So I was talking to some friends and I came up with this. Computers are always advancing in terms of technology while the Consoles are static. I am not a PC or Console really devoted fan, but the truth is that PCs are more powerful. So, the only way these console companies have to last more generations is unification? Invest in a powerful hardware that can be more powerful than PC, at least for a few years ?

Yeaaahhh.... nah.

The reason for consoles having inferior hardware (not even top-of-the-line when released) is largely expense -- would your average console gamer plonk down a thousand bucks on release day? They'd better be up for that, or there's little chance you could give them a console that will have more powerful hardware than a(n average) PC "at least for a few years".

EDIT: Oh, and aside from it making little business sense for any of them, I would not be surprised if a (hypothetical) Sony+Microsoft+Nintendo union were stomped all over by regulators, since it would be mean a near-complete lack of competition.

#1 PCs have always been more powerful than consoles. The advantage of consoles is that you plug it in and connect it to a TV (that you already own) and play. You don't have to dike around with system requirements, hardware conflicts or upgrades, driver issues or anything else.

#2 In what way do the 3 companies benefit from cooperating on a console? I would imagine all 3 would be better off pulling out of the console market all together than helping their competitors.

Nah, consoles are fine. They have two different kinds of player bases.

the need for consoles will die when the need for HTPCs dies.

granted, as smart TVs become more of a thing that's slowly starting to happen, but it's still going to be a while before those hit that sweet spot between affordable and technologically impressive.

Not needed, sure the PC is more powerful and can be upgraded as you see fit, but the console is easy to use plug and play and all that jazz. And besides, games are designed and released for consoles, so you don't have to worry about system requirements and wether you will have to upgrade your rig. Now once a PC is upgraded it lasts for a decent bit of years, if you get some decent stuff. What I do is I get hardware that goes beyond the usual recommended specs for games, then once I struggle meeting the minimum requirements, it's time for an upgrade.

So the PC isn't surperior in every way, and the pros and the cons of each platform is what keeps both of them alive, if one was just better than the other, one would cease to exist. And besides the PC gets the short end of a stick, I've never seen a console player complain about a bad port. Not trying to start an argument here, but that's just the way it is.

So yeah, there is room for both. Even if the PC gamer is the master race.

> Invest in a powerful hardware that can be more powerful than PC, at least for a few years ? <

That's don't gonna work. If they putting the latest hardware out there (even in a small package), the price will be too much, to justify the therm "Console"

If the price goes up, why someone should buy a console, and not a PC in first place ???

However, they are alternatives out there. For example the Alienware A1(ASM100-1580) at 549$ < http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-alpha/pd?oc=dkcwa01&model_id=alienware-alpha >

It should be enough for playing games at 1080p 30/60 fps. (?!?)

Review: http://techforpennies.com/alienware-alpha-asm100-1580-review/- http://www.cnet.com/products/alienware-alpha/

Yeah, and why get super expensive harware that is the best on the market when something better comes out tomorrow? Better to just keep it cheap.

I play PC myself, but if you were always going to have the best of the best equipment you would be constantly replacing parts.

This.

Consoles do not have top-of-the-line hardware when they get released. They use something that is above average, and then optimize for gaming to extend their life beyond that of a rig with equal hardware that is not optimized for gaming, and they keep it at a price point that is lower than the latter option. It is what makes them attractive with their features and ease of use.

On top of that, the console makers have different goals on what a gaming console should include. Sony and Microsoft target the same market, yet Sony has pretty much dedicated itself to gaming with peripherals while Microsoft has done more all-around that includes gaming. Nintendo is making a gaming machine but targeting a different audience. These guys are becoming less like each other every year.

Should be enough, but it has about half the processing power as the consoles and you're paying more than an Xbox One with a Kinect (release price). An alternative, yes...but I would just get a real rig if you're going to buy something more expensive than a console so you at least get something as powerful and/or with the same or better performance.

Can you even modify that thing?

How about we all go to PCs so games aren't held back by outdated on release hardware?

