I'm going to pick this game up regardless, but has anyone read any confirmation whether or not they are bringing back multiplayer? It would be really awesome if Ubi fixed the myriad of bugs and glitches in the process... since the game will be released on a different engine, that's a strong possibility.
Now the question is, will you all finish PS if SC mp is fixed in the hd remix? There doesn't seem like much of a point if that happens
Isn't it only released for the Ps3? That's what I just read.
Those who anticipate PS want to play it on their PC, afaik.
Quote from: Wh1tE_Dw4rF on April 03, 2011, 09:52:50 PM
Isn't it only released for the Ps3? That's what I just read.
Those who anticipate PS want to play it on their PC, afaik.
Well my theory is this : Since microsoft owns the rights to xbox360 , I think that it is only natural just like every other xbox game ie. GTA 4 , it will come out on the PC.
What about Halo series? That never happened except for Halo 1 :(
Quote from: Wh1tE_Dw4rF on April 03, 2011, 09:52:50 PM
Isn't it only released for the Ps3? That's what I just read.
Those who anticipate PS want to play it on their PC, afaik.
True, but PS started as a way to improve upon the myriad of bugs and imbalances of PT/CT. If Ubi accomplishes that on the PS3, then there's really no point except to try to port the game to PC, which is copyright infringement.
Well the HD Trilogy is pretty much the PC versions of SC 1, 2, and 3, but now on PS3.
Source? I haven't read anything that confirms or denies mp, or that it's on the same engine.
Yeah I don't know about MP, but I wouldn't doubt they wouldn't include it. They basically ripped MP out of Splinter Cell 3D (even coop) for no reason. And by saying it is pretty much the PC version I meant that the only new thing about it is that it is in "HD", and it always has been on PC.
I'm guessing the only reason they aren't releasing this on the 360 is that it's more cost-effective to put them on blu-rays than multiple DVD's. I doubt the trilogy fits on a single DVD.
QuoteI'm guessing the only reason they aren't releasing this on the 360 is that it's more cost-effective to put them on blu-rays than multiple DVD's. I doubt the trilogy fits on a single DVD.
This makes no sense.
While I don't know the per-unit cost of a DVD vs. Blu-Ray, both are extremely cheap to produce. Furthermore, the extra cost of 3 DVDs vs. 1 Blu-Ray, assuming 3 DVDs is more costly to produce, would be incurred by the consumer by an added $5-10 price premium. The only reason that the game is coming solely to PS3 is because Sony arranged an exclusive deal with Ubisoft for the trilogy. Additionally, the Trilogy could easily be made available via Xbox live which has no physical media cost, and storage is paid for through XBox live subscriptions.
Note: Estimates at producing a Blu-Ray put the price point between $3.50-5.50, depending on economy of scale (eg, making 10k vs. 1k Blu-Rays). Prices of manufacturing a DVD are at about $2. Dunno how accurate these sources are, but based on those figures 3 DVDs cost more than 1 Blu-Ray, which costs more than 1 DVD.
And then of course that 1$ makes a big difference when it comes to mass producing. I haven't heard anything about an exclusive deal with Sony but that would obviously be the main reason if true :D All I know is that Microsoft has an exclusivity deal with Ubi when it comes to Splinter Cell, but it's possible that ended with Conviction. Seems weird they would be flip-flopping their exclusivity partnerships so frequently.
I have never heard of Microsoft or Sony releasing full trilogies all for digital download in one package. That's quite a big download. I know that CT is downloadable on XBL, and so they may be content that they already have the best selling installment from the trilogy. I know that they shut down servers for original xbox games, and that could be a problem, so maybe Microsoft just said no?
Quote from: Spekkio on April 03, 2011, 08:42:33 PM
It would be really awesome if Ubi fixed the myriad of bugs and glitches in the process...
well you're sure being realistic about things aren't you?
Quote from: Farley4Fan on April 04, 2011, 08:49:50 AM
Yeah I don't know about MP, but I wouldn't doubt they wouldn't include it. They basically ripped MP out of Splinter Cell 3D (even coop) for no reason. And by saying it is pretty much the PC version I meant that the only new thing about it is that it is in "HD", and it always has been on PC.
I'm guessing the only reason they aren't releasing this on the 360 is that it's more cost-effective to put them on blu-rays than multiple DVD's. I doubt the trilogy fits on a single DVD.
