronos6

eh no, i use windows for gaming, but i don't give ms any money unless the yare directly involved with the game.

bu bu but you paid money to ms by buying copy of windows xp - yes i bought a copy of windows xp for net surfing and other purposes and not gaming

Has everyone seen this?

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25112093

So yeah, PC gaming won last gen.

[QUOTE="Kronos6"]of course not...cause then you wouldnt have to admit that you require microsoft for gaming

naval

eh no, i use windows for gaming, but i don't give ms any money unless the yare directly involved with the game.

bu bu but you paid money to ms by buying copy of windows xp - yes i bought a copy of windows xp for net surfing and other purposes and not gaming

Really so what other OS would you rather be using if you didn't have windows for surfing?

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="Kronos6"]of course not...cause then you wouldnt have to admit that you require microsoft for gaming

mikasa

eh no, i use windows for gaming, but i don't give ms any money unless the yare directly involved with the game.

bu bu but you paid money to ms by buying copy of windows xp - yes i bought a copy of windows xp for net surfing and other purposes and not gaming

Really so what other OS would you rather be using if you didn't have windows for surfing?

first thing why would i not be surfing. . my digicam was also not recognized on linux, so i would not using it. mac is too overprice for me. besides i use few application that run on windows only, so there is my answer

Has everyone seen this?

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25112093

So yeah, PC gaming won last gen.

agentfred

Check the dates on that list again. They ahve games for the PC that overlap generations.Not saying it didn't have the most, but once again they take a generous timeline and compare to the consoles.

You should compare directly to xbox/360 timeframe. PS2/PS3 timelines, wii/cube timelines. Not the beginning of of the PS2 to the luanch of the PS3. That diminishes the xbox #'s on both ends.

[QUOTE="blackace"]

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"]I don't understand that. According to stickies and everyone on system wars, it's a rule that PC counts as part of system wars. But when we crowned a winner last gen, PS2 was the winner? How so? PC sold the most, had the best online system, best control scheme (gamepad & KB/M) and of course best and most games. So if PC is indeed a part of system wars, didn't it win every single gen in every possible way since gaming was invented?verbalfilth

PC's & MAC should be the only platforms in System Wars. XBox 360, Wii & PS3, PS2, Gamecube, etc.. should all be in Console Wars forums. None of these consoles are systems. Here's why.,

System = Can be modified and upgrade with new technology at any time. Has multiple uses besides playing games.

Game Console = Can not be upgraded or modified by the user to be better. Is used for one purchase only, which is to play games.

Really? A consol can't be modified? Oh man, who woulda thunk it?

So much for those add ons eh?...not to mention other modifications out there

Let me know when I can change the Graphics Card, CPU and RAM in the PS3, XBox 360 and Wii. When you figure that out, please letme know. I'm not talking about adding a HD-DVD or WiFi adapter to the game consoles. I'm talking about change the main component that improve performance and graphic quality.

well if you have core you can't play all 360 games ( ex:- borderlands or mmo), so should we divide 360 into 360 core and 360 other

mikasa

That's a stretch becuase I can add HDD to the system and keep the same system in tact. But you can't do that with the OS. You can multiboot with the new MACs but still you are either runnign windows or MAC OS.

But even then remove the couple of games from the core and you still have a system that has a ton of games. So I'm not sure what your getting at.

i was getting at the sales part

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="Kronos6"]of course not...cause then you wouldnt have to admit that you require microsoft for gaming

naval

eh no, i use windows for gaming, but i don't give ms any money unless the yare directly involved with the game.

bu bu but you paid money to ms by buying copy of windows xp - yes i bought a copy of windows xp for net surfing and other purposes and not gaming

Really so what other OS would you rather be using if you didn't have windows for surfing?

first thing why would i not be surfing. . my digicam was also not recognized on linux, so i would not using it. mac is too overprice for me. besides i use few application that run on windows only, so there is my answer

So no matter what you'd buy windows for gaming. BillG has you. and he wants everyone just like that. Overall everything works with windows. Sure you can force some things to work with other OSs, but overall windows is the most supported. And that means windows wins.

[QUOTE="naval"]

well if you have core you can't play all 360 games ( ex:- borderlands or mmo), so should we divide 360 into 360 core and 360 other

Kronos6

no because you have a 360....the hard drive doesnt change if its a 360 or not....

however a pc cant game without an operating system...and a pc is only defined by its operating system......

but simple softwares can divide pc into 3 parts lol

if microsoft doesnt gain support from epic....sony gets support from epic..and microsoft has to do what it can to prevent sony from running the living room.......thats the number 1 reason why the xbox was invented....more often then not casual gamers have consoles.....by ignoring consoles they were letting thier grave get deeper....this isnt about pc gaming vs console gaming...this is about microsoft vs nintendo vs sony....and hermits never want to admit that

Kronos6

Why does microsoft need to start running the living room with a gaming device when they already have the most powerful media source in the world in their hands? With the current development in the TV department it seems more and more that the pc is going to be the heart of the living room. With USB ports, WI-FI connection, HD-TV and even the telephone is going through the PC. How small of a step is it going to be to have the pc even play the games ment for consoles.