You gonna buy me one? (Pls note I'm just playing, not trying to be an ass.)

Cost is a big factor for most. They can get the best bang for their buck getting a console. As mentioned, optimized for games. Also mentioned, it's plug and play.

I prefer to play PC, but mine is getting on in years. I wouldn't want to try and play any new high graphics releases on it. Where my PS3/360 will play whatever gets sent their way as they where optimized for that platform. Sure, I could just dumb down the graphics on the PC, but it just feels wrong to me. (Silly, I know.)

Consoles are designed to be cost effective and to last a few years. In exchange it makes it easier for the game studios to make games that work since they do not have to worry about thousands and thousands of various hardware capabilities and software combinations. The game studios do get more efficient at better at boosting the capabilities of the older consoles to tweak every last bit of the console.

It takes some time to to do the same with the next gen console.

The PC gaming market is not as strong as it once was. It has gotten better but I believe the consoles dominate the market.

A common misconception since many games low-end specs are below that of console specs. They target low-end PCs because they want those people to buy games too (and encourage them to upgrade!). It's not consoles, it's publishers and developers that want the most money for a product, which usually means selling more of it at a lesser quality.

McDonalds has been doing this successfully for "billions and billions served".

The initial cost sure, but the games you have to buy?

https://i.imgur.com/9wvvcag.png

Even PC exclusive games are held back by what the company decides is a reasonable cut-off for PC requirements.

This doesn't provide any frame of reference for what the price of the console game is. Aside from that, purchasing Humble Bundle games for $0 is pretty [censored] as that costs them money, it would benefit them more to pirate it at that point. One of the draws of consoles is also for people who aren't that into gaming, which lends itself to not buying as many games. If you don't buy as many games you may not break even if you are looking at what you are saving on sales. Additionally, consoles can rent / buy used games while that is a thing of the past for nearly all PC games.

I was referring to the hardware itself, but you have a point when it comes to cost of games. Though, the used games market is alive and well in game stores. For the thrifty shopper.

Being able to plug in and play at a much cheaper price tag without having to upgrade for newer games will ensure that consoles will continue to be a money maker for generations to come.

You should be able to change the CPU (?!?), Ram and HDD. Obviously not the GPU, as it is custom made especially for this Alienware.

Beside that, it has "NO" DVD-Rom drive installed.

Changing out the HDD isn't anything special, you can do that on console.

No disc drive though at all? Kind of cuts into the functionality of it. Take the BRD out of a PS3 or PS4 and you pretty much can cut out $100 off the launch price.

I don't know, just seems overpriced for what it is. Though if you really want PC gaming on a console-like device at a higher price point, then it's a good alternative. I mean, I was really interested in it for a moment but paying $130 more for a base model of something that, even though they say better performance I can't believe it with that hardware unless I actually see a true demo, I just can't justify the buy at all.

It's Alienware, of course it's overpriced.

Well, do you thing a Octa (six core usable) semi custom Amd processor at 1.6GHZ (1.75GHZ) is faster, than a I3 (2+2) core processor at 2.9 GHz. Maybe, maybe not.

And then, there is the question: is a mobile HD 7870 GPU (PS4) faster than a GTX860m GPU ???

How well, is the combo (CPU-GPU) optimized from either XBOX One or PS4, on today and future games ??? That's another question to be answered.

So, really i don't know, what's the best deal is right now. !!!

--------------

However don't having a DVD-ROM drive is unacceptable !!!

For the reason, that you wanna build an all in one Entertainment PC-console hybrid.

Same here. I've played both PC and console for decades, and I still love the plug and play of consoles. And with my HD tv and consoles now have pretty darn good graphics. I just got my xbox1 and I like it.


Yes, a PC will always have better graphics, but modern consoles are no slouch.

Consoles aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

its Alienware, your paying for the brand

I think that would be one of the worst things to happen to the console market. More companies competing to one-up each other leads to more innovation and a better market overall.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/07/14/the-console-war-is-over-the-pc-already-won/

You should read this.