Yup, there will not be MP on the trilogy.
"Unfortunately the answer to this question is no, the online part of the original games won’t be included."
Source: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/07/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-trilogy-coming-to-ps3-in-june-with-3d/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=splinter_cell_040611
For fuck's sake really? Not even coop. Wow. I don't really know why they feel the need to distance themselves from the best thing they have made to date (SvM). The campaigns are all well and good, but the multiplayer is what had the staying power for me.
Bungie has their plan for world domination, and Ubi has their plan for losing every customer ever.
The fact that this doesn't include SvM or Coop (which adds up to 3 parts of the first three games, basically one half) and the fact that one of the features is "EXCITING TROPHIES" confirms that this is nothing more than a cash grab.
And I love this guy's quote:
QuoteThank you VERY much, Ubisoft, for offering those of us who paid money in ADVANCE 3 months ago for this collection an explanation as to why when we went to Gamesotp to pick this up on March 23rd to be told that it wasn’t in stock, and a day AFTER release that it had been delayed! Really, that’s a great way to treat your customers!!
Nothing like (apparently) announcing a delay after the previous release date. Maybe it is his fault though I can't remember.
Ubi is just going forward man. It makes money on AC now and so SC has to be grounded. Just the same thing happened to Rayman...
Quote from: puuusianka on April 07, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
Ubi is just going forward man. It makes money on AC now and so SC has to be grounded. Just the same thing happened to Rayman...
nVm =/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayman
Rayman is an action video game series developed by Ubisoft, originally under the direction of Michel Ancel.
Sega has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Quote from: DreadStunLock on April 07, 2011, 09:52:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayman
Rayman is an action video game series developed by Ubisoft, originally under the direction of Michel Ancel.
Sega has absolutely nothing to do with it.
hence I said never mind.
I already posted it, so I did not check.
There seems to be some mind shortcut that I seem not to understand... Oh whatever. Why should I care.
Quote from: Space Manbow on April 05, 2011, 08:27:27 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on April 03, 2011, 08:42:33 PM
It would be really awesome if Ubi fixed the myriad of bugs and glitches in the process...
well you're sure being realistic about things aren't you?
I can dream, can't I?
QuoteAnd then of course that 1$ makes a big difference when it comes to mass producing.
I can't tell if you're just stupid or you just can't read. The extra cost of the medium will ultimately be paid by consumers who buy the product, not the company. That is why N64 cartridges were $10-20 more expensive than PSX games.
QuoteI have never heard of Microsoft or Sony releasing full trilogies all for digital download in one package. That's quite a big download.
Welcome to 2011. There's this thing called broadband internet. It was invented by Al Gore.
QuoteFor fuck's sake really? Not even coop. Wow. I don't really know why they feel the need to distance themselves from the best thing they have made to date (SvM). The campaigns are all well and good, but the multiplayer is what had the staying power for me.
Is it really that suprising? Ubisoft sold millions of copies of SC, SCPT, and SCCT, but only hundreds of people played multiplayer. If you assume that people who play multiplayer bought the game only for that portion of the game (a generous assumption, mind you), then that accounts for less than 1% of their overall profits. Meanwhile, I'm fairly sure that developing or porting multiplayer was more than 1% of the development cost for SCPT and SCCT.
I bet that Ubi wants to keep the price point as low as possible for a games that are 6-10 years old, since there is a limit to what most people will pay to purchase a re-release. They probably decided that adding a multiplayer that is only attractive to a tiny fraction of potential buyers wasn't worth it. It's disappointing to me as someone who enjoys the MP, but I can't say I blame them from an economic standpoint.
QuoteThe fact that this doesn't include SvM or Coop (which adds up to 3 parts of the first three games, basically one half)... confirms that this is nothing more than a cash grab.
Every game ever produced is a cash grab. Gaming companies exist to make money. They accomplish that by providing consumers with entertainment. The SC trilogy offers people the opportunity to revisit the first 3 SC games if they didn't have an Xbox or an expensive PC. Personally, I can't even play SCCT anymore because their gay anti-piracy program isn't compatible with Windows 7.
The singleplayer campaigns are worth it, anyway, and being able to sit on my couch and enjoy them on a 50" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound will beat the shit out of playing it on my 17" CRT monitor, sitting in a desk chair wearing shitty $15 headphones any day.