It's really just pc gaming vs console gaming in the end.

[QUOTE="naval"]

first thing why would i not be surfing. . my digicam was also not recognized on linux, so i would not using it. mac is too overprice for me. besides i use few application that run on windows only, so there is my answer

mikasa

So no matter what you'd buy windows for gaming. BillG has you. and he wants everyone just like that. Overall everything works with windows. Sure you can force some things to work with other OSs, but overall windows is the most supported. And that means windows wins.

nope i would buy windows because it is a very user freindly os and that is why it is bought by so many other users, many of whom don't even game. you have a idea about the market share of windows for home computers, right?

[QUOTE="Kronos6"][QUOTE="naval"]

of course not...cause then you wouldnt have to admit that you require microsoft for gaming

naval

eh no, i use windows for gaming, but i don't give ms any money unless the yare directly involved with the game.

bu bu but you paid money to ms by buying copy of windows xp - yes i bought a copy of windows xp for net surfing and other purposes and not gaming

you bought your copy of windows xp for gaming...dont even begin to lie...you cant play the latest games without xp...and eventually vista whenever that becomes standard....you dont game on another os and netsurf on windows so you bought windows xp for gaming...stop it...

all of a sudden microsoft doesnt publish pc games....doesnt have a game studio...and doesnt own direct x and the api's required for gaming on its OS system...

[QUOTE="agentfred"]

Has everyone seen this?

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25112093

So yeah, PC gaming won last gen.

mikasa

Check the dates on that list again. They ahve games for the PC that overlap generations.Not saying it didn't have the most, but once again they take a generous timeline and compare to the consoles.

You should compare directly to xbox/360 timeframe. PS2/PS3 timelines, wii/cube timelines. Not the beginning of of the PS2 to the luanch of the PS3. That diminishes the xbox #'s on both ends.

Undoubtedly he made some mistakes, and the timeframe isn't perfect to compare against the cube and the xbox. Honestly though, the Gamecube and the xbox were really just shooting for third place and had no chance to begin with, even if their timeframes were lined up perfectly. I think it's important to note that the pc didn't win by just a little bit, it was a landslide victory. Double the AAA's, and triple the AA's. Game wise, The PC dominated last gen.

[QUOTE="Kronos6"]

if microsoft doesnt gain support from epic....sony gets support from epic..and microsoft has to do what it can to prevent sony from running the living room.......thats the number 1 reason why the xbox was invented....more often then not casual gamers have consoles.....by ignoring consoles they were letting thier grave get deeper....this isnt about pc gaming vs console gaming...this is about microsoft vs nintendo vs sony....and hermits never want to admit that

_Pedro_

Why does microsoft need to start running the living room with a gaming device when they already have the most powerful media source in the world in their hands? With the current development in the TV department it seems more and more that the pc is going to be the heart of the living room. With USB ports, WI-FI connection, HD-TV and even the telephone is going through the PC. How small of a step is it going to be to have the pc even play the games ment for consoles.

It's really just pc gaming vs console gaming in the end.

because the console will be an extension of the pc....thats what they are trying to create with the 360...an extension of vista....by doing that they can cut sony out of the media hub race....Sony isnt trying to be a gaming company...they are trying to create a media device that you basically do everything from...the problem is that sony is a very good hardware company and is terrible with software and convergence.....Microsoft has a bit more experience with it even though they have had thier failures...by creating the xbox brand....and making the LIVE brand universally accepted they can then commence to get windows in your living room rather then just on your desktop.....i wouldnt be surprised if the next xbox console has some immense convergence with the pc beyond what we see today using media extender

you bought your copy of windows xp for gaming...dont even begin to lie...you cant play the latest games without xp...and eventually vista whenever that becomes standard....you dont game on another os and netsurf on windows so you bought windows xp for gaming...stop it...

all of a sudden microsoft doesnt publish pc games....doesnt have a game studio...and doesnt own direct x and the api's required for gaming on its OS system...

Kronos6

you have a idea about the market share of windows for home computers, right? so all those people who have it, have they bought it for gaming ??

[QUOTE="Kronos6"]

you bought your copy of windows xp for gaming...dont even begin to lie...you cant play the latest games without xp...and eventually vista whenever that becomes standard....you dont game on another os and netsurf on windows so you bought windows xp for gaming...stop it...

all of a sudden microsoft doesnt publish pc games....doesnt have a game studio...and doesnt own direct x and the api's required for gaming on its OS system...

naval

you have a idea about the market share of windows for home computers, right? so all those people who have it, have they bought it for gaming ??

the market share is irrelvant....because the fact of the matter is if you buy a pc for gaming..you will buy windows....

so whats your point?

