Quantcast
If all PlayStation/Xbox games were on PC day 1, would you still buy a console?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - If all PlayStation/Xbox games were on PC day 1, would you still buy a console?

If console exclusives disappeared, would you still buy a console?

Yes, consoles still have benefits 78 67.24%
 
No, there'd be no point in having a console 38 32.76%
 
Total:116

No. If I can choose between a platform with all. thegames and a platform with half the games, then its a no brainer.



Pyro as Bill said:
shikamaru317 said:

That's my point. A console priced PC will not last you a full generation, while a console will, if you want something that will last a full gen you will need to pay about $250 more than you would spend on a console. 

On Xbox I have access to both Gamepass and Gamefly/Redbox, so I can play the latest 1st party exclusives day one on Gamepass plus older 3rd parties, and the latest 3rd parties by renting them with Gamefly or Redbox, without needing to spend $60 per game.

Online multiplayer doesn't cost $300+ per generation on PC.

Not everyone buys a subscription, though.  



shikamaru317 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I'm not a fan of $500 PC builds. IMO they are a huge waste of money, because something like $750 will get you so much more, and will last you a full console generation if you are only gaming at 1080/60.

Gamepass is on PC, so I think there's something better than a rental service for PC.

That's my point. A console priced PC will not last you a full generation, while a console will, if you want something that will last a full gen you will need to pay about $250 more than you would spend on a console. 

On Xbox I have access to both Gamepass and Gamefly/Redbox, so I can play the latest 1st party exclusives day one on Gamepass plus older 3rd parties, and the latest 3rd parties by renting them with Gamefly or Redbox, without needing to spend $60 per game.

Using the price argument against all else does not equate it to being the same value as all other advantages PC has. This is something that's irked me debate wise for years now, primarily because people act and like to believe (truly believe) that price>literally any advantage in any known universe, despite the common act that the price point can be done away with in a myriad of ways, yet the advantages remain there and they evolve.

If the price point is a concern, then you're simply doing away with all the other advantages for sticking with £500, because yes you can get a build for that price, but if your entire and future mindset is only fixed on higher visuals and performance throughout 8-10 years, then yeah, you're going to most definitely have to upgrade a part or two. If you aren't interested in what I'd previously mentioned in terms of building a PC, then yes, you can just dial down some settings to play the games at that spec over the years. Again, if high visuals/performance is your go to like mine is, then the upgrade has to come at some point in time, that goes completely without saying, but at the same time those upgrades bring their own pros, with the one con being, you guessed it, just money, which is a common theme in just about every facet of life, from bills to medicine to healthcare, to loans etc, all a common surmountable issue to look at when it comes to money, but that's something you have to sort out yourself.

Also, while we're on about the price argument, you're forgetting the fact that you have to pay to play online for consoles, a price factor which racks up over time, both to play MP online and gain access to some games per month. PC only has you paying a sub fee for some MMO's, but on consoles you've not only got the sub, but also the general MP tax to pay as well, so both stack up together all the more. There is no argument that can state paying double is superior and worthwhile compared to just not paying anything and playing it online for free. The hw gains for spending that £250+free online makes for an objectively superior package.

I get that some folk like to think £750 is a lot, but then I look at mobile phones, cars, TV's, tablets, sports equipment, games, 3 consoles, 3 refresh console systems, and so much more, which many millions buy into on a monthly/yearly basis, and it all adds up, so if they claim an extra £250 is too much let alone £750, then they aren't paying attention to what they actually spend money on, because people tend to spend a lot. This is exactly why I loathe the era that Netflix has brought into the media realm, because now everyone wants their own streaming network, and everyone does this, one person who wants all the content has to sub to them all, then bam!, it all adds up and you're basically at segregated cable TV all over again, and that's honestly the biggest, most shittiest deal on the planet, because no one wants a middle-man anymore, just 100% of the control+cut of the profits.

Imo, £750 is nothing compared to many of those I listed above, doesn't matter with the whole "but I don't think it's worth it", because if you're buying the latest iphone, or the combo listed above, then you're just throwing your money away at many a thing, but suddenly choose to put little value into something that gives you many net gains, hell jobs too (like making movies, livesstreaming, podcasting, drawing, making video games, online teaching etc, the list goes on).



                                       

the-pi-guy said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Online multiplayer doesn't cost $300+ per generation on PC.

Not everyone buys a subscription, though.  

The data Sony/MS provides tells us that a lot do, if many didn't, as in more than 60%, then online charges wouldn't be enforced as much as they are. Demand is most definitely there and it's not going away anytime soon, thus the online sub fee disadvantage shall stay. When it is dropped, only then does it stop being a disadvantage. 

Last edited by Chazore - on 18 January 2020

                                       

Chazore said:
the-pi-guy said:

Not everyone buys a subscription, though.  

The data Sony/MS provides tells us that a lot do, if many didn't, as in more than 60%, then online charges wouldn't be enforced as much as they are. Demand is most definitely there and it's not going away anytime soon, thus the online sub fee disadvantage shall stay. When it is dropped, only then does it stop being a disadvantage. 

From the last reports from Sony, it was around one third of all PS4 users who pay for PS+. Still a lot to keep charging for multiplayer though. As for Xbox side, I think that the percentage of console owners who pay for Gold is higher than PS.



 

Depends on the spec cost. If I could get in at the same price and have PSN, then I'd be playing on a PC.



 

Actually, after a bit of thought to this, I'd say no. I'd rather just have both consoles and not have all the hardware handled and stable in a box. I don't want to have to upgrade midgen because they decide the PC specs need to be higher as with most MS PC games and at the end of the day, as much as I want to do two consoles next gen, I just don't think I'll be able to hack it and end up playing less games as a result, so i don't need the two systems games. Sony will have to fuck up something awful at this point, which it often looks as if they are in a decline, alas Xbox is fucking up so much more than them every single, damn time. So no, I'm too old and I couldn't possibly get more free time as it is almost all at my finger tips as is when managed properly so I'm a one box man from here til my grave with maybe a switch if they ever let us back up saves onto some form of physical storage or do free cloud saves.



 

derpysquirtle64 said:
Chazore said:

The data Sony/MS provides tells us that a lot do, if many didn't, as in more than 60%, then online charges wouldn't be enforced as much as they are. Demand is most definitely there and it's not going away anytime soon, thus the online sub fee disadvantage shall stay. When it is dropped, only then does it stop being a disadvantage. 

From the last reports from Sony, it was around one third of all PS4 users who pay for PS+. Still a lot to keep charging for multiplayer though. As for Xbox side, I think that the percentage of console owners who pay for Gold is higher than PS.

Indeed higher, but I imagine with next gen it'll continue to climb. I'm guessing MS will eventually just merge gold with gamepass and make it one whole package, replacing the extra added online fee to just the gamepass one, making it one sub fee instead of two. 



                                       

Chazore said:
the-pi-guy said:

Not everyone buys a subscription, though.  

The data Sony/MS provides tells us that a lot do, if many didn't, as in more than 60%, then online charges wouldn't be enforced as much as they are. Demand is most definitely there and it's not going away anytime soon, thus the online sub fee disadvantage shall stay. When it is dropped, only then does it stop being a disadvantage. 

I'm just saying it's not a consideration for a lot of people.  



Depends. If it's standard PC games, then I probably would buy a console. Don't have to worry about specs, and it will probably be cheaper than a comparable PC.

If it's a streaming service like Stadia, then probably not. I only tend to buy a few non Nintendo games a year, and most of them are single player so lag is not a huge concern, and I'm still using a 720p TV for gaming, so obviously I don't care tremendously about graphical quality.