Quote from: puuusianka on April 07, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
Ubi is just going forward man. It makes money on AC now and so SC has to be grounded. Just the same thing happened to Rayman...
But I don't see how they are going forward when they have remade CT a whopping 3 times now (twice on DS and once more with this trilogy). Same thing with the way the ported Rayman 2 to every device known to man. Same with the PoP trilogy and Beyond Good and Evil HD. Why ignore SvM?
Quote from: Spekkio on April 07, 2011, 11:51:12 PM
...being able to sit on my couch and enjoy them on a 50" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound will beat the shit out of playing it on my 17" CRT monitor, sitting in a desk chair wearing shitty $15 headphones any day.
Granted you were talking about replaying the single player campaigns of SC easily... I found this line funny considering you're on a forum waiting for a revitalized version of the Multiplayer (graphically and compatibility-wise).
...You might want to upgrade, or hook your computer up to that TV since it sounds like it's from this century (whereas your computer, or at least your monitor, does not).
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.memegenerator.net%2FImageMacro%2F4933092%2FIm-Just-Saiyan.jpg%3FimageSize%3DMedium%26amp%3BgeneratorName%3DRaditz&hash=a86f77cbd9bb3f887c4ef1892d78ba6b3ccac9bf)
My laptop is 3 years old.
I could hook my PC up to my TV, but I still can't use a keyboard and mouse comfortably on my couch using my coffee table. And I have better things to spend money on than sinking $2k into a gaming PC when I could (and did) buy a more diverse PS3 for $400.
I was referring to the PC I used to originally play the SC trilogy. In 2005, 50" HDTV's were prohibitively expensive, and CRT monitors still outnumbered LCD's.
http://playfront.de/neue-bilder-zu-splinter-cell-hd/ - screens from sc trilogy. Looks rly good ;0
Quote from: Spekkio on April 08, 2011, 02:54:46 AM
My laptop is 3 years old.
I could hook my PC up to my TV, but I still can't use a keyboard and mouse comfortably on my couch using my coffee table. And I have better things to spend money on than sinking $2k into a gaming PC when I could (and did) buy a more diverse PS3 for $400.
I was referring to the PC I used to originally play the SC trilogy. In 2005, 50" HDTV's were prohibitively expensive, and CRT monitors still outnumbered LCD's.
I get the comfortableness comment on PC gaming compared to Console, but I never understand why people exaggerate the amount of money it takes to have a powerful computer. This isn't 1990, and I don't think anyone is dumb enough to pay for an Alienware computer. Course, I'm one of those people that paid no more than 600 dollars 3 years ago on my computer and have yet to upgrade it. It has played every game to this day without much (if any) problems at all. If anything, Windows 7 is a bigger problem than any of my hardware.
Plus, I'm no computer-only fanboy, but I think that saying a PS3 has more diverse uses than a PC is pretty subjective. I can't think of much my PS3 can do that my computer can't... other than work... (My PS3 died. Tack 150 dollars to that 400 dollars for me since it was out of warranty). Though
I can think of a lot of things the PS3 does that the PC also does, but it's easier with the PS3. Such as playing on a TV, internet, and movies (again, on the TV). Guess it just depends on your perspective.
Again, I was just saying I found it funny that you were talking about old computer stuff on a forum for a game that demands that your computer be at least able to play a somewhat current gen (using that term loosely) game.
This is more off topic than it should be... and I've typed too much... and I don't even have a picture to add in...
Quote from: Spekkio on April 08, 2011, 02:54:46 AM
My laptop is 3 years old.
I could hook my PC up to my TV, but I still can't use a keyboard and mouse comfortably on my couch using my coffee table. And I have better things to spend money on than sinking $2k into a gaming PC when I could (and did) buy a more diverse PS3 for $400.
I was referring to the PC I used to originally play the SC trilogy. In 2005, 50" HDTV's were prohibitively expensive, and CRT monitors still outnumbered LCD's.
Diverse? As far as I know, consoles have 0 diversity.
Powerfull PC?
AMD 3.2ghz 955BE
AMD 6990 2gb
8GB Ram
1200w PSU
Iiyama 22'
You can build PC including those components for less than 1300£ with a monitor included, and still have money for a second one.