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="Kronos6"]

you bought your copy of windows xp for gaming...dont even begin to lie...you cant play the latest games without xp...and eventually vista whenever that becomes standard....you dont game on another os and netsurf on windows so you bought windows xp for gaming...stop it...

all of a sudden microsoft doesnt publish pc games....doesnt have a game studio...and doesnt own direct x and the api's required for gaming on its OS system...

Kronos6

you have a idea about the market share of windows for home computers, right? so all those people who have it, have they bought it for gaming ??

the market share is irrelvant....because the fact of the matter is if you buy a pc for gaming..you will buy windows....

so whats your point?

my point is whether i game or not, i already would have a copy of windows. so for gaming, ms doesn't gets any money from me due to gaming, unless ms is involved with the game it self

the ps2 didn't win. people just like to exclude things or make excusesto make their system look better.CaseyWegner

Um actually the PS2 did win it sold more then both consoles combined and unless you can back your sale figures up of any one pc outselling the PS2 then the facts still stand the PS2 is the winner.

[QUOTE="Kronos6"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="Kronos6"]

you bought your copy of windows xp for gaming...dont even begin to lie...you cant play the latest games without xp...and eventually vista whenever that becomes standard....you dont game on another os and netsurf on windows so you bought windows xp for gaming...stop it...

all of a sudden microsoft doesnt publish pc games....doesnt have a game studio...and doesnt own direct x and the api's required for gaming on its OS system...

naval

you have a idea about the market share of windows for home computers, right? so all those people who have it, have they bought it for gaming ??

the market share is irrelvant....because the fact of the matter is if you buy a pc for gaming..you will buy windows....

so whats your point?

my point is whether i game or not, i already would have a copy of windows. so for gaming, ms doesn't gets any money from me due to gaming, unless ms is involved with the game it self

the point is they got money from you....you have no choice....they got thier money from you for gaming because you have no where else to go if you game.....simple....

and again....you forget about licensing agreements....

[QUOTE="Kronos6"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="Kronos6"]

you bought your copy of windows xp for gaming...dont even begin to lie...you cant play the latest games without xp...and eventually vista whenever that becomes standard....you dont game on another os and netsurf on windows so you bought windows xp for gaming...stop it...

all of a sudden microsoft doesnt publish pc games....doesnt have a game studio...and doesnt own direct x and the api's required for gaming on its OS system...

naval

you have a idea about the market share of windows for home computers, right? so all those people who have it, have they bought it for gaming ??

the market share is irrelvant....because the fact of the matter is if you buy a pc for gaming..you will buy windows....

so whats your point?

my point is whether i game or not, i already would have a copy of windows. so for gaming, ms doesn't gets any money from me due to gaming, unless ms is involved with the game it self

Wrong. Gaming is one of the legs of the stool. They use business apps, games, internet, all of it to keep you with windows. And internet can easily be done with mac or linux. Gaming is one of the key features of windows for home.

[QUOTE="Bromz"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Bromz"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]the ps2 didn't win. people just like to exclude things or make excusesto make their system look better.CaseyWegner

nope.

the pc

Sorry but unless you can show any one pc model beating the Ps2 in sales the PS2 won.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]the ps2 didn't win. people just like to exclude things or make excusesto make their system look better.Polaris_choice

Um actually the PS2 did win it sold more then both consoles combined and unless you can back your sale figures up of any one pc outselling the PS2 then the facts still stand the PS2 is the winner.

Saying the PC won in game system sales is like saying that bluray won in HD Movie player sales. People buy the PS3 for gaming and bluray second (or never). Many people buy PCs for business/internet and gaming second (or never).

[QUOTE="naval"]

my point is whether i game or not, i already would have a copy of windows. so for gaming, ms doesn't gets any money from me due to gaming, unless ms is involved with the game it self

Kronos6

the point is they got money from you....you have no choice....they got thier money from you for gaming because you have no where else to go if you game.....simple....

and again....you forget about licensing agreements....

yeah, but not for gaming. i even bought msoffice. so, where did i say i will not buy ms software ??

what do you mean by licensing agreement??

Wrong. Gaming is one of the legs of the stool. They use business apps, games, internet, all of it to keep you with windows. And internet can easily be done with mac or linux. Gaming is one of the key features of windows for home.

mikasa

why would i buy overpriced mac or difficult to use linux ( impossible for me btw), when i can do the same thing easily on windows. most of the people who don't game they also buy windows mostly

[QUOTE="squirrel337"][QUOTE="manningbowl135"]

[QUOTE="squirrel337"]PS2 won the Console wars not the system war.CaseyWegner

I don't want to turn this into a 360 topic, but if there's no such thing as a console exclusive, there's so such thing as console wars.

