Whoa...That's not really viable, Graphic cards aren't exactly plug and play.

It's pretty obvious you know little to nothing about the PC community right now.

You don't say.... FYI, computers and games and development is actually what I do. This is me trying to keep this conversation as on the surface as possible.

Yes, the 270 and 280x are rebranded, but the 290x is NOT. And the 280x (which is a rebranded 7970) was ahead of its time when it came out, which is why it's still the third best GPU around. You can't say that about the 270/7870.

So I know little about PCs yet you agree with me when I say we could also be saying the GPUs you mentioned are also rebranded. And somehow you just ignore that they are all working on the very same GCN architecture. Yet I know nothing right?

A tablet essential? Sorry, but no. In the corporate world a Windows product is essential, and almost everyone owns a desktop. Even if you push a laptop, you can get a gaming one for ~$900 that still outpaces the consoles.

Good job at only picking on tablets and ignoring what I said about laptops. But my point still stands, a desktop is not essential, and if you are trying to argue that everyone has a desktop as opposed to a laptop then I will just say it here that you are a liar. Its more like teh other way round, these days, and probably since way back in 2007, pretty much everyone buys a laptop and very very few people buy a desktop. Why do you think you see so few dedicated desktop rigs form OEMs these days. When was the last time you saw a desktop commercial on TV? Go, keep lying.

And my point about the cost went way over your head. If you are looking for a gaming device and are going to buy a new PC, instead of buying a $500 PC and then a $400-500 console, you can just get a $900-1000 PC that will do everything the two seperate can and more. Not to mention, you will be saving HUNDREDS of dollars a year in games  due to services like the Humble Bundle and Steam sales and won't ever have to pay for online. In the end, it's actually cheaper in the long run, which is something that you and others can't seem to understand at all.

Well, by your logic no one should buy a console period since they could just buy a $1000 PC that could do everything and more. Makes one wonder why 100s of millions of people buy consoles... apparently yourself included. And I will not even get into the value argument with you, cause unfortunately... again, thats not how the world works. But keep championing steam sales and saving more in the long run like majority of gamers out there really give a fuck. People don't go... I can buy a $1000 PC today and save tons on games cause I can use steam, they just buy the console everyone else is getting and buy COD, FIFA, GTA and Madden every year and maybe one or two other games. That is what the majority of the gaming world does my friend.... you rally should look outta that bubble you are living in and stop mistaking your life as what a majority of everyone is doing. Hell, if everyone was as "wise" as you, consoles wouldn't even need to exist.

And I'll say it again- your points about CPU/GPU having no impact on the optimisation of PC games is completely laughable. It actually shows how little you know about hardware in general. It is cheaper for devs to simply make a game for the weakest platform, and then port it without enchancing the game with better effects, better textures, etc. than it is for them to actually work on the game. The CPU and GPU handle all the heavy work when it comes to game performance, and not optimising a game for the better hardware results in what the PC community is seeing right now.

Sigh..... what a CPU/GPU does in a game engine is scalebale. The amount of memory you need to house what the CPU/GPU does isn't. Let me give you a brief laymans explanation.  Look at the anatomy of any published game (where they talk about how the game uses resources). Here, just take Killzone: Shadow fall for instance. Read through that and maybe it will shed some light on what really goes into a game engine. All the resources you see on the CPU side of things can either be scaled up or down based on the strenght of the cpu. But the code that actually starts those processes are always really small. eg, base code for particle effects are small, and the same code is used in both cosnoles and PCs. Difference though is that PCs can do more of them cause they have more power, doesn't mean that the actual code changes. Same thing applies to lighting, think of ligthing as a very small code set. You can dial it up or down. But its the same code set. Running that code set or more powerful hardware doesn't mean you are using a different lighting engine, just that that range you can adgust is much higher. Unles you are using completely different lighting models for different platforms (eg, MGS5:PP on PS4 uses a dynamic skybox while every other platform has their skybox baked in).

But whats really gonna put a wrench in your machine is if you look at the memory alottment for the GPU. KZ:SF used approx 3GB just for the GPU based assets alone. Textures and render targets took up 2.1GB of all that memory alone. Just for textures and render targets ALONE! If you know as much as you claim you do, then that right there explains all this. I honestly can't be bothered to explain it any more than i already have. If comparing PCs to the PS3/360, then of course they are being limited. But not when compared to the PS4/XB1.

But of course, you can keep believing that the PS4 is powerful enough not to hold back PC ports, that's fine.

I'll be doing just that thank you... till at least you show me a PC game that needs more than 5GB of ram to run at normal settings.

Whoa...That's not really viable, Graphic cards aren't exactly plug and play.

Hope this helps....

You seem to be assuming that console and PC architecture are plug-and-play, which they aren't. If the architecture was 100% identical you would have a point, but it's not. I would encourage you to link me a source if you think otherwise.

And for all the other points, I'm done arguing. I made a thread about the cost effectiveness of PCs, if you want to talk about it talk about it there.

Obviously you are not reading what I have said nor did you go to th elink I referred to. And You are the one that broought up the cost effectiveness of PCs or value of PCs into all this. All cause I tried to point out that for every ounce of PC performance you get over consoles you pay for it and devs know that a lot of people aren't willing to pay that much. So the design theri games to run at what they believe the majority of gamers would have. 

I don't even know what you mean by me assuming that consoles and PCs architecture are identical. If anything everything I have been saying says other wise. But code is code. an engine is an engine and memory is memory. What language governs these things are irrelevant as long as they ultimately do the same things. 

You also fail to see that the differences in architecture between consoles and PCs actually play to consoles favor as opposed to a PC. Have any idea how much of a nightmare it is optimizing code to run on PCs? Hell.... code optimization is a nightmare between GPUs from the same manufacturer in PCs for crying out loud.

But you know what, I think this discussion is going nowhere, so lets just agree to disagree. Cause the more we talk about it the more it changes, and that is usualy a sign that at least one of us is making this or tunring it into something it orginally wasn't as opposed to just conceding defeat. So lets leave it alone.

Nah. If you have any clue how to build a gaming PC you can have one that'll play games on at least medium 4 years from now.

And even then, the sheer amount of money you save on PC (in the hundreds per year) means spending $299 on a new graphics card every 4 years isn't that bad.

Nah. If you have any clue how to build a gaming PC, you'd knew that now(until the new gen of hardware comes out(which would be interim, too), and that would already be an year+ after the console launch) is the worst time to build it, and why are you talking about medium for more money, while ps4 pushing maximum(right now) for less?

Statement stands. Check in "~3 years".

Btw, average PC gamer doesn't save hundreds per year, he doesn't save at all.