Now that type of a PC will last you very long and satisfy you alot longer than any console.
http://nexus404.com/Blog/2011/04/08/no-online-multiplayer-in-splinter-cell-hd-trilogy-ubisoft-confirms-multiplayer-modes-have-been-removed-from-splinter-cell-titles-in-the-upcoming-splinter-cell-trilogy-for-ps3/
Splinter Cell Trilogy without versus and coop.Ubi do it again.... Fucking ubi....
Quote from: DreadStunLock on April 08, 2011, 11:44:14 AM
Diverse? As far as I know, consoles have 0 diversity.
You can build PC including those components for less than 1300£ with a monitor included, and still have money for a second one.
Now that type of a PC will last you very long and satisfy you alot longer than any console.
Diversity would be anything that isn't straight playing games (At least that's how I think it's viewed). From Facebook, to Netflix, Internet, to simply playing a DVD. They are diverse machines, some more than others, but again it just depends on which perspective you want to look at it from to really find it's value. (Consider how many things you ACTUALLY do on a computer in a normal day that REQUIRE a computer to do so)
Also while 1300 euros is indeed still less than 2000 US dollars (Little less than 1900), which unless I'm mistaken then Spekkio was talking about US dollars, it does little to disprove the point that Consoles are a better bang for your buck. The only thing I can think of right now really missing from a (stock) Console that a Computer otherwise has is productivity programs, such as Microsoft Office (as an example). If they did, then with the current focus on longer console lives it would make more sense to get a Console than your 1900 dollar computer. Considering even at 600 dollars a console, you'd get 3 WHOLE generations of them for 100 dollars less than that 1 computer.
Plus if we only relied on Console gaming, rather than PC gaming then there would be a better standard of development for games. There would be no shitty PC ports. Only crappy Console games. ;)
...Apple is the Console of PCs... My mind just blew itself and didn't bother to clean up.
Or something like that... It's late. Wanted to reply. Again, too much text. My bad.
They should have revamped SvM cause it would have been cool to play it again. Even if I had to pay 150 dollars to get my PS3 fixed, plus the cost of the Trilogy.
Quote from: Spekkio on April 07, 2011, 11:51:12 PM
I can't tell if you're just stupid or you just can't read. The extra cost of the medium will ultimately be paid by consumers who buy the product, not the company. That is why N64 cartridges were $10-20 more expensive than PSX games.
I hadn't thought of that.
Welcome to 2011. There's this thing called broadband internet. It was invented by Al Gore.
And now apparently Ubi is releasing each individual game on PSN. Never thought about having separate releases. They probably recognize that Al Gore's broadband internet isn't fast enough for one big chunk too. It takes longer to download on consoles, y'know.
Is it really that suprising? Ubisoft sold millions of copies of SC, SCPT, and SCCT, but only hundreds of people played multiplayer. If you assume that people who play multiplayer bought the game only for that portion of the game (a generous assumption, mind you), then that accounts for less than 1% of their overall profits. Meanwhile, I'm fairly sure that developing or porting multiplayer was more than 1% of the development cost for SCPT and SCCT.
Yes. It is surprising. Considering how important just HAVING a multiplayer component for your game is these days in order to sell well (unless you are a triple A single player game like ME or TES), I still can't understand why they would take it out when they already have one. Looking at these new screens released it becomes a bit more clear. They have done some work with the visuals, more than I originally thought. Some textures are completely remade. Those may be indicative of the work they have done with a lot of textures, or they could have been cherry picked just for this batch of screens. Screens never really sell me anyway.
It's unfortunate that they would not even give it a second chance, as if it was the concept of SvM that made DA's online portion fail so hard, and not their implementation of it. Who knows? Maybe it would regain popularity if updated and included in the trilogy. Much more people at least TRY the online portion these days because of the expansion of the aforementioned Al Gore's fancy internet machine, so why wouldn't it be more popular Spek?
Gaming companies exist to make money. They accomplish that by providing consumers with entertainment. The SC trilogy offers people the opportunity to revisit the first 3 SC games if they didn't have an Xbox or an expensive PC. Personally, I can't even play SCCT anymore because their gay anti-piracy program isn't compatible with Windows 7.
Yes, but only the best companies try to make money and BETTER their games. Can we at least agree that it's cheap for them to take an old game, remake some textures, remove a metric fuck-ton of features, change the res, and release it for way more money than it would take to buy them all separately today? Ubi is joining the ranks of activision and EA when it comes to a disinterest in making their products better if they can find other ways to make money.
