DarthHelmet86 wrote:I must be the most hardcore gamer of them all. With 8 consoles, 3 hand held devices, a high end gaming pc and an arcade cabinet.

That makes you collector. Whether you are hardcore gamer or not is imo determined by playtime.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:There are 3 things preventing me from buying a PS4:
1. No or very little backwards compatability.
2. The price.
3. The fact that you can't upgrade them but have to buy a new one every couple of years.

Yes you have to buy a new one every few years but I think the price of the machine is roughly the same as you'd expect to pay in upgrades to your PC over the lifetime of the console. The price of the games is more of a concern for me.

Briton wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:There are 3 things preventing me from buying a PS4:
1. No or very little backwards compatability.
2. The price.
3. The fact that you can't upgrade them but have to buy a new one every couple of years.

Yes you have to buy a new one every few years but I think the price of the machine is roughly the same as you'd expect to pay in upgrades to your PC over the lifetime of the console. The price of the games is more of a concern for me.

Not exactly and even then, that still leaves points 2 and 1. I don't feel like paying 2-300 euros per 2 years above the money I already have to spend to keep my PC up to date.

Briton wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:There are 3 things preventing me from buying a PS4:
1. No or very little backwards compatability.
2. The price.
3. The fact that you can't upgrade them but have to buy a new one every couple of years.

Yes you have to buy a new one every few years but I think the price of the machine is roughly the same as you'd expect to pay in upgrades to your PC over the lifetime of the console. The price of the games is more of a concern for me.

PC has much more low price games. The PS4's current catalogue can't justify the price of the playstation plus, since the free games every month are just shit. It was totally worth it on the PS3 in the last years though.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Briton wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:There are 3 things preventing me from buying a PS4:
1. No or very little backwards compatability.
2. The price.
3. The fact that you can't upgrade them but have to buy a new one every couple of years.

Yes you have to buy a new one every few years but I think the price of the machine is roughly the same as you'd expect to pay in upgrades to your PC over the lifetime of the console. The price of the games is more of a concern for me.

Not exactly and even then, that still leaves points 2 and 1. I don't feel like paying 2-300 euros per 2 years above the money I already have to spend to keep my PC up to date.

The life cycle of consoles is 5/6 years, not 2. The different versions released during these 6 years are not meant to make you buy a new one, just lower production costs.

The way I see it consoles make sense in following scenarios:

a) for kids
b) as multimedia centre
c) low budget
d) exclusives

I see people being pissed/disappointed with introduction of "new" PS4 and X1 and I can see why. They expected longer life-cycle and they feel cheated or do not feel like investing into "new" tech so soon. IMO consoles as we know them are dead as they cannot keep up with technological progress. Future is in modular systems and cloud.

tuco wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I must be the most hardcore gamer of them all. With 8 consoles, 3 hand held devices, a high end gaming pc and an arcade cabinet.

That makes you collector. Whether you are hardcore gamer or not is imo determined by playtime.

I would argue it also depends on your difficulty settings.

aban57 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Briton wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:There are 3 things preventing me from buying a PS4:
1. No or very little backwards compatability.
2. The price.
3. The fact that you can't upgrade them but have to buy a new one every couple of years.

Yes you have to buy a new one every few years but I think the price of the machine is roughly the same as you'd expect to pay in upgrades to your PC over the lifetime of the console. The price of the games is more of a concern for me.

Not exactly and even then, that still leaves points 2 and 1. I don't feel like paying 2-300 euros per 2 years above the money I already have to spend to keep my PC up to date.

The life cycle of consoles is 5/6 years, not 2. The different versions released during these 6 years are not meant to make you buy a new one, just lower production costs.

Except as soon as a new console comes out the ammount of games made for the old console drops dramatically and new games get developped for the new consoles almost exclusively. This is not true for PC games.

I would argue it is a pointless term that is only ever used to subtly brag about how one gamer is a better gamer than another for one reason or another. Sometimes I see it used as an insult other times as the most special of specials. I am a gamer, I collect older consoles, I play them, I play new and old games on my PC and I am no different from some other gamer who spends a few minutes a day playing Candy Crush. We get enjoyment out of a video game.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

If I had to pick one system? My PS1. Nothing beats the feel of that controller.

Best controller ever and the time of the PS was the only time I was mainly a console player. I got a little USB converter for one when I did get a new PC.

I wouldn't have chosen based on any hardware though; I would go for the machine that I could get the best software for. That, in my case, is the PC. Many of my favourite games are not available on other machines or are not as good an experience.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Briton wrote:

Yes you have to buy a new one every few years but I think the price of the machine is roughly the same as you'd expect to pay in upgrades to your PC over the lifetime of the console. The price of the games is more of a concern for me.

Not exactly and even then, that still leaves points 2 and 1. I don't feel like paying 2-300 euros per 2 years above the money I already have to spend to keep my PC up to date.

The life cycle of consoles is 5/6 years, not 2. The different versions released during these 6 years are not meant to make you buy a new one, just lower production costs.

Except as soon as a new console comes out the ammount of games made for the old console drops dramatically and new games get developped for the new consoles almost exclusively. This is not true for PC games.

