Quote Originally Posted by Ronin13 View Post
Let's not forget- my console doesn't require me to buy $200 in stuff every year to keep it equal with the games that come out (we all remember Crisis, it didn't even work on the NSA's super computers /joke)... I've had an Xbox 360 since they came out and have played the newest and greatest games for it since! I've had a PC for my entire life, and recently, the newest game I've played on it is Day Of Defeat mod for Half-Life, when considering multiplayer. So no, I'd rather buy an Xbox for a couple hundred and use it until they come out with some new system, instead of paying $900 for a computer now, then $150 next April, then another $200 the following January- and we haven't even gotten into how much games cost.

Only two things I use my computer for- downloading and watching movies and pron.
This argument is null to me. PC gamers can adjust quality settings to meet that of consoles. You don't really have to upgrade anything that often. I choose to keep my PC up to date because I'm a huge nerd and love the extra graphics.

I read an article stating what the actual resolution and frame rates were on MW3 and BF3 for consoles. They were well below HD resolution and BF3 will run at a max of 30 FPS. This all because of console limitations (I mean a PS3 has like 128MB of RAM, hence why you didn't see Crysis 1 on any consoles). Which is why I see this argument as null. I can build a gaming pc for 2x as much as a PS3, max out current games, then 2 years later, run current games as med-high settings with maybe less than perfect frame rates. On consoles, you don't have this choice. You will eat the loss of quality for more expansive games.