The singleplayer campaigns are worth it, anyway, and being able to sit on my couch and enjoy them on a 50" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound will beat the shit out of playing it on my 17" CRT monitor, sitting in a desk chair wearing shitty $15 headphones any day.
Spekkio, last night I literally played Crysis 1 on my 50" LCD from my couch with a controller in my hand. Maybe it's just the way my room is set up that allows for this magical happening. I'm not criticizing your interest in this game or calling you out for looking forward to it. After all, I'm a bit interested as well. That may only be because I'm a huge Splinter Cell fan though.
I really wonder what the price will be. Anything over 20 dollars is a complete rip-off. Also, do we really know why it won't come to 360? Was there actually an exclusivity deal? I know you mentioned it but only as a possibility, not as a fact.
MMM ouch : http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/07/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-trilogy-coming-to-ps3-in-june-with-3d/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=splinter_cell_040611
says in the comments that there will be no multiplayer or co-op in the HD trilogy , so I guess project stealth is truely the only one hope left.
Now the pressure is on Devs because ubisoft has failed =) =( .
You may never know, maybe Jade Raymond will fall down the stairs and hit her head hard enough to make a good versus mode....you never know.
to drive the nail further into the coffin, here is more proof :
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2771048463/m/3101059919
Quote from: Farley4Fan on April 08, 2011, 07:55:32 PM
I really wonder what the price will be. Anything over 20 dollars is a complete rip-off.
I'm going to guess 60 dollars.
"OMG it's THREE WHOLE GAMES!!!"50 if they feel nice.
"It's less than a normal new console game... mainly cause it's not new, and we know that."
40 if they understand that everyone has probably bought each of these three games at least twice by now.
"Come on, any less and we'll be giving it away".30 if they are just crazy.
"WE CARE NOT FOR HUMAN CURRENCY. TAKE THE GAME AND WE SHALL MAKE BONFIRES WITH YOUR MONETARY SACRIFICES!!!"20 and Ubisoft is currently bankrupt and just trying to come out even.
"...What have we done? We did everything everyone else was doing... and no one liked it. Where did we go wrong?"Quotes are their current mental states in text form.
Cronk, where did you get that quote from? I'm must be getting blind cause I can't find it....
But in anycase, I think the game will be 50 for the consoles because there are not that many games came out with a 60£ price tag, not even MW2 or Black ops unless in dollars and those games were ridicilously popular.
Now for the PC it will definitely be around 20 to 30£ since Conviction came out It costed 29.99£ and it was praised ver well believe it or not, a lot better than we think.
It came from my brain.
Unless I unknowingly stole it from somewhere else. <<< In that case it came from there.
Quote from: AgentX_003 on April 08, 2011, 08:17:20 PM
MMM ouch : http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/07/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-trilogy-coming-to-ps3-in-june-with-3d/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=splinter_cell_040611
says in the comments that there will be no multiplayer or co-op in the HD trilogy , so I guess project stealth is truely the only one hope left.
Now the pressure is on Devs because ubisoft has failed =) =( .
You still believe in Ubisoft guys? :D
Spekkio just download game from P2P or sth and use your CD-Key then you will be able to play it w/o problems.
Another thing is that Ubisoft never promoted SvM so much and games like CoD or BF are strongly promoted, for me CoD4 doesn't exist without "promode" which is done by community not by game Developers... really ubicrap screw up many, many things.
About Devs and pressure on them... update Twitter !
Good point about Twitter Knooger. I'll try to focus a bit more on that. Had some personal and work related problems so am behind with the comms.
:)
You know every Dev could make a twitter post when he's working on something.
It don't takes even 2 minutes but will be worth too see for us ;)
Many ppl don't even believe anymore about that PS will be ever released. You have to change that!
SO true...
Quote from: KnoogeR on April 09, 2011, 05:12:27 PM
:)
You know every Dev could make a twitter post when he's working on something.
It don't takes even 2 minutes but will be worth too see for us ;)
Many ppl don't even believe anymore about that PS will be ever released. You have to change that!
I admit I am a nonbeliever of PS.
While I still have faith that the devs will get something out eventually, it's not too hard to see where the non believers (or heathens/heretics as Agent calls them) are coming from.