Yes there is such a thing as console wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars

but this isn't the place for it.

I think personal that Gamespot should make a console wars forum. This is getting out of hand. If PC wins all the time, what the hell are we even discussing PS3, 360, or Wii in this forum for? Can someone explain this to me? I understand its system wars but I mean if PC is always going to be ahead of everything why are we bothering????

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

Wrong. Gaming is one of the legs of the stool. They use business apps, games, internet, all of it to keep you with windows. And internet can easily be done with mac or linux. Gaming is one of the key features of windows for home.

naval

why would i buy overpriced mac or difficult to use linux ( impossible for me btw), when i can do the same thing easily on windows. most of the people who don't game they also buy windows mostly

That's what MS hopes for. And keeping the gaming option viable is key to not losing their position.

why would i buy overpriced mac or difficult to use linux ( impossible for me btw), when i can do the same thing easily on windows. most of the people who don't game they also buy windows mostly

naval

it's not a matter of feasibility. it's a matter of possibility.

I think personal that Gamespot should make a console wars forum. This is getting out of hand. If PC wins all the time, what the hell are we even discussing PS3, 360, or Wii in this forum for? Can someone explain this to me? I understand its system wars but I mean if PC is always going to be ahead of everything why are we bothering????

xscrapzx

don't worry, there is always the fight for the second place :)

People say PS2 was the console war winner, not the system war winner.

PS2 one the console war, but even though I doubt all PC users buy them to play games, PC sold more and would have one the system war.

It would be nice to have a PC wars and a console wars forums. PC could debate about which gears is better...MAC, Windows, or Linux. And consoles could argue the same amongst their games.

Right now it's apples and oranges as consoles and PCs are really quite different.

It would be nice to have a PC wars and a console wars forums. PC could debate about which gears is better...MAC, Windows, or Linux. And consoles could argue the same amongst their games.

Right now it's apples and oranges as consoles and PCs are really quite different.

mikasa

you can always create a separate forum/union called console wars if you want like the already existing 'systemwars 2' or something

Why not just use total games sales for all the system of that gen to determine the winner ...

Lets say that the 360 has a total of 75mill (just a made up nimber) games in total sold on its system this gen, we could then compare to that 2 the PC and The PS3 & Wii...

The winner would be the one that has sold the most games on its system/console..

It would be nice to have a PC wars and a console wars forums. PC could debate about which gears is better...MAC, Windows, or Linux. And consoles could argue the same amongst their games.

Right now it's apples and oranges as consoles and PCs are really quite different.

mikasa

I agree totally because PC which are a gaming system are not consoles. PC's can be upgraded to high heaven, and by the time a console's life is up the PC has already passed it in two generation life cycles.

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

It would be nice to have a PC wars and a console wars forums. PC could debate about which gears is better...MAC, Windows, or Linux. And consoles could argue the same amongst their games.

Right now it's apples and oranges as consoles and PCs are really quite different.

naval

you can always create a separate forum/union called console wars if you want like the already existing 'systemwars 2' or something

I disagree with your sig I still think even though its going to be pushing ten years old. Total annihilation was the best and IMO is still the best RTS ever. Even though I did in fact have a blast with starcraft.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

It would be nice to have a PC wars and a console wars forums. PC could debate about which gears is better...MAC, Windows, or Linux. And consoles could argue the same amongst their games.

Right now it's apples and oranges as consoles and PCs are really quite different.

xscrapzx

you can always create a separate forum/union called console wars if you want like the already existing 'systemwars 2' or something

I disagree with your sig I still think even though its going to be pushing ten years old. Total annihilation was the best and IMO is still the best RTS ever. Even though I did in fact have a blast with starcraft.

actaully its all upcoming, but i know even then many would disagree and i am fine with that.

btw, i loved both total annihilation andstarcraft, but i enjoyed starcraft more

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

It would be nice to have a PC wars and a console wars forums. PC could debate about which gears is better...MAC, Windows, or Linux. And consoles could argue the same amongst their games.

Right now it's apples and oranges as consoles and PCs are really quite different.

naval

you can always create a separate forum/union called console wars if you want like the already existing 'systemwars 2' or something

I disagree with your sig I still think even though its going to be pushing ten years old. Total annihilation was the best and IMO is still the best RTS ever. Even though I did in fact have a blast with starcraft.

actaully its all upcoming, but i know even then many would disagree and i am fine with that.

btw, i loved both total annihilation andstarcraft, but i enjoyed starcraft more

I wish cavedog didn't fall apart that has such a great future too it. Ya starcraft was really fun, I miss playing that game.

starcraft > TA.

IMO