you understood the > wrong

Dear god, cease with all these Z's,

WoW, one of your points is sorely mistaken.

1. GPU in PC's power depends on what GPU you have, obviously. Also, - and much more importantly - console games are optimized for the varying chipsets in the console since those are always known. Not only for the GPU but also for the motherboard chipset used, the CPU (and further optimized for specifically the architecture used for the CPU), the RAM along with its' timings.. Home PCs logically always have hugely differing hardware setups, so optimization is more limited, since optimizing too much for a certain chip architecture for say, a CPU, would immediately make all other chipsets obsolete in terms of performance. As in, it would make any chipset with differing architecture either run the software incredibly slowly, or not at all.

Speaking simply, due to the above, the combination of hardware in a console can be considered far more powerful than a PC with equivalent hardware setup. This is also why consoles age far better than PCs and their attributed hardware, and similarly why when new consoles just come out, they tend to typically have games that look a bit better than what games on PCs look like at the time of the consoles' release. They've got chipsets that have been handpicked, OEM'ed the crap out of, and have had dedicated optimization and compiling tools made specifically for them. This is why some uninformed console fanboys argue consoles look better for a time, sometimes.

On the other hand, there's far less breathing room for all developers except perhaps ones with a couple John Carmack like prodigies walking around, who somehow sometimes manage to pull some coding magic and push out a few better looking images and more efficient performance towards the end of a consoles' lifetime. The N64 had this going on MAJORLY. Compare the first few N64 games like Body Harvest, Turok, heck Super Mario 64 even to the later games like Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, Turok 2, Banjo Kazooie in terms of graphics, gameplay content, size of levels, complexity of visual effects etc. The N64 had some magic working developers making games for it, like Rare.

However, once the hardware's truly been pushed to its' limits, it's been pushed to its' limits. Then, there's no more wiggle room for making games look better or do bigger, badder things. Xbox 360's a perfect example of this now;- for the past 2 years it's been so, really.

2. PCs can only emulate a console if there's genius enough coders working their best at making an emulator for the specific console being referenced.

An emulator does just that; it emulates. It "pretends" to be a certain console, by telling a game (in VERY simple terms) "oh, you want to write some data away to memory adres <X>? Here, send it here instead." That's where the magic is happening. Coding emulators is in some ways similar to coding drivers; it's laborious, difficult, and requires great knowledge of coding, the hardware of the console, and all its' pin-outs.

Even then, it's still a translator you're using, built to simply let you run code meant for a totally different architecture on your PC. That code was still optimized for running on the console you're emulating. Thus, emulating a lot of different consoles is only achievable by using far more powerful a set of hardware, often, than the original consoles' hardware was.

Then there's the measures console producers use to prevent emulation of their hardware. Try finding an original Xbox emulator. Good luck. There isn't one. At least not one that runs more than 1 or 2 commercial games at a playable FPS, and without missing textures or other graphical glitches - and certainly not more than a mere handful (literally 4 or 5) of games at all.

Some hardware has proven to be easier to code for than others, and write optimizations for within the emulator. Or, maybe the project has simply attracted very good coders that love the console and really want to write a good emulator for it. Thus, smooth emulation at a respectable or even downright good FPS (around 60), with full support for almost all games out for the machine - as well as all the machines' functions and peripherals - can sometimes be attained. The Dolphin emulator for Gamecube and Wii springs to mind. It can run almost all games out without a hitch on a decent, modern gaming PC.

However, as I've explained above - to sum up - not all consoles will definitely be some day emulated well, if at all. There is no guarantee of this, ever.

this

+1.

You still have to deal with SOME DRM bullshit, but not nearly as much as on PCs.

Case in point, during the big PSN outage, several Capcom titles that are on the PSN store would not work at all during the outage because they required using PSN to communicate with Capcom's DRM servers. Meanwhile, disc games ran fine, just without online components.

1. You still have drm
2. Games are more expensive
3. Screw the consoles exclusives i will play them on emulators later

4."could you play BF3 with a similar priced PC from 2005?" sure. You just did not mention that BF3 on consoles looks like shit and come on to play FPS without a mouse is just masohistic and quite a cheating as all that aim helpers and more dmg bullets are needed to keep up with PC users with mouse. I would kill you 6 times before you did even aim me with pad without all that console tweaks. Oh and on PC the graphics are totally awesome.

But portable consoles are for the win :)

Man you have one shit dreamland!

funniest shit i have seen all year

He is writing this from a xbox,and never had a pc

You took OP's trolling encouragement wayyyyyyyyy too seriously.