The wait for PS seems long because (obviously)
1) It has been a long time
2) It seems especially long because most of us at least check the site once a day
When I wait for something I usually just keep it out of mind so when it finally rolls around I go "well gee that sure came faster than I thought!"
What I am saying is that it takes a long time to wait 1 million seconds, but it takes even longer when you literally count the seconds.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on April 11, 2011, 03:34:35 AM
What I am saying is that it takes a long time to wait 1 million seconds, but it takes even longer when you literally count the seconds.
Totally quote-worthy.
That is all.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on April 11, 2011, 03:34:35 AM
While I still have faith that the devs will get something out eventually, it's not too hard to see where the non believers (or heathens/heretics as Agent calls them) are coming from.
The wait for PS seems long because (obviously)
1) It has been a long time
2) It seems especially long because most of us at least check the site once a day
When I wait for something I usually just keep it out of mind so when it finally rolls around I go "well gee that sure came faster than I thought!"
What I am saying is that it takes a long time to wait 1 million seconds, but it takes even longer when you literally count the seconds.
Well then you suggest forums should close down and let the devs work?
I can bet 500$ they have thought of that....
It wouldn't be worht more than $20, $25 at the absolute most.
Quote from: DreadStunLock on April 11, 2011, 11:16:13 PM
I can bet 500$ they have thought of that....
OK. You bet your 500$ and I bet my pair flip-flops, we have got a deal right? ;D
I win instantly, everyone has thought of it, and they don't have to tell me they did not, because when they read my post about "If they thought of that idea of closing the forums" they automatically have thought of it.
So you lost.
Send your flip flops and the 500$ check to:
9 Dingle Lane, Liverpool
Merseyside
L8 9SJ
England
Thank you.
I didn't bet 500$. I bet my flip flops and I just got rid of them in this Beautiful way. They are already on teir way to you.
Hope it's your size!
Quote from: Cronky on April 08, 2011, 07:50:27 AM
I get the comfortableness comment on PC gaming compared to Console, but I never understand why people exaggerate the amount of money it takes to have a powerful computer. This isn't 1990, and I don't think anyone is dumb enough to pay for an Alienware computer. Course, I'm one of those people that paid no more than 600 dollars 3 years ago on my computer and have yet to upgrade it. It has played every game to this day without much (if any) problems at all. If anything, Windows 7 is a bigger problem than any of my hardware.
Plus, I'm no computer-only fanboy, but I think that saying a PS3 has more diverse uses than a PC is pretty subjective. I can't think of much my PS3 can do that my computer can't... other than work... (My PS3 died. Tack 150 dollars to that 400 dollars for me since it was out of warranty). Though I can think of a lot of things the PS3 does that the PC also does, but it's easier with the PS3. Such as playing on a TV, internet, and movies (again, on the TV). Guess it just depends on your perspective.
I'm not exaggerating anything.
I find it interesting that you and others on this forum make claims about how I would enjoy a gaming PC. I tend to like playing games at 60 fps, and current monitors demand that this occurs at a resolution higher than my TV. My experience with PC gaming is that this number is only achievable in the first 2 years of a gaming PC's life. After that, performance on new releases starts to rapidly degrade as developers push the envelope with the next big thing. You could downgrade the graphics settings, but due to inefficiencies in the program inherent in developing a piece of software for literally millions of system configurations, the game ends up looking worse than the console version and still not giving me the framerate I desire. What this translates to for me, as a consumer, is spending at least $400 every two years on a new graphics card. That is considerably more costly than console gaming.
When I say a PS3 is more diverse, I mean in terms of multi-media. Sure, my laptop can play DVD's, but I'm fairly sure that if my plan for a movie date was to curl up next to a laptop, then she won't be returning my phone call the next day. No, I can't do work on a PS3, but I don't use my laptop for work, either, since my job provides me with that tool. In fact, I don't even really need a PC at this point, since my $300 smartphone can do everything I use it for, it's smaller, and it's a phone.
The whole PC-diversity argument, while still valid in some respects, is disappearing as technology converges. With the exception of Nintendo, consoles are not just for video games anymore; they are general entertainment devices. But if your argument for buying a gaming PC is that it can do word processing, I've got an old PC with Windows 98 collecting dust that can accomplish that just fine, and for much less money. The only thing I'm really missing with a console is the keyboard+mouse input for FPS games. Perhaps one day console companies will fix that problem rather than developing gay movement input devices to copy Nintendo.