Humm... Try to run today's games with a 6 y/o PC The principle is the same. But yeah, If you want to have both, you'll have to maintain both too.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I would argue it is a pointless term that is only ever used to subtly brag about how one gamer is a better gamer than another for one reason or another.

True enough.
Although I'd have no compunctions calling myself a causal player.
I have 0 interest in beating a game on it's hardest difficulty, collecting all the millions of collectibles in a game or be the leader on a multiplayer ladder.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Sometimes I see it used as an insult other times as the most special of specials. I am a gamer, I collect older consoles, I play them, I play new and old games on my PC and I am no different from some other gamer who spends a few minutes a day playing Candy Crush. We get enjoyment out of a video game.

Its not pointless. Its like someone is casual runner and someone is hardcore. It denotes lets say devotion.

Briton wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

If I had to pick one system? My PS1. Nothing beats the feel of that controller.

Best controller ever and the time of the PS was the only time I was mainly a console player. I got a little USB converter for one when I did get a new PC.

I wouldn't have chosen based on any hardware though; I would go for the machine that I could get the best software for. That, in my case, is the PC. Many of my favourite games are not available on other machines or are not as good an experience.

I would actually pick the PS1 for one reason only. Blazing Dragons the worlds best adventure game to never be on PC.

If I was going to pick a PC it wouldn't be my new one. I can get DOS games working but Win95/98 is hard as balls to work. So I would pick a state of the art Win98 machine that could also easily run DOS games. Which in itself is a bit of wishful thinking.

aban57 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Not exactly and even then, that still leaves points 2 and 1. I don't feel like paying 2-300 euros per 2 years above the money I already have to spend to keep my PC up to date.

The life cycle of consoles is 5/6 years, not 2. The different versions released during these 6 years are not meant to make you buy a new one, just lower production costs.

Except as soon as a new console comes out the ammount of games made for the old console drops dramatically and new games get developped for the new consoles almost exclusively. This is not true for PC games.

Humm... Try to run today's games with a 6 y/o PC The principle is the same. But yeah, If you want to have both, you'll have to maintain both too.

With the exception of most games released this year, I was still able to play the likes of Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 on my 5+ years old PC.
More-over I can still play 6 y/o games on my present PC. Heck I can play games over 15 years old, like AOE2 on my current PC.
I cannot, however play PS1 games on the PS3, let alone the PS4, nor can I play PS2 games on my PS1.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Briton wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

If I had to pick one system? My PS1. Nothing beats the feel of that controller.

Best controller ever and the time of the PS was the only time I was mainly a console player. I got a little USB converter for one when I did get a new PC.

I wouldn't have chosen based on any hardware though; I would go for the machine that I could get the best software for. That, in my case, is the PC. Many of my favourite games are not available on other machines or are not as good an experience.

I would actually pick the PS1 for one reason only. Blazing Dragons the worlds best adventure game to never be on PC.

Spyro games ruled on the PS1.

tuco wrote:Its not pointless. Its like someone is casual runner and someone is hardcore. It denotes lets say devotion.

Ahh devotion. To...entertainment. Right.

We don't call people hardcore readers or hardcore movie watchers.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

aban57 wrote:

The life cycle of consoles is 5/6 years, not 2. The different versions released during these 6 years are not meant to make you buy a new one, just lower production costs.

Except as soon as a new console comes out the ammount of games made for the old console drops dramatically and new games get developped for the new consoles almost exclusively. This is not true for PC games.

Humm... Try to run today's games with a 6 y/o PC The principle is the same. But yeah, If you want to have both, you'll have to maintain both too.

With the exception of most games released this year, I was still able to play the likes of Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 on my 5+ years old PC.
More-over I can still play 6 y/o games on my present PC. Heck I can play games over 15 years old, like AOE2 on my current PC.
I cannot, however play PS1 games on the PS3, let alone the PS4, nor can I play PS2 games on my PS1.

The PS3 is 100 percent PS1 backwards compatible. Early PS3s, the ones with 8 usbs on the front, are PS2 backwards compatible.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

tuco wrote:Its not pointless. Its like someone is casual runner and someone is hardcore. It denotes lets say devotion.

Ahh devotion. To...entertainment. Right.

We don't call people hardcore readers or hardcore movie watchers.

I do.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except as soon as a new console comes out the ammount of games made for the old console drops dramatically and new games get developped for the new consoles almost exclusively. This is not true for PC games.

Humm... Try to run today's games with a 6 y/o PC The principle is the same. But yeah, If you want to have both, you'll have to maintain both too.

With the exception of most games released this year, I was still able to play the likes of Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 on my 5+ years old PC.
More-over I can still play 6 y/o games on my present PC. Heck I can play games over 15 years old, like AOE2 on my current PC.
I cannot, however play PS1 games on the PS3, let alone the PS4, nor can I play PS2 games on my PS1.

The PS3 is 100 percent PS1 backwards compatible. Early PS3s, the ones with 8 usbs on the front, are PS2 backwards compatible.

My bad, I meant PS2 to PS1. Good to hear they changed that with the PS3. But apparently the PS3 are largely not compatible with the PS2. And the PS4 has no direct backwards compatibility either.