The difference between PC software and console software is that console software is tailored EXTREMELY closely to the hardware. Just getting another machine to run the same OS won't cut it. Even changing the speed at which the discs load can completely break a game and render it unplayable.
Using the Playstation as an example, Even the PS2 couldn't run all Ps1 games 100% and that had Ps1 hardware IN it, and was (roughly) 10x more powerful. Original PS3's couldn't run all PS2 games 100% either, and they had copies of the PS2 CPU and GPU inside them. Current PS3's cut the parts for cost reasons, and can't run PS2 software at all. And this is SONY trying to get their own software working on vastly more powerful machines.
And emulators? Forget about it. PCSX2 is the best PS2 emulator available, and you need at least dual core processor running at 3.0+ ghz to attempt to run anything at a decent speed, and it STILL chokes on games like Shadow of the Colossus and MGS3. Keep in mind the PS2 is a ten year old console with a 300mhz processor.
So as you can see, Current PCs don't have a prayer of running current console software for a billion reasons, some of which are technical but not all of them.
What I don't understand is why many people like the idea of plans instead of prepaid phones.
Simple. It's the phone itself. The average phone is given away "free" and higher end phones are substantially discounted when you sign up for a plan at X dollars a month.
You want to buy that new Iphone/Blackberry/Next Big Thing outside of a contract? Good luck. IF it's available at all, it can easily run $600 or more up front.
In contrast, prepaid phones are typically stripped down budget models. They'll make calls, send text messages, and some will surf the web, but in the era of "phone as fashion accessory/status symbol" they're really for those that have no other options, or simply don't care.
Yes, SNES and N64 carts cost more to manufacture than Disc based games do. It wasn't just this though- nintendo had some pretty draconian royalty policies in place as well. New games could and did cost up to $30 more than comparable PS1 games back in the day, and you can't tell me that was all just the cost of the cart itself.
But that's besides the point. What the OP was trying to point out is that since the advent of disc based games (say, 1995 or so) the cost of a AAA game has only risen 20%, from about $49.99 to $59.99.
I'll say that again. that's TWENTY PERCENT in about 12 years. Less than two percent a year- it's barely tracking the rate of inflation. Hell, it's probably LESS than the rate of inflation. Up until "next gen" the cost of gaming hadn't budged at all, and if you're still gaming on a PS2, GC, or Xbox1 it STILL hasn't.
People, the dollar is tanking. It's currently worth less than Canadian money. Imported goods are skyrocketing in cost, and even basic staples such as gas and food have doubled in cost or more. There's almost no other product you can point at that hasn't had a substantial price increase in the past twelve years, and yet somehow gamers expect the price of games to not move at all in twelve years? Seriously?
Questions arise, how likely are students to use the free but DRM-guarded service? Is the music industry finally making steps toward gaining peace with its young audience? Do we have the next free sharing killer app?In one more attempt to counter music piracy, major music labels have agreed to support a service that will offer free music downloads — with some substantial restrictions — to any college student.
The service, from Ruckus Network, will be supported by advertising on its Web site and on the software used to download and play songs. The four major record labels and several independent labels have agreed to license their music to Ruckus at lower rates than they charge other mass-market music services on the theory that college students would rather steal songs than pay the $10 to $15 a month that such services normally charge.
I like work; it fascinates me; I can sit and look at it for hours.